# Republicans take Congress



## NYC Composer (Nov 4, 2014)

Here's the thing-I always thought that running away from Obama was the wrong way to go.There was a solid list of achievements to tout, and regardless of his popularity or lack of same, the gig should have been to defiantly face down the opposition and stick to core principles. Obviously, that didn't happen. 

The lame duck session is always tough, but whoever the brilliant strategist was who led the party to deny ever having met Obama...should take responsibility and then be fired, like, forever- but of course that won't happen.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Nov 5, 2014)

USD 3.7 billion, to hammer home messages of fear, this is an enormous disgrace, but reflects the state of affairs.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 5, 2014)

The right wing are going to take over the western world for some time to come. It's inevitable. 

The news channels here are giving us the Senate results and the reasons why. But the reasons why are never really the reasons why.

They are also, conveniently telling everyone here, 15 days before a bombshell bye election, that immigration has been good financially for this country. Whether that's right or just some made - up Orwellian bullshit, what they don't seem to understand, is that no one is going to give a good fucking shit about that statistic. In fact, that's the last statistic they'll have in their minds when they go to vote.

Look for heavy mechanised, and very large armies arriving somewhere in the middle east in the new year. That's my take on the Senate vote and what is happening here. Forget Europe. Europe don't do jackshit about anything.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 5, 2014)

In the fullness of time, everything will achieve the clarity of mud streaked opaque glass.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 5, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Wed Nov 05 said:


> In the fullness of time, everything will achieve the clarity of mud streaked opaque glass.



Like in Louisiana?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 5, 2014)

adriancook @ Wed Nov 05 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Nov 05 said:
> 
> 
> > In the fullness of time, everything will achieve the clarity of mud streaked opaque glass.
> ...



Like universally.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2014)

But the upside is 2 Trillion dollars will now return to the States (Same size as the Russian economy) so the Federal Reserve can stop bailing out Wall Street and actually start a pro growth era instead of the current Liberal part time work force.

When massive Great Society states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois elect Republican Governors, you know your time is up.

Wealth redistribution sounded good, and Americans were glad to try another Liberal experiment. But it just didn't work.
Having Liberals in Limousines driving through Great Society neighborhoods and handing out cash sounded great at the time.
But it was like a child at Christmas time having Mom and Dad give them a pair of socks instead of a new Xbox. 
They see dad has a nice Cadillac and Mom has a BMW, and they look and notice the socks were from the Dollar Store.

Should have cut in their voting base on a little more of the money squandered.


----------



## gbar (Nov 5, 2014)

chimuelo @ Wed Nov 05 said:


> But the upside is 2 Trillion dollars will now return to the States (Same size as the Russian economy) so the Federal Reserve can stop bailing out .



Ummm, QE was already set to end this month by the Federal Reserve (buying tranches of bonds).. The only thing that would change that is deflationary threat, but it won't change it before it ends.

Sorry things don't work the way you seem to think they work  As for a corporate tax holiday to repatriate moneys abroad, Obama has always said he'd do that deal in return for eliminating tax breaks that incentivize outsourcing, and as far as I know the majority of Democrats were on board with that, so? Will the deal get done? I'm not overly optimistic. And if it isn't done will Congress act on the holiday anyway? 

I doubt Obama will veto that tax holiday, but I don't see it as a real boost to the economy. After all, all that money is already on balance sheets, and Wall St has already figured that in to any evaluations for the respective companies. It might afford the companies some flexibility to do things like stock buybacks (likely), but few of the big beneficiaries are really hard-pressed for cash as is, and some of them are looking at restructuring to bring down costs, so don't count on a economic boost from that.

Demand will drive growth, and fortunately, in a lot of areas that is picking up. It isn't picking up in all areas though, but overall 2014 was a pretty good year for growth, and falling oil prices will be good for some sectors.

If you're really interested in economics, calculatedriskblog.com and noahpinionblog.blogspot.com are some pretty good entry points (the former being more focused on pragmatic details, and the latter on discussing the "big ideas"),


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2014)

The economy works exactly the way I want it to.

I don't read the same newspapers you do. I read the out of work lists across the Nations Union Halls that rely on foreign investment, and domestic investment to thrive.
These Labor Participation rates are what guides Janet Yelin's policy, not some trial lawyer or has been economist blogger.

When our Unions are back in full swing the surrounding economies boom.
Non Union right to work contractors start filling in the void, the middle class spends, it's that simple.
Spin cycles and excuses, balloons floated by Jack Lew about Tax Inversion don't matter anymore.
Foreign investment and trillions of dollars are coming back home.

I'm sure there will be many Federal charts and graphs trying to de bunk why certain "theories" haven't worked, or why they work, but at the end of the day the Middle Class makes America strong, so let the Billionaires get their cut instead of the wealthy Liberal politicians.

We know Billionaires spread the wealth, we know wealthy Liberals do not, or they would be drinking their 3000 dollar bottles of Champagne to toast another 2 years of wealth redistribution amongst themselves and friends.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 5, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 04 said:


> Here's the thing-I always thought that running away from Obama was the wrong way to go...


Yes- I thought it was playing right into the hands of the Koch Bros, and Fox News.
Reminded me of Gore's mistaken strategy of distancing himself from Clinton.

It's not surprising, but I still can't believe it happened.
Imo there are 2 kinds of Republicans, stupid or rich.
So the rich bought the stupid, enabled by the Supreme Court.

Still hopeful that enough people are waking up to the reality of 
the rigged economic game to turn things around eventually.

Then there's the distant concept of 
as America becomes a White Minority country 
the GOP will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.

Really to me the entire anti Obama sentiment has always been about racism.


----------



## karmadharma (Nov 5, 2014)

I recommend reading the book 'Enlightenment 2.0' for a very interesting discussion about how politics nowadays is all about emotions and truthiness as opposed to reason and truth, and why this works and the mechanisms that it uses in our subconscious, very fascinating


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 5, 2014)

These same points are going around the internet. They're all true - the Democrats shouldn't have run away from Obama, the mainstream press is a cruel joke, etc. etc. etc.

But ultimately I blame stupid people who are too lazy to become informed. Search their souls, not mine! I didn't vote for these monsters.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 5, 2014)

Every time I think of Obama or watch him on TV sacheying down to the podium or hugging some broad at voting time, this scene always plays in my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2xYaL_Mheg


----------



## JohnG (Nov 5, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ 5th November 2014 said:


> ultimately I blame stupid people who are too lazy to become informed.



Incredible. One more vote by the "little guy" against his own self-interest. Voting in favour of the cut-taxes-for-rich-people / slash "wasteful" government spending.

A vote for Republican legislators who caused the recovery to be one of the slowest in memory by slashing government spending just when it should have been increased, then blaming the Democrats. An enormous con job, and a very successful one. 

A country is not a household or a business where spending leaves the premises -- every dime of government spending on roads, schools, teacher salaries, health care -- all of it -- increases economic activity and spurs demand. When households and companies are slowing their spending in a recession, that's _exactly_ when the government should increase it. The Republican screed fundamentally misunderstands this idea.

Ironically, much of the most supportive states for Republicans are net beneficiaries of the federal government's spending -- they take in more dollars than they pay out. Yet they are voting to cut that spending because they think Obama will take their hunting rifles away.

Just incredible.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2014)

Independents brought Obama and the Liberals to the white house.
Funny how we never heard of these racists then, but now after being lied to on really important issues like your doctor, your health care costs, getting out of the Middle East, these people who wanted change are now racists and sexists.... o=? 

I have no dog in this race, I am one of the people who wanted Liberals to stay there and get nothing done, I benefit from a lack of legislation, the markets do also.

You guys will see the same thing as when Liberals had all 3 branches of Government and did ZERO, on the minimum wage, ZERO on Gun Control, ZERO on corporate welfare, ZERO on equal pay for women, ZERO on anything other than their disgusting partnership with big insurance they demonized just a few months earlier.

So now we will see "Conservatives" getting nothing done, ZERO on immigration, ZERO on Tax reform and the whole time the media will grab random gun freak whackos and try to make them appear as the majority, just like Fox News does with the stupidest College graduates they can find at the Beach who don't even know who Joe Biden is.

The truth is this.
Independents are the majority, not freako Liberals, or whacko Conservatives.
They removed the liars and cowards that pose as Liberals.

You will be tormented by images of the stupidest people on Earth, instead of the smart folks who actually got off of their asses to vote.

These morons will think now they are in power, but only for another week, then it's back to the Transpacific deals behind closed doors, and on occasion a vote in the Senate about the NFL being mean to American Indians, but the real Deep State bi partisan stuff done for those who purchase Liberals and Conservatives will go on regardless.

You cannot remove guys like McConnell, Reid, Fienstein, Pelosi.
They are juiced in and wired their districts with cash decades ago.
They are the very people shaking hands and laughing at the Sheep.
They should too, they just passed another Deep State Corporate law we will never hear about unless there's a leak, then 2 years later an FOIA request will emerge with blacked out names.

Don't be mad, we have the most corrupt system on Earth, the best liars and the biggest cowards, backed by the most dreaded military.

Name another Government that can match that.......


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 5, 2014)

^ What John says.

Also, $4 billion spent on this election. That's a mockery of democracy.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 5, 2014)

I can't believe this... . But yeah, the Germans voted for Merkel...., nearly the same thing... .


----------



## AC986 (Nov 6, 2014)

germancomponist @ Wed Nov 05 said:


> IO can't believe this... . But yeah, the Germans voted for Merkel...., nearly the same Thing... .



I bet they're really happy they did that now.  

Yes 4 billion dollars to win a mid term election is borderline insane.

The UKIP spend on the Rochester & Strood bye election this month will probably come to about 300 quid. And they'll probably win it thanks to Angela and the German voters. 

Many thanks German voters!!! :D


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

Just so I can make sure I've got this right-

Smart informed voters elected and re-elected Obama, and stupid ill-informed voters gave Congress to the Republicans?

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see the inherent wisdom in this theory.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> Just so I can make sure I've got this right-
> 
> Smart informed voters elected and re-elected Obama, and stupid ill-informed voters gave Congress to the Republicans?
> 
> Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see the inherent wisdom in this theory.


I read a study recently (sorry I don't have the link)
It said the more liberal you are, the more likely you are to use varied news sources.
Conversely, the more conservative you are, the more likely you are to only watch Fox News- thus making it easier for the Koch Bros. to get their propaganda across.

More importantly, the near collapse of the middle class 
and the great redistribution of wealth to the 1% was brought to you by the GOP.
(Reaganomics and deregulation)
Even Greenspan has admitted that he was wrong about the principles of trickle down economics. (In that nothing trickles down)

Also in spite of all the talk of "small government", it's the GOP and not the Dems
that are trying to insinuate themselves into my bedroom.

Voter suppression, also brought to you by the GOP
Citizens United, which has sold our democracy to highest bidder is also the product
of a Conservative perspective.

Climate change and other science denial- brought to you by the GOP

Government shut downs pointlessly engineered by the GOP.

Enough?

The GOP is not working for the the poor and middle class
Unless you're rich, a GOP vote is voting against yourself.

k


----------



## AC986 (Nov 6, 2014)

The GOP haven't been in power for 6 years. 

This is the reverse of what we get here. You get the conservative party coming on still to this day stating (correctly) that they inherited crap from labour. That's OK for the first 2 years or honeymoon period, but after that you just want to tell them to get fucked every time they bring the same excuse up. And in fact, that is what people are now doing at the bye elections.

I'm guessing having never been to America, but didn't the American voters just do the same to the democrats in the mid term elections?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> The GOP haven't been in power for 6 years.
> 
> This is the reverse of what we get here. You get the conservative party coming on still to this day stating (correctly) that they inherited crap from labour. That's OK for the first 2 years or honeymoon period, but after that you just want to tell them to get [email protected]#ked every time they bring the same excuse up. And in fact, that is what people are now doing at the bye elections.
> 
> I'm guessing having never been to America, but didn't the American voters just do the same to the democrats in the mid term elections?



Well, there WAS progress made, and there WAS an obstructionist Congress, but the Republicans ran with passion on their weird issues, while the Dems seemed lackluster, spiritless and tactically unsound. They should have trumpeted their successes and stuck by their President. Instead, they ran apologetic and bewildered campaigns.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 6, 2014)

This is what happens when you think your ship is sinking. You jump. Here, conservatives have jumped over to UKIP and dependent on the Rochester result and in terms of majority i.e. Simple maths, more will certainly follow if it all goes wrong for Cameron.

The US result is bad for Hillary Clinton. I assume she was going to stand in 2016?


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> The GOP haven't been in power for 6 years...


This is an over-simplification, and not really how our system works (or doesn't)
The GOP has had the House now for 4 years, 
and the record shows that it has actually done the least in the entire history of the nation.
The GOP in the Senate has used the filibuster more than at any time in our history.
For those not familiar, it's a procedural tool designed to give the minority party some power, 
where in the Senate, a debate over a Bill can last indefinitely.
This has meant that the GOP has used obstructionism continuously as a mechanism
to stop the so called majority.
That's why they're known here here as the "Party of No".

Rather than allow the Party that won the elections to follow through w/ 
the vision the People voted for, the GOP has practicality halted all government activity,
even engineering a Gov shutdown.

So even as a Minority party, the GOP has had plenty of power.
This has generally been a good thing, a kind of safeguard throughout our history, 
but never before have these tools been so abused.

k


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

Indoctrinated Liberals and Conservatives worship these factions unaware that the very names they call themselves are contradictions in terms.

The total sum of these 2 parties indoctrinated voters is still less than the number of Independents that can easily remove either of these infectious groups whenever they want.
We send these people to DC, when they betray us like we saw in 2010, they have a restraining order put on them. If they don't get the message then they are routed as we saw 2 days ago.

These worshippers actually believe the lies their leaders tell them, and then think that by reading hordes of unpublished documents somehow makes them capable of looking down upon us and saying we are uniformed...? That's as arrogant as the liars they worship.

With any luck Obama will destroy what's left of the Liberal freak show, and hopefully the Conservatives will perish somehow during that process.

If you vote Liberal all of the time, chances are you need the benefits, which is understandable.
If you are a Conservative, you most likely believe America has been in decline since Jesus founded it 200+ years ago.

Independents, well it's our job to keep somewhat of a balance so these Crime Families never again get total control over all 4 branches of Government. Yes 4, the Federal Reserve.

If Liberals really believe the shit their leaders rattle out of their mouths, just ask yourself why they passed ZERO legislation in 2009-11, when they had trillions of counterfeit 100 dollar bills and ZERO opposition.

That fact alone sums up what these Federal Mafioso are up to in DC.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> If Liberals really believe the shit their leaders rattle out of their mouths, just ask yourself why they passed ZERO legislation in 2009-11, when they had trillions of counterfeit 100 dollar bills and ZERO opposition...


This is false Chim.
Pelosi's House passed more legislation than any congress before,
and Boehner's the least.

And there was never zero opposition.
Usually you stick to the facts in your clever musings.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 6, 2014)

What I would like to know is this.

Is there a socialist party in the USA?


----------



## gbar (Nov 6, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> What I would like to know is this.
> 
> Is there a socialist party in the USA?



If there is, I am not aware of them participating in elections. We just have Bernie Sanders up in Vermont as the lone Democratic Socialist, I think.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

The only legislation passed was what was lobbied by the Federal Reserve who actually runs the economy. All of the legislation you hail is more meaningless, symbolistic nonsense that is thrown in front of us like it represents a majority of Americans, when actually is the only crap that makes these 2 parties different.

They pass bi partisan legislation all of the time like their exemption from the bogus health care plan.

We were suppose to get a single payer system which would have immediately given millions of Americans a wage increase, and relieved the pressure from small businesses....

We were told 50 million Americans who are dying in the streets from bad water, poisonous air, and disease would be saved.

8 million Americans have signed on, but maybe they are having difficulty getting on the 2 billion dollar website that never works and gets hacked everyday by amatuers wanting to know a former girlfriends social security number.

I don't want to keep bashing your idols, I am ready to start bashing Conservatives now that they hold the purse strings.

Besides my brother, your hatred for an invisible enemy called Republicans drives your logic, I doubt you can be saved and made to think outside of the box. You have been indoctrinated to believe this afterbirth known as Conservatism and Liberalism are all that exist. 
These Pole Dancers were removed by middle Class Americans, not the poor or the rich who seem to be all that exist to anyone mesmerized by cable news and unpublished documents.
I might suggest to break down and buy some books.
Recent Liberal favorites by Tim Geitner who tells us how things really work in DC.
Robert Gates, Charles Krauthammer, Leon Panetta, and of course the boring campaign document by Hillary called "Tough Choices" as if she ever made one.
Thanks to her and her infamous War On Women husband, those you worship were removed with a vengeance.
Too bad Liberals just couldn't tell the truth and support their President.
Maybe they don't really believe the bull shit they spew after all...?


----------



## gbar (Nov 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> They pass bi partisan legislation all of the time like their exemption from the bogus health care plan.



You really should facts-check your sources:

Congress had to purchase their insurance through the exchanges starting Jan 1, 2014

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congre ... obamacare/


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> ...my brother, your hatred for an invisible enemy called Republicans drives your logic, I doubt you can be saved and made to think outside of the box...


Chim

I always enjoy your rhetoric, but you underestimate my pragmatism 
and just how evil and visible the GOP is.

My conscience would have me vote Green, Socialist or Communist.
But this would in effect be a GOP vote.
So I vote Dem strategically, because the 2 parties are not the same.

I've talked to many people who have a view similar to yours-
exhorting the masses to "think outside of the box", 
that there is no difference between Lesser and Greater Evil-
But I never hear viable solutions to the problems at hand.
Only a continuous noise that the system is rigged no matter who has the levers.

I've been paying attention for a long time.
Reaganomics and Republican Deregulation 
have practically been the undoing of this society.

So until the Great White Southern Die Off I'll continue to vote Dem.
After that I'll be able to vote my conscience.

k


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

The American people always throw out whatever party is in office and not doing such a good job. The economy has polled as the single biggest issue (the 'good' reports about the economy lately have been an increase in part time jobs mainly not a restoration of prior real employment levels.

As the president said, his policies were being voted on this election as well as his leadership. The results were unfavorable towards him not surprisingly given the polls. Not because of Fox News but Front Page News.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

I was going to chime in, but KEnK is doing a much better job of holding down the fort.

Larry, it is stupid to vote for Republicans, for one simple reason: they are on the wrong side of every issue. Stupidity is one of the conditions that causes people to make that mistake, and I suspect it's the most common one. Being uninformed, disinformed, ignorant, nasty, greedy, or just plain wrong are others. Take your pick.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> As the president said, his policies were being voted on this election as well as his leadership. The results were unfavorable towards him not surprisingly given the polls. Not because of Fox News but Front Page News.


This election was brought to you by Citizens United and the Koch Bros.,
not by front page news.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

And what economic policies? The overly tame job measures and infrastructure spending he proposed that the f-ing Republicans blocked?

The dork with eight chins said it very plainly: our number one goal is to see that Obama fails.

How is that not treason?


----------



## KEnK (Nov 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> I was going to chime in, but KEnK is doing a much better job of holding down the fort.


Hah!

Thanks Nick :wink:


----------



## gbar (Nov 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> How is that not treason?



I believe you must be actively consorting and plotting with or betraying state secrets to a known enemy for it to be considered treason.

Helping the country shoot itself in its collective feet for partisan gain doesn't rise to treason legally 

But don't tell Ann Coulter. She wrote a book with the title of "Treason" that was full of mostly myths that claimed half the population were traitors, and some people apparently ate that up judging by the book sales.

FWIW, I don't really care for hyperbole and mythology. I can't think of anything more frustrating and pointless than trying to seriously have a policy discussion if somebody is throwing out canards as wild as "Death Panels" and "Socialist dictator", for example. And it's probably almost equally pointless to have a discussion when one or more of the parties is clinging to some myth to establish a narrative.

I can see how that sort of non-reality-based type of discussion would make a lot of people cynical too, but I don't think there is any peculiar wisdom in cynicism.

There's probably a lot of wisdom in remembering "If you can't do anything about it, it doesn't help to worry, and if you can do something about it, there is no point in worrying. There is nothing gained by worry". Do or not do. There is no try.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ 6th November 2014 said:


> I was going to chime in, but KEnK is doing a much better job of holding down the fort.



Indeed -- excellent work, k.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

The dictionary definition isn't the legal definition.

And I wish it were hyperbole.

Let me know if you need me to explain how I'm different from Anne Coulter.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 06 said:
> 
> 
> > As the president said, his policies were being voted on this election as well as his leadership. The results were unfavorable towards him not surprisingly given the polls. Not because of Fox News but Front Page News.
> ...



The Koch Brothers don't own the LA Times or The New York Times. The question is whether the electorate can read and they can.

Nick, we've had six years of economic policies of the present administration and things are pretty well stalled. The Democrats had a majority there for a while so it wasn't obstructionism. Plus as you know not everyone believes in the same economic models. We've spent a ton and things are not moving along well enough for the people. They simply want a change - happens all the time.

As I said, there's nothing new here. If the Republicans were the majority and held the presidency then they would be thrown out as they have before. Nothing to strain over here folks as far as understanding. It is a very common occurrence in our system. Why is anyone here surprised? Even the dumbbells at Fox, CNN and MSNBC aren't surprised at the outcome. Totally predictable.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

The most surprising thing in this election cycle was the totally, bizarrely off polling.
I usually just watch RCP's Poll of Polls, but even they were way off. Apparently either the art of accurate polling has been lost or ...what? People are saying they'll vote one way and then voting another?? Strange.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

Thanks KenK, you're a good sport.. 0oD 

Here's more to chew on for those who think each side represents them

The Koch Brothers, and Citizens United.
Guess who created them...? Liberals and Public Unions.
In much the same way as Liberals fund the NRA and help sky rocket Gun and ammunition sales. Oh, in 2009-2011 why didn't we see Liberals at least ban all sales on Assault Rifles....?
Nah,...let's have a vote on the NFL mascots hurting peoples feelings or something really important.... :mrgreen: 

Tax payers already pay for federal elections, but that wasn't enough since Liberals are very expensive to purchase.
So trial lawyers figured out a way to raise taxes on the citizens in the community, separate from taxes already set aside for the FEC.

Now the Unions can declare the teachers and schools need more money as the children are suffering, so voters often don't even get to vote on the increases, they find out about the back door deals later after it's too late. 

To argue against this means you hate children and teachers, it is really brilliant.
That's like saying those who elected Obama were cool until they removed his Senators and now they are racists for doing so.

The reasons these little hikes happen is because the tax payers have no representative at the negotiation, just a Union boss, and a Liberal purchased with tax payer dollars.

That argument was made before the supreme court many times and instead of allowing tax payers or teachers to decide how this money was spent, the Union Bosses making 4-600,000 per year decide, and the Liberal they purchased gets a piece of the action. So the Supreme Court said the balance must be fair. Hence Citizens United.

Guess which Union spent 80,000,000 Dollars on this election...? Teachers Union.
All paid for by the tax payers around the USA, who like the teachers, would much rather see 80 million bucks buy some musical instruments, or give the teachers the money instead of corrupt Union bosses or wealthy Liberals.

When money is cut back like we saw in 2009 guess who gets the axe first..? The teachers of our kids.
Not the wealthy Liberal politicians or the Union bosses, hell they even get a raise every 6 months thanks to the tax payer.

So if you don't like the Citizens United Laws, just look at the scams these clowns pull on the very people who already pay their hefty salary...

80 million to Liberals that pretend they don't know Obama is a huge waste of capital.
It's shameful how much money is wasted. The Koch brothers use to build hospitals but now they buy Conservatives like the Governor in Wisconsin.

That's right, all of these dirtbags are for sale.
They must really enjoy watching the Sheep fights they create, knowing that the citizens do not run anything, and never will as long as Liberals and Conservatives have their hands on trillions of tax payers dollars.

We can only hope in the next 2 years they destroy themselves.
But the dismissal of wealthy Liberal Senators was a good start........... o-[][]-o

I would have liked to keep more Liberal Governors as they actually stand for something, but association by name obviously was enough to anger Independents.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

Good point Larry.
After hearing about Obama staffers and hackers getting access to ISP databases in 2012 I started declining to register until the last minute, and after seeing Muslims with clubs in Philly intimidating white and Hispanic voters, I started thinking it's best to stay away.

I voted in a church this time and felt as if God was watching me, but I chose the right names as no lightning struck me down.

But who can blame voters after the IRS, NSA and more recently Investigate Journalists having their computers hacked. Of course this was also funded by tax payers.

Sharyl Atkkison has an excellent book I plan on reading too. 
One must ask themselves, as I did with Leon Panetta's book.
What publisher would dare risk a 50 million dollar lawsuit to print and publish documents that weren't true..?

So obviously these former Administration officials, heads of treasury and investigative journalists must be able to back up their claims.

Also explains why Eric Holder is leaving office, the timing of these events is never mentioned, but anyone paying attention can add 2 + 2 ='s...


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> Good point Larry.
> After hearing about Obama staffers and hackers getting access to ISP databases in 2012 I started declining to register until the last minute, and after seeing Muslims with clubs in Philly intimidating white and Hispanic voters, I started thinking it's best to stay away.
> 
> I voted in a church this time and felt as if God was watching me, but I chose the right names as no lightning struck me down.
> ...



Chim- Huff Po says the Teacher's Union spent upwards of 20 mil on this cycle- where did you get 80 mil?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 6, 2014)

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

LBJ - spends a ton of money on social programs to lift the poor but has a foreign policy that turns the entire country against him including his own party so In comes the Republicans and Nixon

Nixon pisses off the entire country eventually and in comes the Democrats with Carter.

Carter very weak, economy a shambles - out go the Democrats.

Reagan does two terms and popular enough to get Bush senior elected.

Bush pisses everyone off with a single broken pledge (no new taxes) in come the democrats.

Clinton and Bush Jr., both at the mercy of the electorate registering their displeasure.

Obama like LBJ criticized by his own party including cabinet members (no the Koch Brothers are not members of his cabinet) for both foreign and domestic issues. Out go the Democrats.

The two party system in all it's glory.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
> - Mark Twain



Ha!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

Of course Huf Po reported the truth as they excluded the largest Union paying 60 million and went for the 20 million dollar spender..... :mrgreen: 
But that's honesty in investigative journalism for you, the Sheep clacked their hooves in approval I am sure of that...

I was referring to the total amount that both Federal Unions spent thanks to the tax payers.

I was reading about the Republican, Independent, Democrat who lost in Florida.
I am pretty sure he had to run as a Liberal or the big Union bosses would not give him millions for selling legislation. 
That's where the amount he received was mentioned and then I saw the other amounts dropped on other Liberals pretending they never voted for their President.

Being an uninformed voter, I thought I would read up on recent California politics and was amazed to see Drug Dealers, Child Prostitution and Human Traffickers, Gun dealers and hit men in California Politics being led off in cuffs by the FBI....

Wow, I feel so much smarter now knowing that I read this. Seems to me that California voters simply pull the Liberal handle and don't find a problem electing even more criminals than they already have.

I saw America's Most Wanted years ago where Chow and hit men were taken off to prison, and then released years back to become real gangsters in Liberal politics.

I am so informed now I have memorized Senator Feinstein's quote of how Chow, Yee and Chong are great assets to the Californian Political body.

I know I voted wrong and sent some dirtbags to DC but Liberals should be really proud knowing they blindly pull the 100% Liberal handle and get murderers and convicted felons into office.

The real tragic irony here is the main character was a strong anti gun advocate as he told an undercover FBI agent they could make lots of money, upwards of 2.5 million for this on huge shipment...

0oD


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> Of course Huf Po reported the truth as they excluded the largest Union paying 60 million and went for the 20 million dollar spender..... :mrgreen:
> But that's honesty in investigative journalism for you, the Sheep clacked their hooves in approval I am sure of that...
> 
> I was referring to the total amount that both Federal Unions spent thanks to the tax payers.
> ...



"Guess which Union spent 80,000,000 Dollars on this election...? Teachers Union. "

Again, source please? I don't know what you're talking about when you say "two biggest Federal Unions". I only saw you make the above statement.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

Dave, I'm not quite sure I agree with all those one-liners about the presidents 100%. Reagan was never as popular as folklore has it, for example.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2014)

There were several articles by the usual Parrots, most of them had the same numbers but were in separate links I do not have time to rehash through.
Just google the NEA and add the amounts they spent in differente elections, and then the read the AFT amounts.
My neice is in the Chicago area where she has 1000 dollars a year taken from her, but that's Illinois.
In NYC or LA I am sure they are forced to cough up even more for their protection money.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> Dave, I'm not quite sure I agree with all those one-liners about the presidents 100%. Reagan was never as popular as folklore has it, for example.



I said 'popular enough' Nick or at least meant to say that. I was just making the overall point that a lurching away from the party in power when the people are unhappy is a virtual guarantee. Perhaps people are saying the American people shouldn't be unhappy or that they're too stupid to know if they're happy or not. I think the reasons they're unhappy are obvious and abundant and they simply voted the way they did because they want change. They will do the same to the Republicans if they become unhappy with them.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

Extremely conservative website says 22 Million. Not that 22 million isn't obscene-it's just not 80 million  

http://freebeacon.com/issues/seven-unio ... now-about/

Wait -this just in...Fox News sez:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/06/teachers-unions-spend-lose-big-on-midterm-elections/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/06/te ... elections/)

hmmm.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

Dave, the thing that makes them stupid - or at least ignorant - is that they just voted in more of the same assholes who are responsible for the economy continuing to do so badly!

I guess "sequester" is too big a word for voters in red states, and they didn't even notice the Republicans failing to pass even the meager job-creating programs Obama proposed.

Informed voters don't vote 180˚ against their own self-interest like the ones responsible for this travesty just did.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

The Democrats had the majority Nick. Remember the 'shovel ready jobs' that the President laughed off when it didn't work? That was his baby and not the only failed economic policy of his. What about his promises on the VA? Zero follow up and pitiful oversight on a vehement promise by him. How about the healthcare promises? Dozens of proclamations designed to reassure the populace about a major bill that would affect them personally. Utterly completely false assurances. The American people don't like that sort of hucksterism. They just don't. In the end they look around at their circumstances and decide whether the people in power are doing their job. Their approval of Congress which includes the Republicans couldn't be lower. They're not under some illusion the Republicans are going to do miracles. They're just done with the current group in power. I don't blame them and I won't blame them if they throw the Republicans out in two years.

I understand that you think that it is scientific fact that the American people just voted against themselves. Many think the exact opposite of course.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 6, 2014)

I should add that the many vociferous critics of the President and his policies during this election season came from the Left and the Right. That's why I don't understand why people here don't get what just happened. His own cabinet members have really slammed the guy. This has registered with lots of folks but I'm honestly curious whom that has registered with here. An honest question.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, DAVE?!

OBAMACARE PROCLAMATIONS?!

THE STIMULUS DIDN'T WORK?!

His cabinet criticizes him? That was two hawkish Secretaries of Defense: Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Both are hawkish. It's not like his own cabinet has turned against him!

Come on, this is making my blood pressure rise.

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-recov ... sy-charts/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

About the ARRA: limited stimulus had limited results.

But guess why it was limited? Because we have f-ing Republicans in the world.

Yes, they really are the biggest problem facing the country.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 6, 2014)

In all honesty Dave, I voted for the guy first because I believed in him, then the second time because his ideas more closely aligned with mine, but my heart wasn't in it in the same way. Like Bill Clinton, Obama has turned out to be a centrist. There's one important differentiation-Clinton could get business done across the aisle, and Obama doesn't seem to have that ability. I believe he is, for the most part, politically and operationally inept. The organizations that elected him were much more efficient than his administrations have turned out to be.

As Nick said, though, you can't just ignore a recalcitrant House that votes 50 times to repeal Obamacare. You can't shove aside the odious statement McConnell made when he committed the country to complete stasis. You can't ignore that for the most part, the liberal base is upset with Obama not because he did too much towards promised goals, it's that he hasn't done ENOUGH-so he's been squeezed between the far right and the far left, and I absolutely believe the Republican Party has shifted more strongly towards the right than the Dems have shifted to the left.

On the other hand, the overall economy has definitely improved. More people are covered by healthcare despite the distaste for the Frankensteinian bill that covers them. More oil has been drilled during Obama's presidency than the previous one. he's left the EPA as toothless as ever-so all in all, many of the things Republicans say they want are in place.

Let's face it-this was a throw the bums out election. Sure, stagnant wages didn't help. Less fulltime employment hasn't helped-but the right had a better ground game and it's the lame duck cycle. Am I happy with Obama? No-but I wouldn't have been happy with Mitt giving out even more corporate welfare and even more license to despoil the earth than Obama has.

Like I said, mud-streaked opaque glass, the clarity of politics. We muddle through.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

One more thing, before I go to bed angry:

10 million new people with health insurance.

Before this 40,000 people were dying every year because they went to the emergency room when it was too late.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 6, 2014)

HUFF!!!!


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Nov 7, 2014)

Economists, I prefer to call them spread-sheet-schizophrenics, still dwadling in the Halls of power, armed with their bibles of Hayek and Keynes, the ongoing clash of quasi-religious ideologies, camouflaged as social sciences. The high priests of the class war we witness.

Rightwing and reactionary views find ripe and fertile grounds, prepared by indoctrination, fear and uncertainty, xenophobia and hate, the hallmarks of stupidity, threatening so very fragile social fabrics.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2014)

Hey Larry I decided to actually read up more on the donors and the Unions were definitely all in. I am beginning to understand why the AFL-CIO is losing trust from the Longshoresmen and Carpenters who have bailed on them and decided to organize on their own. Local politicians are much cheaper to purchase.

I am checking on who spent the most and Harry Reid was right, the Koch Brothers were definitely rivaling Liberal donors now like Steyer and Bloomberg who spent 100 million between the 2 of them. 

So the Supreme Court was right about equal amounts from both sides to buy Liberals and Conservatives.

Makes me wonder how much Supreme Court Judges cost to buy.

This means before the voters found out Insider Trading was punishable by 20 years on Wall Street but legal in Congress, these guys had to know about this.
Why should folks in Congress make so much money on the side and not them..?



God Bless The USA.............. _-)


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 7, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Economists, I prefer to call them spread-sheet-schizophrenics, still dwadling in the Halls of power, armed with their bibles of Hayek and Keynes, the ongoing clash of quasi-religious ideologies, camouflaged as social sciences. The high priests of the class war we witness.
> 
> Rightwing and reactionary views find ripe and fertile grounds, prepared by indoctrination, fear and uncertainty, xenophobia and hate, the hallmarks of stupidity, threatening so very fragile social fabrics.



Ignorance, xenophobia and fear, correct. Stupidity, only of a certain kind. Some very intelligent people through the ages have been xenophobes and bigots. 

It's important (to me, anyway) to identify these things correctly and clearly.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> One more thing, before I go to bed angry:



I go to bed angry every night. And you will too because what's coming is going to make you very angry. Don't worry though, because it can't be worse than what's about to happen here with DC and EM. At least you have some people over there that act and even look like leaders.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2014)

G.R. Baumann @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Rightwing and reactionary views find ripe and fertile grounds, prepared by indoctrination, fear and uncertainty, xenophobia and hate, the hallmarks of stupidity, threatening so very fragile social fabrics.



That's not a difficult exercise though is it, when you've got complete left wing assholes that have no idea about how to run a corner shop never mind a large economy.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 7, 2014)

chimuelo @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Hey Larry I decided to actually read up more on the donors and the Unions were definitely all in. I am beginning to understand why the AFL-CIO is losing trust from the Longshoresmen and Carpenters who have bailed on them and decided to organize on their own. Local politicians are much cheaper to purchase.
> 
> I am checking on who spent the most and Harry Reid was right, the Koch Brothers were definitely rivaling Liberal donors now like Steyer and Bloomberg who spent 100 million between the 2 of them.
> 
> ...



I did similar reading- Steyer is a guy who hadn't been on my radar, and you're right, he's a Big Fish, but people tend to forget Shelley Adelson when he's not supporting a Newt type, and the Kochs have all sorts of avenues, Heritage, Crossroads, Unions went big, let's face it, everyone was all in on this one. Obscene amounts of money.

As to the Supreme Court being right, nonsense. They just legalized it, before that everybody just brown-bagged the cash. Supremes will be vilified by history for this when it all gets pulled back like slavery and separate but equal did, it will be considered a mad, anomalous act by the Court. Campaign finance reform will happen eventually.

I'm not hysterical over any of this. The big push of civilization and the changing demographics are going to continue moving this society towards a more humanistic approach despite these political kerfluffles, which will happen periodically. Time marches on, we progress, regress, push the ball a little farther down the road. I ain't moving to Canada. Nice place. Me I like NYC, USA.


----------



## gbar (Nov 7, 2014)

adriancook @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> G.R. Baumann @ Fri Nov 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Rightwing and reactionary views find ripe and fertile grounds, prepared by indoctrination, fear and uncertainty, xenophobia and hate, the hallmarks of stupidity, threatening so very fragile social fabrics.
> ...



I'd just like to point out, there were a lot of people running hedge funds, bond trading, and even a few Chicago-school folks over at the IMF, and so on (I think Paul Krugman likes to call them VSPs---very serious people) who seriously were tied up in knots about two things in 2009/2010:

1. Hyperinflation in the US and EU
2. Peak Oil (supposedly we were stuck with 200 bl oil from sometime near to 2009 on).

They were all wrong about how the economy works under the conditions we were experiencing. They were focused on supposed lessons of the 1970s, and conditions were completely different.

Lesson: running a bond or hedge fund or worshiping the past public musings of Milton Friedman don't mean you understand how an economy works or even what economic model you should be looking at for a given set of circumstances.

Some of the biggest policy blunders were vehemently pushed with "the end is near" hysteria by supposed knowlegeable people, all of whom shared one outstanding characteristic: the refusal to modify their assumptions when confronted with evidence that refuted their assumptions.

Both items are serious topics: how do you know if you are operating below capacity so that you don't pull the trigger on stimulus (as opposed to what we did which was the opposite--assumed we had to settle for lower productivity because we were at some new capacity), and how do we as a society prepare for long-term energy security (keeping in mind long-term environmental concerns)?

We didn't have much of a serious discussion about them, however, in the policy arena because the supposedly well-informed people who knew how to run things were running around with their hair on fire after calmly sleeping while the ship sailed off the cliff just a couple of years earlier for the most part. And they all played the "voice of experience" card while running around with their hair on fire and refused to examine evidence that did not comport with the dystopian view they were pushing.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> One more thing, before I go to bed angry:
> 
> 10 million new people with health insurance.
> 
> Before this 40,000 people were dying every year because they went to the emergency room when it was too late.


Yeah, and someone has to pay for it. People like me. My premium is going up over 4X on Jan 1. Affordable, my ass. But no one cares for my plight. I am white and middle class and that doesn't make for good news stories.

Instead, people would rather hear emotional rhetoric like '10 million new people with health insurance'. Obama! Moving us forward! With kindness! Cares for people! Bollocks, I say.

So Nick, you go ahead and be happy for all those poor folks who now have health insurance. I don't have time for that. I need to figure out how to take on this new car payment Obama stuck me with. Any of you guys have an extra gig you can send my way?


----------



## gbar (Nov 7, 2014)

By your own image: your deductible has decreased by over 4x for your family, and 3x for yourself.. You no longer have the same coverage. That's not even remotely close to the same plan.

I suppose you could select a plan with a 4x higher deductible and save at the expense of taking on more risk. You are comparing apples and oranges in terms of deductibles. Kind of hard to say, I had a 22,500 deductible, and now it's 5,000, and that's remotely similar. The law didn't do that. The law did uncap life-time limits and add things for women like birth control pill coverage (unless you work for Hobby Lobby).

Mine didn't change much. In fact, it changed less this year than in most years over the last decade. I haven't changed things like deductibles and such though (they were already low in my case--I use a PPO, not an HMO).


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 7, 2014)

Gbar, I didn't change anything. They just sent this to me. The plan automatically switches to this if I don't do anything. I guess I can no longer get a high-deductible plan?


----------



## gbar (Nov 7, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Gbar, I didn't change anything. They just sent this to me. The plan automatically switches to this if I don't do anything. I guess I can no longer get a high-deductible plan?



I have no idea what is going on with your provider, but altering the deductible is not enshrined in law beyond 13,200 max for a family and 6,000 for an individual, so no you cannot get exactly what you had, but this is beyond that.

I have a choice between many plans, and I usually get the best one I can get which is a Blue Cross PPO (which used to have a life-time cap of 1 million--that cap changed by law with no noticeable impact on my premiums--probably because the pool is expanding a bit?).

I would have been afraid, personally, to have a 22,500 deductible.

I once spent 2 months in hospitals. The bill was hundreds of thousands of dollars. That left an impression on me in the form of bankruptcy at age 22, and that was way back in the 1980s, so it's worse now if you have to spend any serious time in a hospital. It would be very easy to be on the hook for 22,500 dollars if somebody in your family, for example, had to have an operation or were in a serious accident.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 7, 2014)

I am going to call these Humana f**kers today and see what I can do.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 7, 2014)

Humana: The plan you had is no longer consistent with Federal guidelines so it has been canceled. You now have to pick an approved plan. However, unfortunately we do not know what those plans are at this time as the Federal government has not released them yet.

Me: When will you know?

Humana: On the 15th of this month we are supposed to know.

Me: OK, I will call back on the 15th.

Humana: I would not advise that because we will be receiving thousands of calls at that time. You will likely not get through. We would rather setup an appointment to review your options with you. How does December 10th look?

So, I guess I will find out on December 10th what I am paying for health insurance next year. Hopefully, Comrade Obama is offering a plan that he feels is suitable for my needs.


----------



## gbar (Nov 7, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Humana: The plan you had is no longer consistent with Federal guidelines so it has been canceled. You now have to pick an approved plan. However, unfortunately we do not know what those plans are at this time as the Federal government has not released them yet.
> 
> Me: When will you know?
> 
> ...



That is very strange. Our enrollment period this year is Nov. 12 – Dec. 11..

I did a price-wise comparison of our plans in 2015 (and Humana is new and only for Puerto Rico, so I couldn't see anything for them), but... for the most expensive insurance we have for a non-employee (e.g. spouse, etc), the price increase was from 311 to 315/month. It's only changing from 72 to 73/month for me.

One of them jumped a lot, though, so I am assuming that was an HMO with very large deductibles in the past (I'd have to do a lot of digging to find details for a plan that I did not have, and I am lazy).


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, DAVE?!
> 
> OBAMACARE PROCLAMATIONS?!
> THE STIMULUS DIDN'T WORK?!
> His cabinet criticizes him? That was two hawkish Secretaries of Defense: Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. Both are hawkish. It's not like his own cabinet has turned against him!



NIck, what I'm saying is very simple and proven over time with politicians on both sides. Bush Sr., promised no new taxes repeatedly and then failed to back it up. The promises made on Obamacare about keeping your doctor or your plan turned out to be completely untrue. Do you think this doesn't register with the American people? NO Politician can do that kind of thing without repercussions. So you get my point now I hope.

I have a brother who is a big Obama supporter. He's an MD who ran an entire HMO. He's as informed a person on healthcare as there is on the planet. Whenever I point out the presidents obvious flaws and failures he doesn't have the slightest reaction and doesn't defend the guy. Because they're so obvious. It doesn't change his thinking on health care reform and he is pro Obamacare which he says is 2/3rds good. You misunderstand me. I'm commenting on obvious things that the American people are reacting to. These things are obvious to the Presidents supporters as well.

ALL of the Presidents economic policies simply haven't done the job as far as the people are concerned. They are still hurting with high unemployment and lower income etc. I am simply saying that they are unhappy and people are voting accordingly including people who voted him in. I am not making fine policy points I am talking about the general climate in the US. Part of leading the country is bringing the people along and they are unhappy.

If you put a cabinet in place because in your wisdom these are the best people for the job such as Panetta and Clinton and then they along with countless advisors criticize you then your endorsement of them was either wrong or they are right. If they're hawks then he chose them. I was also referring to all the democrats that ran away from him during the election. Something wrong in River City Nick when your own party abandon's you like that.

As far as any right wing extremism (how silly to see a general election in that way as opposed to the will of the people) the President was not swept into office by Left wing extremism. People were very optimistic and simply voted for the guy - it wasn't a Socialist revolution. The Left has joined in the criticism of his policies as well. Some presidents become unpopular is all and then their team get's the boot.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> In all honesty Dave, I voted for the guy first because I believed in him, then the second time because his ideas more closely aligned with mine, but my heart wasn't in it in the same way. Like Bill Clinton, Obama has turned out to be a centrist. There's one important differentiation-Clinton could get business done across the aisle, and Obama doesn't seem to have that ability. I believe he is, for the most part, politically and operationally inept. The organizations that elected him were much more efficient than his administrations have turned out to be.
> 
> As Nick said, though, you can't just ignore a recalcitrant House that votes 50 times to repeal Obamacare.



Larry, I think your's is the view of many Americans as far as the president's executive abilities. I have never heard anyone say he was anything but a very intelligent guy and I completely agree with that. When he was asked if he was going to run for President when he was a junior senator he responded, "I'm not qualified for that job." An intelligent statement if there ever was (unless his supporters say it was idiotic and there's the rub.)

Everyone seems to think that this sea change is some huge endorsement of the Republican party and that they have been blameless. I am not defending those guys! I am saying that they are going to be held accountable and going to have respond to the will of the people and if they don't the pendulum will swing back to the Democrats. I just don't think people are idiots for wanting change - they're hurting.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2014)

Interesting discussion on how the GOP needs Democrats to pass legislation in the Senate.
IIRC the Nuclear option that allowed the courts in DC to be filled with campaign donors and advocates required a simple majority as Harry Reid changed the law, the Nuclear option.
Did they then fill the seats with trail lawyers instead of Judges, and simply revert the law back in another simple majority vote...?

I am trying to find out but can't see any back room deals that were done that we find about later, so the law should require a simple 51 vote majority, 52 votes if Biden decided to toss in a wrench unless Liberals sold those laws as well and we can't find out w/o a FOIA request.

So I guess it's time to start bashing Conservatives as their lies are already starting.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2014)

Marc, why do think everyone wants to come to the UK? 

You get bollocks on the left wing news channels stating that immigration has brought in more benefits to white indigenous English people and that English people are actually costing their own country money. This recent study was done by an immigrant from Eastern Europe btw. UKIP absolutely love these people.

The next election here will have nothing to do with economics. Nada! It will have everything to do with the NHS and English culture somehow remaining intact . That is of course based on my neutral stance opinion and what I see and hear every day in the streets of London.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

> Yeah, and someone has to pay for it. People like me. My premium is going up over 4X on Jan 1. Affordable, my ass. But no one cares for my plight. I am white and middle class and that doesn't make for good news stories.
> 
> Instead, people would rather hear emotional rhetoric like '10 million new people with health insurance'. Obama! Moving us forward! With kindness! Cares for people! Bollocks, I say.
> 
> So Nick, you go ahead and be happy for all those poor folks who now have health insurance. I don't have time for that. I need to figure out how to take on this new car payment Obama stuck me with. Any of you guys have an extra gig you can send my way?



First of all, even if what you say is right - and I'm 99% sure it's not - then yes, I'm happy that 10 million new people got health coverage and one person (you) has to pay more. Every policy has winners and losers, and in this case the winners far, far, far outnumber the losers. If 40,000 people had to die every year so you could have lower rates, well, there you go.

Furthermore, every time one of these stories comes forward, it turns out to have nothing to do with the ACA. It makes no sense that it would, because of the economics of how it's set up: the increased outlays are offset by the healthy people brought into the pool. And California has a high enrollment rate.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Dave, the problem is that your criticisms are ludicrous. Your brother-in-law should talk to me. I don't go silent when you say whatever it is!

The most important point is that Obama's policies DIDN'T fail! They weren't implemented!


----------



## AC986 (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick, if 40,000 people a year didn't die, imagine what your population would be by now.

What America never got right was years ago they didn't set up a pro bono medical system like we did. Of course, you by now, would be going to bed even angrier than already, should that hypothetical have happened, based on the amount of abuse from people coming over to take advantage of it would be.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Furthermore, every time one of these stories comes forward, it turns out to have nothing to do with the ACA. It makes no sense that it would, because of the economics of how it's set up: the increased outlays are offset by the healthy people brought into the pool. And California has a high enrollment rate.


According to the letter from my insurance provider: "Humana will now be updating in 2015 all policies such as yours to meet the Affordable Care Act (ACA) rules."

And you are saying this has nothing to do with the ACA? Sorry, but I am not following your logic here.

By the way, this is not 'one of those stories'. This is my personal experience. I have no motivation in sharing other than to raise your awareness that the issue is more complex than what you described earlier. There is a ripple affecting many people's lives, and it is sad to hear that your compassion extends only to those 10 million who benefited.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Marc, they're raising rates because they can. Period.

I'm sorry your rates went up, but as I said: every time you hear a story like this there's invariably more to it than "I pay for other people's Obamacare."

That's not how it works.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Dave, the problem is that your criticisms are ludicrous. Your brother-in-law should talk to me. I don't go silent when you say whatever it is!
> 
> The most important point is that Obama's policies DIDN'T fail! They weren't implemented!



Nick, I've been pointing out the character flaws in the man but they've been reported from all political spectrums in the press. My criticisms have been echoed from both sides and aren't particularly novel. MSNBC was just talking about how high unemployment is in the black community. 

How is the VA debacle for which the president was roundly criticized a ludicrous criticism for example? It's not and you know it''s not. You can make excuses for the guy but he ran on that promise and failed miserably. As you also know these are human lives at stake. What is ludicrous about caring about these people?

You misunderstood my comments about my brother. When I point out these character flaws (which matter to the electorate) he doesn't argue about them any more than the NY Times does.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 7, 2014)

All politics is local, and much of it is personal.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Dave, to me the notion that even the head of the VA is to blame for the amount of time it takes patients to get an appointment is absurd. Do you know how big the VA is?

But even if you were right, the Republicans have been totally on the wrong side of every single issue all along! That's why it's so frustrating. People voted against their best interest.

Marc, I should have added one other important point: health insurance has risen less than expected! I'll dig up a link.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

And as usual, my man Paul K comes through, saying exactly what I'm saying here only way better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/opini ... d=37849082


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> Dave, to me the notion that even the head of the VA is to blame for the amount of time it takes patients to get an appointment is absurd. Do you know how big the VA is?
> 
> But even if you were right, the Republicans have been totally on the wrong side of every single issue all along! That's why it's so frustrating. People voted against their best interest.



I don't see this as a Republican issue Nick. I don't view the world that way. I see that a candidate said he was going to do something about it. If as you say, it's a mess that can't be fixed within two terms of office then why the empty promise? Why not just be honest and say "folks, we're going to try and scratch the surface of this problem…" but that's not politically expedient. Too many empty promises from our President and he's been called on it from both sides. I think his team is being thrown out because of this type of thing. Can the Republicans do better? who knows - they could do worse but there is zero mystery here as to the election results.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 7, 2014)

Take a trip to a Group Home sometime where elderly people who don't own a home give away their Social Security checks to some house in any neighborhood be it rural or urban, to another citizen, not even a Doctor, where they are basically kept alive as the bottom feeders give them 3 squares a day until they die.
It broke my heart to pick up an elderly widow that lived next door to us, as her son was in the Guard over in Iraq when she broke her hip.

At the hospital they replaced her hip, then she went to therapy where after the limited amount of money they provide was gone, they now are sent to a group home unless they sign over their property, which in this case was underwater from a re fi.

While this isn't a death panel it sure shows you the contempt legislators have for those unproductive elderly people who are taking away billions that could be given to America's uninsured.

Authors of the real ACA provisions are anti elderly, unless it's their family of course.
Go to Youtube and check for our Ambassador at the UNs husband, Cass Sunnstein.
If they are not all scrubbed yet he has many seminars where he doesn't even try toi hide what he believes.
Recently the other author Ezekiel Emmanuel echoed the same beliefs on CNN.

Obviously they dare not do this when the laws were being forced through as nobody would have ever agreed to these lies and back room deals.

I am glad many will be taken care of, I am sad that those who built this system and played by the rules will be refused treatment by unelected officials whose names will most likely never be known. 

Other than that it's a fabulous plan, the internet is full of people exclaiming how happy they are that their life was saved.

Too bad they didn't vote to prove it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Dave, the VA is not a Republican issue. But it also has nothing to do with anything in this context (not to sneer at vets who have to wait for healthcare). Taking care of veterans, sure, that's important.

But really, WFT does that have to do with voting a bunch of dickheads into office? Obama isn't even running!

Meanwhile let's not forget how much he's done for the country! The ACA is a major accomplishment even if Marc has to buy better insurance and even if it's not as good as a usingle-payer system. For openers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

And I just looked at the beginning of this thread. John Graham summed it up there. We're just going around in circles at this point.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

I have been making a few points at once Nick and maybe not clear. The vets are a voting block as are the unemployed, as are the employed with healthcare who's rates have soared without their income keeping up (conversely people who did not have healthcare but now do would have a positive view of the administration and the Democrats.) The point being that there are numerous voting blocks that are unhappy and not convinced by economic statistics that although may be positive in some measure haven't brought change to their daily lives. Given these large groups of disappointed folks it's just not a surprise that they have registered their disapproval. The character issue is not a non-issue either and I don't see a lot of people acknowledging that here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

I don't acknowledge it either. It's not true.

Of course people are unhappy. But you'd think people might take a few minutes before voting to figure out that Republicans are going to make them much more unhappy!

Also, the health insurance rates soaring line is a big lie. It didn't happen. The opposite is true.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 7, 2014)

These Republicans are in no way good!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

I have had numerous conversations with friends who are major Obama supporters who acknowledged very early on his poor management skills and subsequent backtracking on important proclamations such as transparency in his administration. The NY Times has blistered him recently in this regard. It's an issue to me and I choose not to ignore it.

The rate hikes for people's health insurance are well known and have been enumerated to me by people in the insurance industry. Some people's may have gone down but you see I don't deny that so why deny the hikes as well? (I am for a workable universal health care but have problems with the bill as written - and the way it was sold obviously.)

The people are already very unhappy and probably feel they could do no worse.

We're up to 3000 troops back in Iraq.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/0 ... l=facebook

I think Reich has got it right and very happy to see Glass-Steagall being restored as part of his solution. He also mentions investment in infrastructure which should have been a major focus the day after the 08 inaugural and was another huge disappointment for me. We backstopped Wall St instead. Foreign Policy my biggest complaint still.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Well, I agree with Reich, but it's simply not true about the rate hikes.

Of course there are some, and it's going to be much worse in red states with churlish governors who didn't expand Medicare. But they're in the tiny minority.

I'll dig up a link. Don't believe the lies.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... top-news#/


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

Interesting. I don't know why the states are resisting expanding medicare. Those are the guys with systems in place already running. It will cost more to do it any other way I would think. They're flinching at the cost of course. It's a big subject.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

It's subsidized by the Federal Government, Dave! 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3161

They're just churlish, as I said, and the people in their state are suffering.

I don't go into palpitations at the word "Republican" for no reason! That party really does suck!


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> It's subsidized by the Federal Government, Dave! !



Yes I was afraid of that Nick : )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Well, you understand how the basic principle works, right?

Repeat after me:

For everyone to be covered, everyone including healthy people has to pay into the pool. And people who can't afford to pay into the pool have to be subsidized.

The numbers really do add up - it's not at all arbitrary - and if someone's premium goes up it's not because the scheme is faulty (or Communist if you're Marc), it's because the insurance companies want to raise their rates. Or because people aren't paying in, but despite a f-ed up website at the beginning, they now are. It really is working.

Now, people like me would much rather have a single-payer system and get rid of the damn insurance companies and their excess bureaucracy altogether, but the politics of that were never going to happen. It was too radical a change.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 7, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> Well, you understand how the basic principle works, right?
> 
> Repeat after me:
> 
> ...



I dunno. I think it was an utter failure of whipping the horses into shape. The Blue Dog Democrats like Baucus would have derailed single payer, but there really could have been a better bill if it was written on course and on time. What ended up coming into being was a blowjob for the insurance industry who now have millions of new customers and protected profits. The Union exception was a blowjob to the unions. Pragmatic? I guess. effective? Hardly.

As to covering everybody, you know I'm totally with this, and I believe the passage of time will make the policies of yesterday look Dickensian as so many things do when seen in the rear view-but at the same time you need to accept the reality that 25%, at LEAST, of the American population don't give a CRAP about covering everybody. It flies in the face of their "I get mine, go get your own" theory of what the original concept of America was.

Marc may be one of the ones caught in the middle. I'm one who was never going to have to pay hardly at all, as part of my corporate wife's retirement deal was "Cadillac insurance", so now we pay substantially more than we would have. I don't mind, it's my contribution to what I believe...but I don't think I'm the norm.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

I guess we'll never know whether you're right, but you may well be.

Just a public option would have been better, but what can you do. Meanwhile I'm happy for what we did get.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 7, 2014)

Also, "protected profits" is the half empty version of "they have to pay out 85% of what they take in."


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 8, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> Also, "protected profits" is the half empty version of "they have to pay out 85% of what they take in."



Sadly, I'm deeply cynical about the possibilities of that, having watched my wife fight insurance companies for years. (you think I'M tenacious...) :wink:


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 8, 2014)

The majority of Americans have been for healthcare for everyone. I don't think that's really been an issue. Not everyone thrilled with the way it was passed or with certain things in the law. But it is law and should be tweaked in a bipartisan way until it becomes streamlined and effective. Personally I thought it should have started as a safety net only for the uninsured with an eventual provisional ability for insured people to switch over to it. I think funding was probably the issue there. In any case, the way it was presented to the American people (you can keep your Dr., etc.) should have been the way it worked which would have been a smoother transition and not the political football it became. That would have been better for everyone including the president.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2014)

> The majority of Americans have been for healthcare for everyone. I don't think that's really been an issue.



Really? What I saw was the majority of Americans being in favor of healthcare for themselves and anyone they care about. Everyone else can go f themselves...hence we have a Republican party: the party of ME (as opposed to WE).


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 8, 2014)

I remember seeing a lot of polls where it was over 80% which is very near the same percentage of what the polls are currently showing for immigration reform. Those numbers don't necessarily reflect support for particular bills though.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 8, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> I remember seeing a lot of polls where it was over 80% which is very near the same percentage of what the polls are currently showing for immigration reform. Those numbers don't necessarily reflect support for particular bills though.



At least 25% of the country would support an immigration "reform" bill that included two provisions:

1. Build much taller fences with deadly electrified barb wire.
2. Round up 12 million people and deport them.

Sad, but true.


----------



## gbar (Nov 9, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember seeing a lot of polls where it was over 80% which is very near the same percentage of what the polls are currently showing for immigration reform. Those numbers don't necessarily reflect support for particular bills though.
> ...



Has there been a point in the last 200 years where that was not true?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 9, 2014)

gbar @ Sun Nov 09 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> ...



I'm not sure, to tell the truth. Reagan was pretty immigration friendly.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 9, 2014)

From CNN about the 60 Minute interview:

Obama isn't the first, and won't be the last, president to see his party get swept in the final midterm elections during a two-term presidency. But now after witnessing his final election from the Oval Office, he says that he's realized "campaigning and governance are two different things."

6 years later. Mmm.

Side point-I saw Bill Maher live in Manhattan last night-awesome. I don't know where he gets the energy. He did his HBO show live Friday night, flew cross country and did the Beacon Theater on NYC for an hour and a half show-and about a third of it was about the election, in other words, fresh material.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 10, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sun Nov 09 said:


> 6 years later. Mmm.



This is what I meant about Cameron. You always get given an unwritten, unspecified period in governance. You can blame previous parties, and rightly so generally, for the crap that's been left lying around. But after a period of time drifts by, the public instinctively knows that you're never going to step up to the plate. And that's when the trouble starts.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 10, 2014)

It's kind of hilarious how much in denial liberals are in their ivory towers. Candidates were smart to try and distance themselves. Obama said it himself, "My policies are on the ballot...." This election was very much about the economy. All the polls leading up to the election were very clear. People are very unhappy and unhopeful about the state of the economy, it's the number one concern. This wasn't a mandate for the Republicans as much of a means of stopping Obama and and crew from doing more of their failed policies and ideaology.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 10, 2014)

Diffusor @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> It's kind of hilarious how much in denial liberals are in their ivory towers. Candidates were smart to try and distance themselves. Obama said it himself, "My policies are on the ballot...." This election was very much about the economy. All the polls leading up to the election were very clear. People are very unhappy and unhopeful about the state of the economy, it's the number one concern. This wasn't a mandate for the Republicans as much of a means of stopping Obama and and crew from doing more of their failed policies and ideaology.



All indicators are pointing to a much better economy. less unemployment. etc. 
obama has been doing a good job. the only bad thing has been republicans view of him. which imo - its some sort of deep issue racial thing.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 10, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> 
> 
> > I remember seeing a lot of polls where it was over 80% which is very near the same percentage of what the polls are currently showing for immigration reform. Those numbers don't necessarily reflect support for particular bills though.
> ...



the US needs immigrants. so imo it would be better to give immigrants a long path to citizienship and pay steep fines and mandatory english tests. with those fines pay for a big long militarized wall to help fend off illigal crossings and drug smuggling.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 10, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 08 said:


> > The majority of Americans have been for healthcare for everyone. I don't think that's really been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What I saw was the majority of Americans being in favor of healthcare for themselves and anyone they care about. Everyone else can go f themselves...hence we have a Republican party: the party of ME (as opposed to WE).



true. obamacare gave millions of americans healthcare which should be done in any developed nation. 

on the other hand, it shuold just have been called it a tax and not have to deal with anything. Like in Canada, just good healthcare for everyone and no weird plans and options and complicated paperwork. 

im sure republicans will come in and ruin it for all of those who needed health care. 
but in turn will make it possible for the 1% and insurance companies to get huge earnings which in turn invest in other countries.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2014)

"This wasn't a mandate for the Republicans as much of a means of stopping Obama and and crew from doing more of their failed policies and ideaology."

Exactly what failed policies and ideaology [sic]?

I find it hilarious how stupid voters are. Only it's not hilarious, it's pathetic.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2014)

Definitely a nation of racists, and those Black, Hispanic, Black Female, White Female, Gay, and White Klansmen Male Republicans are all there to vote on Non African Legislation...... :roll: 

I thought I'd come back and see if any legislation has been past as I figure here in this forum I'll get the Fox MSNBC breakdown w/o having to watch Federal/Corporate media.

Nothing new is being said, just the same tired talking points from the 2 Crime Families, parroted by worshippers of both false prophets.

Hey if you guys want to see how you're being duped, start looking at the coincidences, the laws that were passed, but pushed off after the election, the things that have occurred starting the very next day (boots on the ground), etc.

Start watching the shit they don't think you'll notice and stop the Sheep fights.

Usually during a lame duck back door deals are way out of hand as the beaten distributors tack on billions to bills trying to line more cash up before they leave, etc.

FOIA requests are already being made, but due to an honest Government they won't be ready until after the next election when the Hooved worshippers no longer remember the names of the people that bent them over.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 10, 2014)

White Klansmen (and ladies) are all pussies.

My religion makes the KKK look like a kindergarten. o=<


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2014)

Racism basically starts in DC with the politicians.
It then filters out to their gated communities and Great Society neighborhoods.
These separated groups never work together or have gone to churches or schools together, you can't find a single white politician in DC who allows their kids to go to a Union Public School they've created, much less one where blacks might be sitting next to their kids.

In Middle Class America whites, blacks, Asians Hispanics, Indians all live together and work together. Our children go to school together, so over in the UK please don't let our media or the parrots convince you that we are racists.

It's just that there are wealthy politicians who scare blacks with KKK pictures and posters of lynchings, over hype any black kid getting shot, never mention the neighborhoods where blacks are gunned down, many innocent children too, not just the drug dealers, but telling people how terrible the Great Society neighborhoods truly are, takes cash away from Slum Lords, politicians and leaders in the Civil Rights Industry.

Take it from an honest Joe like me Adrian, racism is big money for slave owners.
Just today I was under the bridge at the Ohio River to take pictures of the massive amount of Coal we export to Europe and China via barges, and there was a dozen folks on break, blacks whites and Hispanics smoking some herb and having a brew.
These are the pictures politicians and race hustlers don't want you to see.
They want Ferguson to burn, store owners do too as they have stocked their shelves in anticipation of Al Sharpton Inc.
But this time, they have cardboarded windows, and will empty the shelves 1 day before the verdict.
Then the insurance will cover all recent receipts and repairs and they too will make a fortune.

So there's always money involved, and sadly lots of less educated or experienced people see these tragedies and walk away now thinking white people hate them, or blacks will beat you in front of your wife then rape her.

Jesse Jackson and Eric Holder might even get their own show on MSNBC after this.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2014)

chimuelo, are you still posting that both parties are the same?

Still? Five years of the same post?


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 10, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> The dork with eight chins said it very plainly: our number one goal is to see that Obama fails.



Taking potshots at someone's appearance is childish. You may not like McConnell's ideas but once he reaches that final moulting stage he's really going to have his eyes on the future.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2014)

Diffusor @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> It's kind of hilarious how much in denial liberals are in their ivory towers. Candidates were smart to try and distance themselves. Obama said it himself, "My policies are on the ballot...." This election was very much about the economy. All the polls leading up to the election were very clear. People are very unhappy and unhopeful about the state of the economy, it's the number one concern. This wasn't a mandate for the Republicans as much of a means of stopping Obama and and crew from doing more of their failed policies and ideaology.



Funny-I'm a liberal and I'm not in denial at all.
I find it funnier though, in a sort of horrified way, that conservatives conveniently forget how bad things were when Obama took office. We were bleeding jobs, giving socialism to banks and insurance companies and deeply involved in two costly, bloody wars of choice.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 10, 2014)

adriancook @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> White Klansmen (and ladies) are all pussies.
> 
> My religion makes the KKK look like a kindergarten. o=<



Druid??


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2014)

Sorry Choc. Sorry for being childish.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 10, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> adriancook @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > White Klansmen (and ladies) are all pussies.
> ...



Roman Catholic.

But my wife is a member of a cult religion which makes up for any weirdness of the past 2000 years.

Edit: Druid hahahahah. We put them all to the sword years ago.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2014)

Both parties are exactly the same, Chim.

Ted Cruz Lashes Out Against Net Neutrality, Calls It 'Obamacare For The Internet'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/1 ... 33584.html


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2014)

Nick My Brotha'.
It's not what these clowns say, but what actually gets passed that counts.
Nothing gets passed, so they get to stay and rattle off more stupid shit.

Funny though, nobody seems to remember the silly little Ted Cruz that wanted to extend the deadline for Obolacare, and was called a terrorist, suicide bomber by wealthy Liberals, then on October 1st, the President himself now agreed with this obstructionist racist son of a motherless goat........hence the extension until March 1st, when the 1 billion dollar website started working......Now it's 2 billion, because see, the Liberals said they only needed billions more to fix things. Brilliant guys really. We call them dumb, but they are the ones getting the billions now aren't they.. o-[][]-o 

Dude, you can't make this shit up.

I said back in 2009 this disgusting marriage of Liberals and Big Insurance companies they demonized weeks earlier was going to be litigated for years to come.

How could a peasant middle class racist son of a Steel Worker know more than the NYTimes...??? :mrgreen: 

You shouldn't get all emotional over such terrible actors, these guys couldn't land a job as an extra in a Playboy Bunny Detective movie.
They themselves don't even believe the shit they rattle from their mouths.


----------



## gbar (Nov 10, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> Ted Cruz Lashes Out Against Net Neutrality, Calls It 'Obamacare For The Internet'
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/1 ... 33584.html



I saw that nonsense. Guess Comcast got their money's worth now that he's officially endorsing their right to restrict your access to legal content on the internet.u


Hey, but we get the world's ninth fastest internet in return for letting telecoms decide which sites we can access .


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2014)

Let's see, our Border Agents are being fired upon by 50 caliber rifles and even the Mexican Military Helicopters are in on the fun, the reports in Mexican Newspapers reach the USA, our Parrots are told to scrub the articles, they obey since they make billions every 2 years for negative ads, 35,000 people are dead from the chaos there, 200,000 dead in Syria, ISIS is threatening to run over Baghdad, we are sending boots on the ground, since the last 300 executions of Sunni Tribesmen, yet Americans suffer so terribly under these slow speeds and access.
South Korea and Japan are leaning towards dealing with China directly since they do not trust our "leaders", Ukraine is being invaded......

And our leaders scare us with Obamacare/Internet regulations, and to think that the suffering Americans must endure under these evil Telecoms are so bad, we must be saved.

I agree, screw those dying massacred people, children and women being sold as slaves, I want to download Midget Porn faster, and since they are not full sized humans the speeds should take half the time, and be half the price.
How can we save ourselves from these evil Telecoms, where do I sign up at..... 0oD

They make my case even stronger, see how both Crime Families decide what is important, and distract us from real problems.

I'd say these guys have us figured out pretty well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2014)

"It's not what these clowns say, but what actually gets passed that counts. "

Therefore there's no difference between Nancy Pelosi and John Boner.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 11, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> ... 35,000 people are dead from the chaos there [in Iraq], 200,000 dead in Syria, ISIS is threatening to run over Baghdad, we are sending boots on the ground, since the last 300 executions of Sunni Tribesmen...


Yes and as far as Iraq, the American people are very unhappy about this colossal foreign policy blunder resulting in such loss of life. The solution which is that we are currently at 1/3 the size of the proposed residual force that would have prevented it. However, if you vote your displeasure at this kind of failed leadership you are called 'stupid' in these parts. So you are called stupid for coming to conclusions that only a stupid person could not reason themselves or refuse to - or something.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 11, 2014)

Dave you're definitely not stupid. 

1500 'advisors' are going over from the USA but as I mooted to Larry, there's a very good chance heavily mechanised armies from the US and UK will follow should it get completely out of hand now that Congress is Republican.

Kids having traded in there video game consoles for now flying drones can be effective, but armies on the ground are a different proposition especially when they get cross.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 11, 2014)

I do not like this in any way!


----------



## AC986 (Nov 11, 2014)

germancomponist @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I do not like this in any way!



Don't worry Gunther! Angela's not going to send any of you is she.  

That would be a serious first.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> Diffusor @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > It's kind of hilarious how much in denial liberals are in their ivory towers. Candidates were smart to try and distance themselves. Obama said it himself, "My policies are on the ballot...." This election was very much about the economy. All the polls leading up to the election were very clear. People are very unhappy and unhopeful about the state of the economy, it's the number one concern. This wasn't a mandate for the Republicans as much of a means of stopping Obama and and crew from doing more of their failed policies and ideaology.
> ...



Yeah if you count seasonal and part-time work as economic growth, and then forget about the 10 million that are out of the workforce and not counted.

Oh yeah, the race thing. If you don't like Obama you must be a racist. I get it. Incidently, blacks have done worse under Obama than they did under Bush.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> ...



What other sane country in the world would take on 12 million or so unskilled and dependent "immigrants"? Which would only serve to further displace and disenfranchise the poor and minorities already here. What other countries can you go to with no "papers" and not be deported when you are found out?


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 11, 2014)

adriancook @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> germancomponist @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not like this in any way!
> ...



Angela is a puppet!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2014)

> If you don't like Obama you must be a racist.



No. But if you post that sentence you must be.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 11, 2014)

adriancook @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Dave you're definitely not stupid.
> 
> 1500 'advisors' are going over from the USA but as I mooted to Larry, there's a very good chance heavily mechanised armies from the US and UK will follow should it get completely out of hand now that Congress is Republican.



Adrian, it was never a hawkish position to leave behind a residual force. It was prudence and common sense designed specifically to avoid a hawkish solution down the road. It isn't the republicans sending in more troops, it's the commander in chief.

Bad foreign policy will get the party in power the boot and has many times in this country. This principle should not be conveniently avoided when evaluating the extreme displeasure of the electorate. God only knows what the Republicans are going to do but doing worse on foreign policy than this administration would be a miraculous achievement indeed.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> ...


italian immigrants, irish immigrants, german immigrants and so on for the whole history of the US. i dont think past immigrants had a doctorate or enough money. numbers are relative. 12 million within 300 million. there was less population in the USA with the different migrations happened to the US. still , poeple didnt welcome any of the them with so open arms. 
also, if you want food in your table that doesnt cost an arm and a leg them those immigrants might come in handy.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

gsilbers @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> ...



There's nothing wrong with legal immigration. You didn't answer my question. What other country in the world would allow 12 million "illegal" immigrants to stay in their country and give them citizenship?


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 11, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> > If you don't like Obama you must be a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> No. But if you post that sentence you must be.



i cant find a reason why so many republicans (and from "middle 'merica") suddenly have become so against obama even though a lot of his polices dont stray away from the same old 2 party system, other than there is some wierd deep rooted racial thing going on. 
i mean, the only thing thats different is obamacare and that could be argue within context but i just read all the comments in yahoo and msn about any article and its the same, no matter what he does or say its always the worst. even with polices that are republican in nature. heck, even gun control , obama has been one of the most lax in policy and yet every right wing nut claims he is going to take away them guns...


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> > If you don't like Obama you must be a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> No. But if you post that sentence you must be.



Liberal policies have done as much harm to african americans. Before the "Great Society" percentage of children born to a single black parent was around 5% to 15% depending on what numbers you want to believe. After 40 years of liberal "intervention" it is now over 70%. This is directly related to african american poverty and crime.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 08 said:
> ...



What sane country would propose to round up and deport 12 million people, most of whom came here to feed their families? What sane country would break up millions of stable nuclear families by sending some of them back? What sane country would allow illegal immigration with a wink and a nod because agricultural combines wanted to profit via cheap labor, cheaper than it could ever get from the embedded citizenry, and then pretend it had no complicity??


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 11, 2014)

I would be so delighted if the voters would choose their politicians by what they are doing, and not by what they are (only) saying!


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

gsilbers @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > > If you don't like Obama you must be a racist.
> ...



I seem to recall Republicans and conservatives being just as opposed to Clinton and Carter. Only difference is Obama is half-black so "race" can be a valuable tool to use to stamp out opposition. That's not to say there aren't some racists who don't like Obama solely due to his skin color. But it doesn't surprise me that Republicans don't like a Democrat, just like a Democrat doesn't a Republican; it's pretty simple to understand really. For example, do you really think a Republican would like Obamacare out of principle? Do you think if Hillary was president and had done that those racist Republicans would totally have supported it? Oh wait, Hillary was totally knocked down on healthcare when she tried it in the 90's.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > gsilbers @ Mon Nov 10 said:
> ...



Name another country that has allowed 12 millions undocumented "immigrants" to stay in their country. I will be waiting for your answer.

And I am with you on the "wink". I think the best way to solve the problem would be to levy heavy fines and criminal prosecution to companies knowingly employing illegal immigrants. I am not totally opposed to a limited and controlled amnesty but enforcement of the border and employment control would have to be in tandem.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> ...



That's a reasonable position, depending on how "limited and controlled." Throw violent criminals out? Absolutely. Make it a difficult but do-able process for most? Sure. Better border control? Absolutely. What sort of employment control?


----------



## JohnG (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ 11th November 2014 said:


> Liberal policies have done as much harm to african americans. Before the "Great Society" percentage of children born to a single black parent was around 5% to 15% depending on what numbers you want to believe. After 40 years of liberal "intervention" it is now over 70%. *This is directly related to african american poverty and crime.*



Or a completely de-funded public education system driven by tax cuts, combined with prejudice in issuing loans to start businesses, combined with a ludicrously biased law enforcement regime.

Here's an article that addresses the reduction in black women choosing marriage. It reads, in part:

"Theories of cultural decline are irrelevant. Policy not so much. Given the contact rates between the justice system and young black men, and given how that contact affects your employment prospects, the decision by many black women to not marry, and to have less children, strikes me as logical. If we want to change marriage rates, we need to change our policies. Nostalgia is magic. Policy is the hero."

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... ca/277084/


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> ...



I think we are on the same page. Employment control in the sense of not allowing illegal aliens to get jobs and going after companies that knowingly hire them, which would deter illegal immigration. Though amnesty is kind of a double-edged sword, in that it could attract another wave.


----------



## KEnK (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Name another country that has allowed 12 millions undocumented "immigrants" to stay in their country. I will be waiting for your answer...


That's sounds like the European Invasion of the New World, remember that?
Guess that doesn't count though, huh.

This country was built on Genocide and Slavery.
I'm sure you don't like to think so, but we owe the World a lot for Our Prosperity.

Tell you what-
I'll support your re-building the Berlin Wall at the Mexican border,
as long as you tear down the Statue of Liberty first.
Sound good? :mrgreen: 

Do you not know that the entire US Food industry depends on undocumented migrant workers? Start fining DelMonte etc, and your food prices are gonna go way up. 

k


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

KEnK @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Name another country that has allowed 12 millions undocumented "immigrants" to stay in their country. I will be waiting for your answer...
> ...



All the immigrants that came through Ellis Island were all documented, screened and legally accepted or turned away.

And most countries on earth were built upon slavery, conquest and genocide at one point or the other; I don't understand your point. What does this have to do with immigration in modern times or this debate?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2014)

Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> ...



I think we basically are, yes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2014)

> Tell you what-
> I'll support your re-building the Berlin Wall at the Mexican border,
> as long as you tear down the Statue of Liberty first.



Exactly.



> Or a completely de-funded public education system driven by tax cuts, combined with prejudice in issuing loans to start businesses, combined with a ludicrously biased law enforcement regime.



Exactly.

Stephen Colbert, talking to a House committee on immigration: "My grandfather didn't travel 6,000 miles across the ocean to see the country overrun by immigrants!"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2014)

Helping people enables them to need help, therefore lower my taxes. What part of "illegal" don't you understand. Those nasty liberals call me racist, when I get along with the blacks. Illegal immigration bothers me all the time because it's illegal. Government is the problem. Reagan.

The same pile of garbage comes back and smells just as bad every day.


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 11, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Helping people enables them to need help, therefore lower my taxes. What part of "illegal" don't you understand. Those nasty liberals call me racist, when I get along with the blacks. Illegal immigration bothers me all the time because it's illegal. Government is the problem. Reagan.
> 
> The same pile of garbage comes back and smells just as bad every day.



If you recall Reagan did the last amnesty of 3 million so he should be your hero.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 11, 2014)

I think the Liberals are onto something here.

After paying their voter base billions every week, and then seeing how they won't even vote, I'd be pissed too.

Liberals also noticed the Hispanic vote for Governors was 30-50%, and were wise to make the announcement as fast as possible.

Fear not though, common sense isn't so common in the GOP Crime Family. These guys could phuck up a Steel Ball, so don't expect them to win over Mexicans.

Their only advantage is they share similar family values which are non existent in the Liberal Crime Family where a good work ethic is discouraged.

Here's a single image describing this thread.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 11, 2014)

> And I am with you on the "wink". I think the best way to solve the problem would be to levy heavy fines and criminal prosecution to companies knowingly employing illegal immigrants. I am not totally opposed to a limited and controlled amnesty but enforcement of the border and employment control would have to be in tandem.



which is what i said earlier. see both sides CAN reach an agreement. both sides want the same thing. = deal with 12 million undocumented people in the US.

im not totally against republicans. they do bring some good things to the table. but ranting that obama is terrible and everything is wrong cause of him doesnt help and it makes it look like angry old racist rednecks from the south. 
they also keep shooting themselves in the foot with wierd secondary social issues. i mean, good for gay rights and all, but who the fuk cares besied lke the 7% of the pupulation. Or abortion?= when it can be a individual right issue. 
Or gun control?= when there hasnt been any issues at all. or other polices that are mostly against minorities and women. 
even immigration shouldnt be a #1 issue but its been so long and so many people undocumented that its finally broken. there is also a equal biger issue of sending jobs abroad and companies bringing legal docuemnted workers to fill positions ameericans "dont qualify" which in fact they do but companies dont want to pay that much. 

republicans economic theories, even though i dont agree completly all the time, some being up good points and its refreshing to read about some of these in an educated context. not just saying b'bama sucks and kick 12 million poeple out of the country. 
heck, some of them are actually fighting for our royalty money from streaming!. 

on the other side of things, i do agree with chimuelo that both sides really are at mercy of lobbysts and corporations and are plain corrupt at a big scale. yes, its not bribing the cop or the judge, its changing the law those two use to change things the way someone wants so they make more money.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 11, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I think the Liberals are onto something here.
> 
> After paying their voter base billions every week, and then seeing how they won't even vote, I'd be pissed too.
> 
> ...



Very piquant photo, and so unlike you! :wink: 

My friend-sometimes there are moral stands to take, regardless of the politics. Perhaps nothing can be done, but calling me a sheep for believing, saying and contributing to causes that support the absorption rather than the mass deportation of 12 million people, well, sure, if you like. So-you're a sheep for being a conspiracy theorist like so many others. All Americans are sheep because they do not know the Truth. All citizens of the world are sheep because they do not choose their leaders, the Illuminati does. I mean, where does it end??

Btw-are sheep still sheep?


----------



## KEnK (Nov 11, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Very piquant photo, and so unlike you! :wink:
> 
> My friend-sometimes there are moral stands to take, regardless of the politics. Perhaps nothing can be done, but calling me a sheep for believing, saying and contributing to causes that support...


I took it to be a photo of "head butting" rather than saying "We the Sheeple"
But probably Chim meant both :wink: 

k


----------



## AC986 (Nov 12, 2014)

gsilbers @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> italian immigrants, irish immigrants, german immigrants and so on for the whole history of the US.



I guess that's why everyone speaks English is it?


----------



## AC986 (Nov 12, 2014)

germancomponist @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> adriancook @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Tue Nov 11 said:
> ...



Who is operating this puppet? Certainly not the UK, and we like to operate everyone.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2014)

Brotha' Man Larry, I am also a Sheep, although I call others Sheep, folks like me dislike what's in their house most, meaning I too am a hooved, wooled creature at times.
After all I voted for the President twice and would do so again as his existence has stirred up the staus quo, even if he is just another Liberal.

I saw the recent videos of that coked up beady eyed Professor who is so much smarter than us peasants. He got 400k to teach others how to lie to us stupid Americans.
Sad thing is he either is pretty stupid himself as he forgets there are Cameras everywhere and Supreme Court Judges aren't going to be very kind when the Stop Gap coverage ends in 2015.

But let's assume he truly is brilliant, these recent videos then support my theory that these 2 ongoing criminal enterprises are the same, as now the GOP can litigate this law for the next 6-8 years for a total of 12-14 years of litigation on a law they knew would never work, but line Insurance companies pockets as well as Liberal Trial Lawyers.

I'd say they have the Sheep in the right Pastures.


----------



## eric_w (Nov 12, 2014)

Republicans take control for a few years. Make things messy (Bush). People get sick of them. Vote in democrats.

Democrats take control for a few years. Make things messy (Obama). People get sick of them. Vote in republicans. (According to this trend, the next president will be republican.)

Rinse, repeat... When will people learn?

Many people don't truly like republicans. They just really hate democrats. And vice-versa. We vote not because we particularly like our party, but rather, because we hate the opposing party.

Republicans embrace the warfare state.
Democrats embrace the welfare state (and judging from the last administration, they also embrace the warfare state).

Republicans, democrats; one in the same.

We are in tremendous debt, owned by the federal reserve, our freedoms being taken away, more wars being fought, more dollars being spent. Yet, our politicians keep doing the same things over and over again. And with greater scandals with each election (think: most recent administration). 

But in light of these serious issues, what do democrats care about? The fallacious "war on women." More handouts. Play the cards of racism/sexism/insert-ism any chance possible. Political correctness. Moar taxes!

And what do republicans care about? Need more wars! Moar government spending! Military industrial complex!

Everything the government touches turns to shit. So the answer to this problem? Moar government!

Our politicians are richer than we will ever be. They don't work for us. *We work for them.
*
Our dollar is dead, our system is based on debt. The failure of capitalism is not capitalism at all, but rather, crony capitalism. Big business and big government are a perfect match for each other. Our system is not sustainable. Our government is not sustainable. 

(Well, I suppose it's sustainable to the people in Washington who hold power and all our money.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

Eric - and chim - what you wrote is exactly what the Republicans would like you to believe.

98% of it is totally untrue, of course, but the whole "everything the government does turns to shit" response is exactly what they're trying to elicit by turning everything to shit.

And the whole debt thing is Republican bullshit too. The dollar isn't dead, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with debt...

...bottom line, you people who think you know better than others by not taking sides are the biggest sheep of them all. The parties are not at all the same!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> Eric - and chim - what you wrote is exactly what the Republicans would like you to believe.
> 
> 98% of it is totally untrue, of course, but the whole "everything the government does turns to [email protected]#t" response is exactly what they're trying to elicit by turning everything to [email protected]#t.
> 
> ...



Thinking and reacting objectively means that you don't necessarily pick a "side", as sides tend to insist you see all things as they do or risk committing the sin of disloyalty and incurring the scorn of the ideologically pure.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 12, 2014)

I like the Government Nick, I just don't like seeing Federal Programs used to benefit politicians rather than the people they were designed for.

Also bothers me that Unions which were created to get Americans a better wage, have turned into a shop where nobody ever gets fired, or loses their benefits fro breaking the law, or stealing. 

In real Unions your job is up to you, so you compete with others making everyone better instead of creating this bull shit environment where tax payers are used to give raises to Union Bosses and finance extra negative ad campaign money for Liberals, who then cry about how the Schools and Children are suffering. 

Funny we don't see them suffering, they get hefty 6 figure salaries as if they are worth more than a Firefighter, a Policeman or a Teacher. As a matter of fact it's the workers who get laid off and take a pay cut, not the rich Liberal or his drinking buddy/Union big wig.

Thank these Jerg Ov's for bringing us Citizens United.

I am already wanting to bash McConnell for turning the APEC deal into a joke.
The real story behind McConnell's Pro Coal problems are not the Plants closing but the piss poor trade deals where we export Coal to Europe, India and China so cheap that Union wages have become hard to pay.
The very trade deals he and his Liberal "enemies" signed off on.

In these areas are where these clowns conspire behind closed doors, just like they did with Japan and American Steel decades back.
In case I never mentioned it I am a former Union Democrat 100% gung ho.
Then I watched these clowns in DC point fingers at each other, leave office with bags of cash, destroying middle class America every time they get a chance.

So of course I might be uninformed on issues like free weed and rubbers, abortion, gay rights, ACLU's dismantling of Evangelical symbols in public and private areas. It doesn't matter to me, no big deal.
The Middle Class matters to me, I live there, not where these 2 Crime Families live in their gated communities.

So they both can go to Hell, I know what they really believe in, and it sure isn't Main Street.

Words these clowns relate to from a historical POV.
Kahn=King=Konig=Cain=Con as in Con-victed or Con-trived or Con-game....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

Larry, the point is...you know exactly what the point is. I've posted many times that liberals aren't ideologues. We don't say all government is bad, all spending is bad, or anything that's the opposite of what conservatives claim to believe.

There is no "I'm above the fray" position. You're either someone who supports a party that's reliably going to be on the wrong side of every issue or you're not.

chim, it's not that I don't agree with you that the world is corrupt, it's that you don't seem to recognize degrees of corruption. The whole system is set up that way, of course - politicians have to raise absurd sums of money to get elected.

But it's not true that both parties vote for the same policies, or even that they're beholden to the same donors!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> Larry, the point is...you know exactly what the point is. I've posted many times that liberals aren't ideologues. We don't say all government is bad, all spending is bad, or anything that's the opposite of what conservatives claim to believe.
> 
> There is no "I'm above the fray" position. You're either someone who supports a party that's reliably going to be on the wrong side of every issue or you're not.
> 
> ...



Nick, imo much of what you have to say has the feeling of "I refuse to do their work for them by agreeing with anything they say." For you, it's clearly war. It might be time to consider the idea that we both agree with Obama on most things having to do with policy, but from a practical standpoint, he's been a better candidate than a politician, and that there have been a lot of broken promises to the left as well as a disdain for compromise with or cajoling of the right.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

Other way around. They refuse to do the work of the country by agreeing with anything Obama says. I know you don't want to accept how bad the Republican part is, but it's not even subjective - they suck by any objective standard.

And I disagree 100% that Obama has ever had disdain for compromise with the right. On the contrary, trying to negotiate with them early on was his biggest mistake!

Sorry, there's no way to be nice. These people have taken leave of their senses, and there's just no way to pretend it's all just a friendly difference of opinion and there is no right and wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

For example, what's the first thing these despicable pieces of shit do as soon as they hear Obama has worked out a - okay, I'll say it - historic agreement with China to reduce emissions?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Boehner+McCon ... +Emissions

It's hard not to hate them.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 12, 2014)

Tell the Republicans that we Europeans do not want to have a ww3! Fight it where ever you want, but not in Europe!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> Other way around. They refuse to do the work of the country by agreeing with anything Obama says. I know you don't want to accept how bad the Republican part is, but it's not even subjective - they suck by any objective standard.
> 
> And I disagree 100% that Obama has ever had disdain for compromise with the right. On the contrary, trying to negotiate with them early on was his biggest mistake!
> 
> Sorry, there's no way to be nice. These people have taken leave of their senses, and there's just no way to pretend it's all just a friendly difference of opinion and there is no right and wrong.



Clearly, I'm no more interested in "nice" than you are  

Obama is lousy at personal politics by his own admission!! Your refusal to acknowledge it is telling.

I'm interested in progress, and historically, most legislation has necessitated compromise of one sort or other. The business of government should be to govern, not to be involved in pissing matches that keep the country in stasis and pit its citizens against each other. Yelling across the aisle is doing exactly that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 12, 2014)

germancomponist @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> Tell the Republicans that we Europeans do not want to have a ww3! Fight it where ever you want, but not in Europe!



Gunther- I understand your sentiment, but the retort is painfully obvious.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 12, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Tell the Republicans that we Europeans do not want to have a ww3! Fight it where ever you want, but not in Europe!
> ...



America is broke! 14,46 Billionen US-Dollar liabilities, 98,6 % of the gross domestic product... . What will happen?

Maybe we ask "Goldman Sachs and friends"?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 12, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 07 said:


> First of all, even if what you say is right - and I'm 99% sure it's not - then yes, I'm happy that 10 million new people got health coverage and one person (you) has to pay more.



One? You have no idea what you're talking about. There are tons of stories of people whose premiums shot up. And it's not just the wealthy.

I am a freelancer and currently have a Fixed Benefits plan, for which I pay $160 monthly. The Obama administration does not see fit to count this as "insurance", so I am having to pay the $95 fine for not having suitable insurance. Next year, that fine will shoot up to a minimum of $325, and the year after that, a minimum of about $619. So, this year I am shopping for major medical. 

Before I tell you about the minimum price I found, let me first tell you that I priced major medical from this same company about a year before Obamacare took effect, and the minimum price I could get major medical for was $220.

Now that Obamacare has taken effect, the lowest price I can get for major medical from the same company is $399. I repeat; That's the *lowest* price. That is 81% higher.

I am by no means well-off. In fact, I don't make much at all.

And I know someone else, who makes less than me, who would have to pay around $300.

Do you call that affordable?

Obamacare helps two groups:

(1) those who because of pre-existing conditions previously couldn't get insurance at all and have the ability to pay the high premiums
(2) People who make no money at all

But for people like me, the working lower middle class, Obamacare hurts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

I have no idea what I'm talking about. Okay.

I'm sorry you have to buy better insurance. What state are you in, may I ask?

By the way, has anyone mentioned that 40,000 people were dying every year because they didn't have coverage and showed up at the emergency room when it was too late - at everyone's expense? And that we have 10 million newly covered people?

Never mind that most people's premiums haven't risen any more than they would have done anyway, that people can now keep or buy insurance if they leave their job - for example to start a new business, that kids can stay on their parents' policies until age 26, that check-ups are covered...

What's your answer? It's not that I don't sympathize, but every one of these stories turns out to have extenuating circumstances - without fail, as I'm sure yours will.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Nov 12, 2014)

Just thinking out loud...

It doesn't matter whether I take Europe the US or UK, it applies to all, they refuse to acknowledge that the root of the problems is crony capitalism, predator capitalism, you name it, you know what I mean.

There are approximately 50 million refugees on the move as I type here, and the numbers will increase.

The newly elected President of the European Comission, Jean Claude Juncker, was responsible, de facto he enabled this deal personally, to setup Amazon in Luxemburg with a less than 1% tax rate. The same JC-Juncker stated not too long ago in an interview that


> "When It Becomes Serious, You Have To Lie"



The Foreign Minister of Luxemburg Jean Asselborn, when asked about single story houses in his country that are home to more than 300 companies per house, (For you US folks: Think Ugland house on the Caymans ) he answered yesterday with a smirk "We are a small country with little space, post boxes are smaller than houses."

Why am I stating this example here? It is exemplary for the immense arrogance of the establishment. They are not the political respresentative of the peoploe who elected them. They represent vested interests pushed by enormous Lobby power, they are insanely well paid and looked after once they leave their political posts.

They represent the trickle-down ideologists of the above mentioned cancerous capitalism.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 13, 2014)

germancomponist @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> ...



America is only 'technically' broke. Germany on the other hand is about to go into recession on Friday unless it's very lucky and a country that is not and never have been European, does not even want to be European, or in the European Union, is having to pay money to bail it out.

Don't be fooled by idiots like David Cameron, banging his hand on the lectern either. He knew he had no choice that he was going to have to pay it. All of it btw.


----------



## gbar (Nov 13, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> America is only 'technically' broke..



We're not technically broke or anything remotely like it as a nation. The GDP is currently 16.8 trillion dollars/year and growing, so our ability to pay our bills is about our willingness to keep paying taxes and continuing economic growth.

If you were to assume a model where there were never recessions, for example, we could run a 3% deficit in perpetuity so long as growth was about 3% and tax compliance didn't change. Now, you don't want to do that all the time because sometimes you have recessions, and you might need to run a deficit that is higher, and sometimes there is a question about whether or not some interest groups will rig the system so they don't have to pay taxes, but... we're generally good.

We have a bit of a long-term issue with Social Security and Medicare due to an aging population and people not pumping out as many babies as they did during the baby boom, but something as simple as removing the income cap on SSDI contributions could fix that (though that option is never on the table since the 1980s for some reason). This problem is usually overstated by those seeking to privatize social security and such. It is also where a lot of the total "national debt" lives: SSDI funds buy bonds, so they account for the largest chunk of the "national debt" (it's money we owe ourselves).

In aggregate about 70% of the national debt is money we owe ourselves, so paying ourselves just transfers money from one party to the other without affecting the monetary supply largely, and as QE (a.k.a. LSAPs) proved, when wages aren't rising and the demand for desired savings is high enough, the Fed could buy Tbills if we absolutely had to do that.

I would say that as long was we issue our own currency, the Fed continues to support its dual mandate, and we have even tepid economic growth, there is no problem unless Congress decides to create one (which they did when they threatened to default).

I don't even understand how this type of misunderstanding happens because it doesn't even hold for personal, individual finances, let alone for a nation. I understand that people sometimes have a hard time getting their head around the idea of how monetary systems work when they work, but... everybody has personal finances, so the idea that you can't owe more than you make in a single year seems kind of silly for anybody who buys a home, for example.

When I first bought my current house, to prove the point, I borrowed 220,000 dollars toward that purchase (very large down payment). Now, I haven't made 220,000 in a single year in quite a while, but I am in no danger of defaulting so long as I keep working. If I were to lose my job for some reason, I'd have to get another one within about 11 months, or things might get scary, but?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 13, 2014)

Hey Gunther no wars will be fought in Europe. Russia needs the EU and it's addiction to cheap Gas and Oil.
The Hamburg and Luenen Coal fired Plants are now online.
This is a huge economic boom for Germany that won't be felt until the end of next year, but Putin felt it already, hence the need for a tariff free port already operational to ship Gas and Oil from, under the protection of Syrian and Black Sea Naval Bases.

The "War On Coal" is fake. We have Clean Coal technology already in play, now it's in Germany.
The Deep State (what I call the USA) has total control over the legislative process in DC, and no fake Liberals or Conservatives can change it.
In Nevada there are massive Gold Veins, they can announce full production and overtime schedules that can regulate the markets. That's a serious weapon.
Also by having an already built Pipeline that can be turned off or on at will is another serious advantage.
Predictions of the GOP taking the House and the Senate is what caused Saudi Oil Production to rise. They are Green Energy investors, as are their big oil Billionaires like Bloomberg, Soros and Buffet, not to mention the politicians selling insider trading secrets to family and friends. This type of corruption is the grease that keeps the wheels turning, no big deal really to see a bunch of self serving politicians taking millions in bribes, it's a fraction of the money made by controlling prices in the markets.

30 Billion dollars were levied from Banks for Currency trading recently directly linked to the Gold and Energy costs.

I wouldn't worry about Putin trying to fight a war in Europe.
He needs that infrastructure there, and China will now keep his 2 trillion dollar gas station going to offset the lack of demand in Europe once other Coal Plants come online. I think Putin wishes he could blow up the Seimens Plants in Germany though.

So you see this whole war on coal is a farce.
We have the Coal, the Gas the Oil the Gold right here.

Besides the Ukraine is a death trap for Russian Armor.
In Iraq it was said once the M1 Tanks starting rolling in at 55 mph that the Russian T72s had 5 gears.
4 for reverse and one for forward in case of attack from the rear.

Putin likes soft targets. He loves his recent attention too, but his economy can collapse overnight if certain groups decide it to be so.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> I'm sorry you have to buy better insurance. What state are you in, may I ask?
> It's not that I don't sympathize, but every one of these stories turns out to have extenuating circumstances - without fail, as I'm sure yours will.



It's not better insurance. There is no extenuating circumstance. Nothing changed except Obamacare came in.



Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> And that we have 10 million newly covered people?



Try 2.6 million newly covered people, according to Forbes Magazine, and only 53% of those are paying their premiums!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... y-insured/



Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> (1) Never mind that most people's premiums haven't risen any more than they would have done anyway, that (2) people can now keep or buy insurance if they leave their job - for example to start a new business, that kids can stay on their parents' policies until age 26, that (3) check-ups are covered...



(1) That's a laughable statement. Who in the world told you that? For years and years before I had a limited benefits plan, I had major medical. My premium rate never rose above even 10%, much less 81%.

(2) People couldn't do that before Obamacare? Man, I feel special now, because I must be the only one. I quit my job at the end of 2002, went into business for myself and bought new insurance. And as far as _keeping_ insurance when quitting a job, ever heard of COBRA?

(3) Checkups were covered by most insurance policies before. Under one policy, I had a $20 co-pay. Under another policy, I had no co-pay at all.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 13, 2014)

By the way, I'm a conservative but I don't put my trust in politicians - Republican or Democrats. In my opinion, people who trust the federal government need to wake up.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

Forbes s full of it, and it's being ideological.

Now that you're laughing at me, I'm actually starting to be glad you have to pay more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

> Obama is lousy at personal politics by his own admission!! Your refusal to acknowledge it is telling



Larry, what you said is that he is incapable of compromising with the clowns and laughs at them.

My answer was to that, not saying he's the best politician ever. On the contrary, I think he was stunned by the stupid people he's encountered and doesn't know how to deal with them.

Every time I've been dismayed at him was when he made Republican arguments in an attempt to be reasonable. The worst of that was during debt crap, when those assholes actually had the world convinced we were in a depression because of runaway government spending, therefore we need to cut "entitlements!"


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Forbes s full of it,



The article was not an opinion piece. It had facts to support it.



Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> and it's being ideological.



This entire thread, you've been ideological to the extreme, supporting Obama in every single instance.



Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Now that you're laughing at me, I'm starting to be glad you have to pay more.


The fact is that I'm usually very nice in these types of discussions. And I apologize for laughing at you.

But honestly, if you're going to complain about any lack of civility in these discussions, you need to check yourself first. After all, it was you who from the very beginning, called people who vote Republican "stupid" and "uninformed, disinformed, ignorant, nasty, greedy, or just plain wrong".


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 13, 2014)

Michael K. Bain @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Forbes s full of it,
> ...



You have your people wrong. I'm the complainer re civility. Nick is the snarling attack dog of the left :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

I'm not complaining about lack of civility - I'm complaining about despicable and stupid public policy. And I'm not a snarling attack dog of the left at all - I'm just calling a spade a spade. You notice that nothing I advocate is especially outlandish or ideological.

Michael, I'm not the least bit ideological. I believe in practical reality. And I have criticisms of Obama too.

As to the ACA:

http://kff.org/health-reform/press-rele ... s-in-2015/

http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/Number ... -Fall.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/unins ... arter.aspx

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... access-aca

Point number 1 here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... top-news#/

Etc. etc. etc.

Forbes could be renamed The 1% Gazette. Or maybe The 1% Wannabee Gazette.


----------



## gbar (Nov 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Forbes could be renamed The 1% Gazette. Or maybe The 1% Wannabee Gazette.



If you're going to go with that, you definitely need the 'wannabe' qualifier for the subscriber base

I prefer "The anual list of wealthiest people, some financial news, and why we need a flat tax that disproportionarly burdens the poor Newsletter".


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 13, 2014)

Here's a post from an acquaintance of mine on facebook. He sent me his breakdown on the California elections candidates a couple weeks ago where most of his choices were for Democratic candidates and policies. So he's hardly an ideologue on the right.

"I want to thank everyone who voted for Obama for my insurance rates. My companies medical insurance rates raised 45% last year, 30% this year, and are likely going up 40% next year. We spent more than we paid in premiums so the insurance companies actually lost money on us (it's not the insurance companies fault for the prices). We have actually lowered our coverage and increased the cost to the employees to curb even higher increases. This is out of control."

I don't understand the criminality in being concerned for the people adversely affected by Obamacare such as is being posted here. Do these people really deserved to be attacked or ridiculed? It seems shallow and thoughtless to be that ideological. These are just other folks telling their story.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 13, 2014)

chimuelo @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> I wouldn't worry about Putin trying to fight a war in Europe.



Putin never had this idea! ...


----------



## gbar (Nov 13, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Here's a post from an acquaintance of mine on facebook. He sent me his breakdown on the California elections candidates a couple weeks ago where most of his choices were for Democratic candidates and policies. So he's hardly an ideologue on the right.
> 
> "I want to thank everyone who voted for Obama for my insurance rates. My companies medical insurance rates raised 45% last year, 30% this year, and are likely going up 40% next year. We spent more than we paid in premiums so the insurance companies actually lost money on us (it's not the insurance companies fault for the prices). We have actually lowered our coverage and increased the cost to the employees to curb even higher increases. This is out of control."
> 
> I don't understand the criminality in being concerned for the people adversely affected by Obamacare such as is being posted here. Do these people really deserved to be attacked or ridiculed? It seems shallow and thoughtless to be that ideological. These are just other folks telling their story.



I read these anecdotes on the internet, and I see them circulated in less-than-respectable chain emails, but every single state requires insurance providers to notify them of price hikes/adjustments, and they all have to approve any increase in fees, so you'd think there's be something more than anectdotes circulating around the internet. Something like real data that support the claims, and I don't see much in the way of real data supporting such claims with the exceptions of Minnesota (where rates were really low), Alaska, and a few rural pockets where there is no real competition among health care providers because there aren't many. In the aggregate, rates are down slightly for more people.

On a personal anecdotal note, if I were a smoker, my rates would have gone up a lot (by 50 bucks a month per smoker) . Time to quit if you work for the company I work for. It's the company doing it though. They've just decided they don't want to subsidize smokers 'insurance as much any more. My boss, who doesn't smoke, and who has a family of four to insure in Texas saw his rates increase by 125 dollars a month though, so? Something going on there, I guess? He has two college age daughters on his plan, so maybe that? Maybe it's a Texas thing though. They weren't exactly embracing ACA in Texas and opted out of the Medicaid expansion, so maybe provider costs are still up there?

That's the trouble with anecdotes. I could misrepresent circumstances very easily.

I can get you anecdotes from people who will swear they were abducted by aliens. Hundreds of them. Maybe more. I cant get the kind of data I would need to believe that they were representing the facts accurately however


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

Dave, I just don't understand how anyone can begrudge anyone else health insurance. As gbar says, there are lots of anecdotes, and when you look closely there's almost always a reason for the rate increases that has nothing to do with the ACA.

But once more: there's no such thing as public policy that doesn't have winners and losers. In this case it's not even close - there are millions of winners and very few losers.

Also, here's a statistic for you: 99.999999999999% of the people who complain about Obamacare are Republican ideologues with no soul. Notice that you never hear people whose rate purportedly went up because of the ACA talking about solutions to the inevitable problems with it. It's always "I hate Obama."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

And there's nothing ideological about hating a party that's even made it a point to oppose anything that deals with global warming.

There is simply nothing good to say about the POS other than that they suck, and anyone who votes for a single one of them is totally misguided at best.

You seem to be under the impression that it's perfectly acceptable and rational to hold unreasonable positions. The only reason anyone thinks it's not pathological is because half the country does so.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 13, 2014)

gbar @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a post from an acquaintance of mine on facebook. He sent me his breakdown on the California elections candidates a couple weeks ago where most of his choices were for Democratic candidates and policies. So he's hardly an ideologue on the right.
> ...


This is fact from a very bright guy that I know personally so it's a spurious argument to question it's veracity. As I said he recommended democratic candidates, propositions and congressional candidates to me personally so there is zero agenda or ideology here. The question, giving the accuracy of his stats is how do you respond to this as an issue specifically? (i.e. please don't dodge answering by imposing the argument it's "anecdotal.")


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Dave, I just don't understand how anyone can begrudge anyone else health insurance. As gbar says, there are lots of anecdotes, and when you look closely there's almost always a reason for the rate increases that has nothing to do with the ACA.



It is well established people have taken a big hit in costs because of the ACA Nick. It's hardly hidden in the plan that the costs would be there. As I said, I have a brother who's in the medical field and he's never for a moment denied the reality of new costs. But lets face it, of course there's going to be new costs! That isn't really the issue. It's the percentages of the rises for certain groups of people being so steep. Denying the needs of these people is like denying any other group. I'm just saying that people shouldn't be swamped with huge increases and that this needs to be addressed. I am FOR healthcare for everyone is this country but I don't want to see the kind of percentages in hikes that are all too common.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> Now that you're laughing at me, I'm actually starting to be glad you have to pay more.


Thanks for the sweet sentiment, Nick, but I won't be paying more. I won't be getting insurance because I now can't afford it.

So, ironically, I guess that makes me one of the millions of people you claim to want insurance for.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2014)

Michael, by any chance are you in one of those states where the governor decided against accepting expanded Medicare just because he or she wanted to oppose Obama?


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> I'm not complaining about lack of civility - I'm complaining about despicable and stupid public policy. And I'm not a snarling attack dog of the left at all - I'm just calling a spade a spade. You notice that nothing I advocate is especially outlandish or ideological.
> 
> Michael, I'm not the least bit ideological. I believe in practical reality. And I have criticisms of Obama too.
> 
> ...



Nick, you call policies stupid. That's one thing. You call people stupid. That's another.
People are often products of their environment and the politics therein and are unlikely to change much, but I've never seen comity or solutions reached by one person or group calling another stupid. Never. 

You and I agree on many things (not all) policy-wise, and utterly disagree on that approach. See "Jonathan Gruber".


----------



## AC986 (Nov 14, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 06 said:


> The dork with eight chins said it very plainly:



We have dorks with multiple chins here too. Cameron is in early onset multiple chin syndrome and so is Angela Merkel. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson was actually born with 6 multiple chins and they have increased exponentially through the years.

Incidentally, there's a tiger loose in France. It should be moving to London fairly soon based on statistical evidence mind you, so that'll be another headache, (and more chins) for Boris.

Carry on. Don't mind me.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Michael, by any chance are you in one of those states where the governor decided against accepting expanded Medicare just because he or she wanted to oppose Obama?


No. I live in a state in which the Governor didn't set up state exchanges because he refused to play party of the violation of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause) by an over-reaching president and the subsequent betrayal of the American people by 5 supreme court judges.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Nick, you call policies stupid. That's one thing. You call people stupid. That's another.
> People are often products of their environment and the politics therein and are unlikely to change much, but I've never seen comity or solutions reached by one person or group calling another stupid. Never.



Thank you very much for taking that position.

However, not everyone's beliefs are products of that person's environment. I have a friend who was raised in a liberal home, Democrats everywhere, and she is one of the most conservative people I know.

Vice-versa, I'm sure.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Michael K. Bain @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael, by any chance are you in one of those states where the governor decided against accepting expanded Medicare just because he or she wanted to oppose Obama?
> ...



I utterly disagree with your political view. Roberts probably did not want the Roberts court to go down in history as the one that denied healthcare to tens of millions. That would have been quite a legacy. I was amazed and delighted when he made the humanistic call. The governor of your state stood by his principles (and apparently yours) and in the process, screwed you. Does it make you feel better about not being able to afford your healthcare, his act of what you are considering constitutional correctness?

In all honesty, I could not care less about references to the Constitution or the Bible or any other tome unless it is a living, breathing document that works for justice and fairness for most. The Bible has been interpreted and re- interpreted and re-re interpreted to serve the will of many maladies foisted on the world. The Constitution is generally interpreted to serve the party in power.

Question- do you believe that healthcare is a right of citizens of a relatively prosperous country, or do you think if you can't afford the cashola, it should be denied? The strict Ayn Randian theorem- let 'em starve if they can't afford bread, let em die if they can't afford a doctor. Noble free market capitalism/"Objectivism.". I say screw that.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2014)

You guys shouldn't get over emotional about this legislation. Both parties are the same and they just need to oppose each other to keep that "Fake Outrage" thing alive, and fuel the Sheep Fights that Professor Gruber so eloquently speaks about.

Thankfully Romney, an evil CEO/Capitalist/Republican was first to help his citizens, which led to Liberals being forced to have a plan, it's just too bad they lacked the skills of ever really running an operation and had to demonize the very people they were going to make money with, in order for them to tell politicians what had to be done.

Big Insurance wins my brothers, you'll see in due time as when it becomes obvious the risk pool for payments over 1 million is no longer covered by the tax payers, the GOP will step in and create a compromise where Big Insurance can keep winning, as long as they finance more campaign and negative ad money. 

Surely if Teachers Unions can afford to starve their members to buy politicians, Big Insurance makes that pale with the Dark Money both parties will extract.
These dirtbags are shaking down foreign Governments, all sectors of the global economy now.
The most successful Crime Family in the Planet's history.
I am proud to be lied to by these guys.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Nov 14, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> The governor of your state stood by his principles (and apparently yours) and in the process, screwed you. Does it make you feel better about not being able to afford your healthcare, his act of what you are considering constitutional correctness?



I don't understand. How did him not setting up state exchanges screw me? 



NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> The Bible has been interpreted and re- interpreted and re-re interpreted to serve the will of many maladies foisted on the world.



Why did you go off on that Bunny trail? Who mentioned the Bible?



NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> The Constitution is generally interpreted to serve the party in power.



The 5 Supreme Court Justices actually said that the Commerce Clause prohibits the President from forcing people to buy insurance. But then, in an unfathomable display of political double-speak, they turned right around and said "Oh, but we'll just call the individual mandate a tax so that it can be legal". Never mind the fact that Obamacare's individual mandate was specifically written as a penalty, to avoid being called a tax.



NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Question- do you believe that healthcare is a right of citizens of a relatively prosperous country, or do you think if you can't afford the cashola, it should be denied?



I think that healthcare should be provided to the following groups of people:

(1) Workers 
(2) Children
(3) Those who reasonably try to get work but are unsuccessful
(4) The mentally and physically disabled who cannot work

Those who can work but refuse should not just be given healthcare.

But this ACA mess was not the way to give people insurance. It hurts WAY too many people, especially the middle class business owners and freelancers.

I would support a single-payer health care system - but in the Canadian method, in which private healthcare services are used, not government-run healthcare services, like in the uK).

Okey doke, I answered your questions. Please answer mine:

Do you believe that the government has the right to force people to buy insurance under the threat of penalty?

Do you believe in implementing a system in which people who could afford healthcare before can no longer do so? Why is that fair?


----------



## AC986 (Nov 14, 2014)

Just purely and simply for your information, the NHS is a basket case. It cannot possibly go on operating the way it has done since inception in 1948. Why? Way too many people and way too many immigrants that come here for the NHS. And don't anyone argue the toss on that. That is a fact.


----------



## gbar (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> This is fact from a very bright guy that I know personally so it's a spurious argument to question it's veracity.



I wasn't neccessarily questing its veracity. I was questioning if it clearly represents the facts or if it attempts to scapegoat ACA with an individual circumstance that is unrelated. Though, it might be prudent to question the veracity as well since people sometimes claim to see UFOs--even "smart people".

Smart guy or not. People are weird.

Did your smart friend tell you that he and his fellow voters, for example, voted against making it harder insurers to initiate rate hikes after the 4 largest insurers spent over 50 million dollars to defeat that initiative? Seems like if he was really upset about rate increases, that might have come up in a conversation:

And California's overall rate inflation was pretty low, so? Even the BlueCross Anthem dispute isn't dealing with double digits. If he deviates from the average by a compound magnitude of over 1,000 and isn't spinning tales, the anecdote makes you wonder what is diffferent that makes his case deviate so much from the average..

His numbers seem unlikely unless his employer just shafted him, and he's not used to that happening. I know my employer only pays 30% of dependents' costs now, but that has been the case since the late 1990s when most employers started shifting more costs to their employees.

I really don't see how anybody could deviate that far from the average in their state unless they are not representing their circumstances accurately or are spinning tales. Let's say, I am calling BS because it's just too wild to attribute it to ACA changes. If there had been figures in there like 3-5% and one outlier like 12%, it might be believable because insurers jacked up prices ahead of ACA implementation in California.


The highest average increase for any group of CoveredCalifornia 2015 plans was for SHOP (Small Business Health Options Program ) plans at an average of 5.2%.

So please explain multiple compounded mid-to-upper double digit percentage rate increases. There's either another story to be told, or it's most likely a unicorn.


"About 1.4 million people signed up for individual health plans through the state health insurance exchange in its first year, and premiums for those consumers are poised to rise by an average of 4.2 percent in 2015. That’s about half the increase the industry has seen over the past three years."

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/11/ ... eto-power/

"Consumer Watchdog’s president, Jamie Court, said his group made a final push for votes but was outspent by insurance companies. As of late October, most of the $55 million in opposition funding had come from four major health insurers: Kaiser, WellPoint, Blue Shield and Health Net.".


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Michael K. Bain @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > The governor of your state stood by his principles (and apparently yours) and in the process, screwed you. Does it make you feel better about not being able to afford your healthcare, his act of what you are considering constitutional correctness?
> ...



Rather than go point by point, in general I don't think anyone should be denied health care even if they "refuse to work." If single payer should ever come about, it would be cheaper to pay for everyone than to continually track down the lazy. There will always, always be fraud within systems, public or private.

Yes, i believe government has a right to compel people to buy insurance-what I don't feel government has a right to do is deny care. For me, it's not a Constitutional issue, it's a moral issue. FWIW, I also believe in two years of compulsory national service, not necessarily military, but service of some form. Of all the things government can compel citizens to do (draft, taxes, imposition of martial law, complete invasion of privacy since the Patriot Act) making people pay into national health insurance seems relatively benign to me.

Yes, i believe in implementing a flawed system rather than none, but I also believe those loopholes that hurt people have to be addressed, and I hope and believe they will.
I don't think there's any question that ACA has deep flaws and was a kiss to insurance companies. I'm sorry if you were caught in the crotch of the thing. 

Somewhat OT- those insurance companies, "private industry" that you believe is more efficient than government have also been very efficient at fraudulent practices aimed at denying peoples' claims. Anecdotal, but a close friend worked as an adjuster at a large health insurance company, and the whisper number that filtered down indicated she needed to deny 70% of claims across the board, regardless of validity, for career advancement.

Corporations are not people, regardless of the curious decision by the Supremes. Their sole responsibility is to make money for their shareholders. As a self directed investor in the stock market, I hope for good corporate behavior but don't expect it. My opinion- government has, or should have, different responsibilities and choices.

So now you have me nailed. I'm a tree hugging Commie pinko Independent musician/investor/socio-capitalist/forum bloviator with a son in the military. 

You seem like an intelligent fellow. Obviously we strongly disagree about some serious issues, but it's our shared country. I doubt we'll have a lot of power to change things, 
but we can bandy about opinions and maybe find some common ground, and that's one of the great advantages of a free society. With all of its flaws, I deeply love this place, and I'm sure you do as well.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

gbar @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > This is fact from a very bright guy that I know personally so it's a spurious argument to question it's veracity.
> ...



UFO's??? What kind of bizarre dismissal is that? Someone makes an honest statement that is scientific in nature and that's your response? 

'People are weird.' Now that's worthy of the Harvard debate team. You've got me though because I don't know how to begin to answer a cogent argument like that.

"Did your smart friend tell you that he and his fellow voters, for example, voted against making it harder insurers to initiate rate hikes after the 4 largest insurers spent over 50 million dollars to defeat that initiative?" Now you are assuming facts of which you have no clue and arguing against your own presumptions? Okay I understand your 'People are weird' philosophy a little better.

Pitiful stuff my friend. Why don't you just engage arguments as if the other guy has brain function in the cerebral cortex?

Btw, I have not found a single article anywhere including from the most supportive of the ACA that hasn't acknowledged a large segment of people who lost their healthcare. I'm not denying more people have healthcare that didn't before (for which I'm glad) so why would you deny these other people?

The President apologized for the plight of these people who were promised they could keep their plan etc. Are you saying he did that because he's weird? Or saw a UFO the night before? Trying to apply your logic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2014)

It's not a large segment, Dave. That's the big lie. It's very few people who lost their below-standard insurance, and mostly in red states with petulant governors.

This same healthcare debate goes around and around, and no matter times how many times it's been won (by my side), it starts over as if it hadn't happened before.

Larry said it all. It's a moral issue and there is no free market for healthcare.

This was a Democratic compromise with conservatives, and it was the best they could do. If you don't like the outcome, don't vote for more Republicans and write your legislators to encourage them to fix the issues you're experiencing. That's all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2014)

And by the way, something you wrote the other day is sticking in my craw.

Two Obama foreign policy ministers wrote books disagreeing with him. That doesn't mean they were right and that his foreign policy sucks just because they were in those positions. Obama also got advice from other people, and he chose to take that instead.

I also don't believe for one minute that keeping a residual force in Iraq - which their government didn't allow - would necessarily have prevented ISIS. And right now if they arm Iraqis, where are the arms going to end up?


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

Nick, there are people who have not fared well because of the ACA. It's not a perfect law. It needs to be tweaked so that no one is left out. All the stats I've seen say x number have gained healthcare and x number have lost. The gained number is generally higher which is great but I'm concerned about the lost column. I don't see why that is any kind of political or negative position. 


As far as Iraq, the weight of advisors in the administration and military wanted a residual force of 10,000. They are on the record - lots of them. It's just a very old proven military consideration that is a basic tenant of administering a conquered territory. Even if the administration of that territory is going to be handed back eventually as was done in Japan, Germany and everywhere else with great success. 

Had ISIS invaded Iraq with a US force of that size they would have been met with a far superior and coordinated force including air, land and sea assets. The battleground would have been the open desert. They never would have captured large towns and butchered thousands of people. 

To say that we were at the whim of a government we just installed to dictate anything to us that could potentially lead to the slaughter of it's citizenry is once again gambling against history. No one could possibly argue that a residual force would have allowed an unopposed invasion of that country which is now fighting for it's survival.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2014)

The issue is the stats you've seen, Dave, because what you're saying is simply not true. I posted several links earlier proving that. [Edit: I re-read what you wrote. Yes, the number of people who lost below-standard insurance isn't large.]

And what you're saying about the residual force is conjecture. You believe it, but obviously the people Obama listened to didn't. It was time for us to get out of there, and "lots of people" doesn't mean anything.

Lots of people vote for Republicans, for example.

But lots of people actually could and do argue that a residual force wouldn't have prevented ISIS. It's not a slam dunk at all.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

'Lots of people' meaning virtually all his military advisors and Panetta and Clinton. 

I think the conjecture was in leaving Iraq. That's risky business in that neck of the woods.


----------



## gbar (Nov 14, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> The issue is the stats you've seen, Dave, because what you're saying is simply not true. I posted several links earlier proving that. [Edit: I re-read what you wrote. Yes, the number of people who lost below-standard insurance isn't large.]
> 
> And what you're saying about the residual force is conjecture. You believe it, but obviously the people Obama listened to didn't. It was time for us to get out of there, and "lots of people" doesn't mean anything.
> 
> ...



It's irrelvant anyway. This current Administration tried to negotiate an extension to keep a large residual force there beyond the withdrawal date established by the previous Administration in a treaty they negotiated and signed, and the Iraqi Government wasn't having any part of it at the time anyway. It was either fight everybody, or let them try to do it themselves. This is just a local partisan rhetorical talking point, IMO. It doesn't reflect conditions or obligations we had singed onto at all.

Panetta is understandably upset because he wanted a risidual force there, and he thought he could get an agreement, and he didn't feel like the State Department and the Whitehouse had his back, but the reality is domestic policy in Iraq really pretty much sinched it, I think. Reminds me of when the British tried this a bit.

The Whitehouse would have still claimed they were fulfilling a campaign promise and that they brought everybody home even if 5,000 troops were still there in mostly non-combatant roles, and the only likely difference in local politics would probably be that some folks would be busy pointing out that the Administration said it was bringing everybody home, but 5,000 troops were still there..

The same is true for the initial SFA signed by the previous Administration: Iraqi politics made an agreement reaching beyond 2012 just about impossible when factions in that government wanted to put US troops on trial for war crimes as a condition for having a troop presence in Iraq beyond that date.

I was not a big fan of the decission to go into Iraq without a clear exit strategy and being only dimly aware of the politics of the region, but I don't fault the Bush Administration for signing that deal to withdraw by 2012 all things considered.

------------------------------

Here's FP's take on it:

But what about the extensive negotiations the administration has been engaged in for months, regarding U.S. offers to leave thousands of uniformed soldiers in Iraq past the deadline? It has been well reported that those negotiations, led by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and White House official Brett McGurk, had been stalled over the U.S. demand that the remaining troops receive immunity from Iraqi courts. 
...

In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, "Dammit, make a decision" about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, "My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'" On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, "At the present time I'm not discouraged because we're still in negotiations with the Iraqis." 
...

The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn't about to do either. 


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... gotiations

And here's the Commanding General in Iraq's take (one of the people who tried to negotiate an extension):

"If the Iraqi leadership cannot ... be inclusive of the Sunnis and Kurds, no matter how many troops you put on the ground, this isn't going to work," he said. "So that really deserves to remain our main effort ... making sure [Iraq's Shiite leaders] are doing the right things."

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /18610655/

And this is an excerpt from a newpaper article as the deadline for withdrawal approached:

Any new agreement must be approved by Iraq's parliament, an uncertain prospect. Jawad Kadhim Jubori, a lawmaker whose bloc is tied to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's movement, vowed to fight any move to retain U.S. troops beyond year's end.

"There is no need to clarify a clear thing," he said. "The attitude of the Sadr movement has been very clear since the beginning: It is the refusal to keep any American soldier on Iraqi land. And this is the will of the Iraqis, and not just the will of the movement supporters."

A series of senior U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, has visited Baghdad in recent weeks and urged Maliki to make a decision on whether U.S. troops should stay or go.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06 ... s-20110907


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 14, 2014)

Unfortunately our Allies, who are way ahead in the department of beheading and killings of fellow Arabs, funded the wrong crew in Syria.
Iraqi Sunnis loyal to Saddam never liked their Gulf State brethren and hate everyone in the region, including the Iranian puppets in Baghdad who pushed for war crimes, using our own warm and fuzziness against us.

Obama has been right the whole time. Gulf State Arabs are big on Green Energy as they know it will never happen, but allows them more time to prepare for the Pipeline that was built already, that everyone wants to pretend isn't finished.
Operating Engineers and Concrete crews were done long ago, the final links that need to be put in place are special "national security" type of stations using crews that have a certain skillset.
Same kind of crews that work at night at Yucca Mountain, Mercury Test Site, Fallon NAS, Nellis AFB, Hawthorne underground bunkers, and Area 51.

It's a complex world and no matter what the former Chiefs, Treasury Head, State Dept. folks say, Obama is doing fine by keeping us out of war.

Again as the nation prepares for another Liberal/Conservative war keep in mind these guys play on the same team, and take falls for each other so the game goes on.

Recent proof is threats in advance of Executive Action, Conservatives pretending the war is real, both parties now fund raise their donors for 2 years straight, then watch the Sheep Fights to make sure they still have millions of worshippers.

Further proof is Romney's MIT Professor that was silent until............you guessed it,...after the election.
Funny he seems to know Liberal Sheep pretty well, tells us how Kennedy scammed the system, Romney followed up and brought us the ACA on a State level, and the very same folks now go and create the Liberal ACA, with the same disdain for the voters as they fleece us for millions.

Think back to when 2010 saw Liberals swept out of the house by huge margins.
Even Obama starting talking Conservative after the beating, but then within days Paul Ryan who had no need what so ever to bring the public number back to the favorable 50/50 percentage that benefits both Crime Families, goes out and destroys the victory by announcing a budget to cut entitlements.

Notice the same patterns again with the convenient Professor. I bet he gets millions more for this fake falling on the Sword.
He calls worshippers stupid, I just call them Sheep.
And Yes, I am one of them but my Wool hasn't been long enough to pull over my eyes for a few years now.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

gbar @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> It's irrelvant anyway. This current Administration tried to negotiate an extension to keep a large residual force there beyond the withdrawal date established by the previous Administration in a treaty they negotiated and signed, and the Iraqi Government wasn't having any part of it at the time anyway. It was either fight everybody, or let them try to do it themselves. This is just a local partisan rhetorical talking point, IMO. It doesn't reflect conditions or obligations we had singed onto at all.
> 
> Panetta is understandably upset because he wanted a risidual force there, and he thought he could get an agreement, and he didn't feel like the State Department and the Whitehouse had his back, but the reality is domestic policy in Iraq really pretty much sinched it, I think. Reminds me of when the British tried this a bit.


Yes that's the, "We blew up your country now tell us what to do and we'll obey - no questions asked" argument. 

You cannot leave a fledgling Democracy to it's own devices that way. If Maliki turns out to be a bad actor and excludes the Sunni's then they might refuse to fight for his regime (which of course is exactly what happened.) Or if Iran get's overly ambitious or if the Syrian conflict spills over or the Kurds become unhappy or whatever. The force is there to stabilize and indeed thwart an outright invasion. ISIS invading was a return of those exact forces. The military made the easy call: leave some troops there.

We simply insist on the agreement since it's in the best interest of that country. Obama said he wanted the troops out and did just that. Everyone knows he didn't fight for the agreement. The status of forces agreement by which we are sending in the troops now is that same agreement. It is not a new one and was granted the day we asked for it. There is no need to guess what could happen if we left prematurely, it has happened. A blunder of catastrophic proportions that a guy like Putin must be laughing at. When George Bush describes categorically the folly of leaving too soon then you realize how simple it was to understand.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> gbar @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > It's irrelvant anyway. This current Administration tried to negotiate an extension to keep a large residual force there beyond the withdrawal date established by the previous Administration in a treaty they negotiated and signed, and the Iraqi Government wasn't having any part of it at the time anyway. It was either fight everybody, or let them try to do it themselves. This is just a local partisan rhetorical talking point, IMO. It doesn't reflect conditions or obligations we had singed onto at all.
> ...



Dave- even if one were to concede your point that Obama made a wrong decision on this, you can't deny the irony of forcing a democracy on a tribal people and then refusing to allow them to act democratically.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave, you should become a general. 

Hypothesis for the day: Shiite Iran wants nukes not because of Israel but because they're afraid of a Sunni/Shiite war - and Shiite Pakistan has them.

Is that what's going on?


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Dave- even if one were to concede your point that Obama made a wrong decision on this, you can't deny the irony of forcing a democracy on a tribal people and then refusing to allow them to act democratically.


Larry, the preeminent principle is for that democracy to survive. If you don't ensure that than you're left with political theory and good intentions but no democracy at all. We WANT them to become autonomous but all that becomes moot if you leave them to the wolves within and wolves without. We should have stayed there for their sake and also to avoid coming back which as you know has begun.

Nick, I would like to be a general if only for a nice shiny uniform.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave- even if one were to concede your point that Obama made a wrong decision on this, you can't deny the irony of forcing a democracy on a tribal people and then refusing to allow them to act democratically.
> ...



I guess the answer to my question is no, you don't see the irony  

Let's play question and answer:

Q-So how long should we have stayed?
A-As long as it took.
Q-and if that was 50 years?
A-Then it takes 50 years. We broke it, we bought it.
Q-And if the various coalitions against us continued aligning and costing more American lives each year seemingly ad infinitum, not to mention skyrocketing costs?
A-So it goes.
Q-What will be the specific marker telling us that it's time to withdraw?
A-When the Iraqi democracy was ready to stand on its own.
Q-By whose measure? Do we really expect the Iraqis to wait until WE think they're ready? Do we really expect our own nation to commit to an endless war?

There are certain aspects of Vietnam here.

Anyway, this is all backwards looking. Bush/Cheney got us into this dreadful situation with no exit strategy (because candidly, Cheney didn't give a crap and would have been happy to stay forever) Obama, let's say, made a mistake by not forcing a forces agreement- regardless, this is history. What's the way forward? 100,000 troops, chase the bad guys around the desert? Or try to prop up the weak-ass Iraqi army with a residual force of "advisors"? What's your forward looking thought?


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

As usual your questions are very good Larry.

At least two main considerations would determine the timeline as to our troops staying.

1. Until it is clear that the government leadership is a truly inclusive democracy. We blundered there too as we didn't oversee that and so let Maliki establish a corrupt Shia dominated government. We should have stopped that the moment we got wind of it and got rid of him. What was the eventual solution? We got rid of him. Only after it became a crisis.

2. Until the civil and proxie war in Syria is completely over. That is a lot of pressure on the boarder of a new governmental regime such a Iraq. Armed groups including different Al Qaeda factions who had already successfully occupied Northern Iraq and were only kicked out by the surge. At the cost of American lives. Kicked out to Syria though so for God's sake leave some troops in Iraq! What if Al Qaeda does what it always does and comes back? Let them fight and die in Syria. Not create a safe haven in Iraq and resupply with huge US arsenals of vehicles and munitions. At the cost of thousands of Iraqis. I guarantee you the US knew the Iraqi soldiers wouldn't fight ISIS. The fitness reports and intelligence reports would have forecast that like the weather. If it is an unknown even in the slightest then more reason to keep our boys there longer. What is the current solution? More US troops. We are at 1/3 the residual force size currently but a 50 x's the disadvantage with the freshly armed and city entrenched ISIS forces.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> As usual your questions are very good Larry.
> 
> At least two main considerations would determine the timeline as to our troops staying.
> 
> ...



Dave, do you consider this to be more of a moral or an existential matter for us? Please see "more of" as the focus of the question, as opposed to giving a simple "both" answer.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > As usual your questions are very good Larry.
> ...


Without question it's moral. We tore up their country and tried to make it over in our image. To leave it vulnerable to a second destructive wave that leaves it worse than when we found it (under Saddam) is to have heaped upon these people a misery they don't deserve. We should have guarded them and done everything to help them succeed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> ...



The American people were lied to and misled in an incredibly cynical and disgusting manner that ended up benefiting corporate interests and brown-bagging cash boondogglers to an unprecedented degree. The "we" part is in name only. For me, it will always be "they". THEY did this in the name of MY country by posing a bullsht existential threat.

Nevertheless, your moral argument holds water to me. Honestly, I don't know the answer here, I just know the result-lots of people are going to suffer and die either way. I also know whenever we go anywhere without a clear objective, a determined plan forward and a committed national will, we stumble and fail.

Edit-additionally, I am extremely cynical about whether those who are always beating the drums of war give much of a crap about the Iraqi people. I have not forgotten Mr. Cheney's rhetoric for one moment-actually, I can't since he's still out there spewing it, vampiric death dealer that he is.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 14, 2014)

We have supported the removal of all the strongmen in the region from Mubarak to Gaddafi to Assad to Saddam. So it's not a whacked out proposition to depose these guys at least in theory - to the western mind. The American people supported what is still seen as noble today: to free people from tyranny. But we found out that the Iraqi plan preceded 9/11 and it was used as an excuse and that was cynical. Even so the Shia were freed from Saddam's murderous regime and the Kurds are now free from Saddam's chemical attacks. So there was merit to that even though Americans are pretty unanimous that it was a huge mistake. But the same can be said for removing these other strongmen it seems. It creates power vacuums for other murderous regimes half the time.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 14, 2014)

"The American people supported what is still seen as noble today: to free people from tyranny."

Sorry, Dave. Without honesty, there can be no "support". Tell me my house is burning, I'm gonna get a hose.

Ask Colin Powell how he feels about the nobility involved. They used him like a marionette wearing ribbons and medals.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 15, 2014)

You can always count on a politician telling you how he/she really feels too if the lapdog Press core were to push harder.
When Bush was pressed harder by reporters who weren't hacked, eavesdropped upon or threatened by the DOJ we can remember how he said "Let's not forget, he tried to kill my Daddy."

That sums it up nicely as Saddams Agents were arrested in Kuwait on trying to plot his demise in a Kuwati tour during Clintons term.
Even then if one were to read or listen to various retired Generals of the time on CSPAN before that media outlet became compromised in recent years, they always spoke about how Gulf Allies warned them over and over how taking out Saddam would start a Shia Sunni war in the region, which would threaten their security even more as Saddam was contained.

Seeing how bad guys always withstand Sanctions thanks to weak or corrupt UN members, the Human Rights issue about Iraq's people became a reason, didn't work, so then the Yellow Cake nonsense worked and the New York Times was happy to help sway the public since that's their job really.

Media shareholders get incredibly rich from negative campaign ad money so of course they will carry an administrations water for the right price.
The recent elections show you how they really didn't get it wrong, they got it right as Billions were spent, to media outlets this is the success story, not being right about their Op'Ed's or Polling predictions.

In America you follow the money in politics, media and the sales of legislation.
Stupid Americans are easily swayed, just ask Dr. Gruber, he consistently teaches our elites how to deceive the system and the disdain his employers have for the American voter are obvious to anyone who wants to dig a little deeper than the "headlines."


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 15, 2014)

FWIW The Feds prefer insulation using dozens of staffers, etc. Same as the Mafia has it's Captains and Foot Soldiers who would carry out the orders.

Having Insurance Companies to demonize if the ACA falls apart is wise, as they are evil greedy capitalists (according to the Liberal elite).

So really it's no surprise to see people up in arms over the ACA as now the Government can pick and choose the losers and winners.

That's how insurance works... :wink:


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> "The American people supported what is still seen as noble today: to free people from tyranny."
> 
> Sorry, Dave. Without honesty, there can be no "support". Tell me my house is burning, I'm gonna get a hose.
> 
> Ask Colin Powell how he feels about the nobility involved. They used him like a marionette wearing ribbons and medals.


I think you misunderstood my point Larry which is that the _principle_ of freeing people from tyranny will always be noble. It's the principle that formed our republic and the guiding principle of WWII. The American people thought that's what we were doing in Iraq II. It was what we did in the first Gulf War. The polls now show that the American people are nearly unanimous that the Iraq II was a mistake and should not have been undertaken. 

Governments do things in the name of freeing people to sell it to their populace which is a separate issue from when it's done legitimately.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > "The American people supported what is still seen as noble today: to free people from tyranny."
> ...



Dave-no, I don't think I misunderstood, actually I disagree. I think the nobility of removing a tyrant was a distant secondary issue. What they sold to the American public was the "fact" that Saddam had nuclear weapons, had them pointed at us, and was mad enough to use them imminently. They sold an existential threat soon after 9/11. Ending tyranny was a bonus.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

Yes I remember very well Larry the WMD imminent threat was how it was sold. I'm speaking for myself I suppose because I just saw it as a removal of Saddam and I think a lot of others saw it that way too. I may be wrong about that as I really don't know. He had used chemical weapons agains the Kurds as you will recall. But I don't blame you or anyone for resenting the hell out of that. I guess I'm saying that even if we had a good reason to go in we shouldn't have.

How do you feel about the way Obamacare was sold? You've seen this fellow Gruber explaing the deliberate deception there.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Yes I remember very well Larry the WMD imminent threat was how it was sold. I'm speaking for myself I suppose because I just saw it as a removal of Saddam and I think a lot of others saw it that way too. I may be wrong about that as I really don't know. He had used chemical weapons agains the Kurds as you will recall. But I don't blame you or anyone for resenting the hell out of that. I guess I'm saying that even if we had a good reason to go in we shouldn't have.
> 
> How do you feel about the way Obamacare was sold? You've seen this fellow Gruber explaing the deliberate deception there.



Testing my even-handed approach, Dave?  ok-

I think Obamacare was sold cynically and disingenuously, and I'm very dismayed that single payer was not achieved because I believe there are two imperatives here:

1. I believe a prosperous country has a moral imperative to provide healthcare to its citizens.
2. It is imperative for our economy that we cut the cost of providing healthcare, and by any logical measure, single payer was the way to go and not this endless bj for the insurance industry.

However, I think you're trying to draw a parallel between lying administrations. My answer to that is that what you're trying to imply is actually a false equivalency regarding the objectives of these two administrations and the subsequent results.

In the first, we were lied to, which threw us into an imperialistic war of choice that led to hundreds of thousands dead, millions of refugees and uncountable billions of dollars of profit for American- based multi-national corporations. The region is still in chaos, in large part due to our actions. 

In the second, we were lied to and millions of previously uninsured Americans were able to get healthcare (including, btw, most of the young musicians in the studio complex that I work in, none of whom were previously insured. Anecdotal, but telling to me.) Some costs went up. Most did not. It's not a good bill and hopefully it will be repaired over time, but the parallel? I don't buy it for a second.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

I guess that's where we divide. I don't want my government lying to me about anything. That's perfectly wrong in my book and never acceptable and criminal actually. People go to jail for that sort of thing all the time: lying to Congress.

Okay so some felonious activity by your government is ok if they decide (and you agree) it's good for you or others. Do you trust that they wouldn't lie to you about something that you would be totally against?

Tongue in cheek a little here so please don't take offense. I know you're a fair minded guy.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

Well, I didn't say I approve of it at all. My statement is that the parallel you're drawing is a false equivalency.

I'm not offended by anything you've said, Dave, no worries. Hard to offend me anyway :wink:


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

I'm not equating the outcomes. I'm saying the the US government lying to it's people is criminal both legally and morally for any reason large or small. They don't get to chose when lying is okay. This Gruber fellow displays exactly, that the attitude of contempt for the 'stupid American people' is inseparable from the deception. We're so stupid we have to be lied to. Also the expected attendant hypocrisy couldn't be any clearer: The guy is on record giving speeches about the deceptions repeatedly. That's a level of stupidity that is almost unquantifiable.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 15, 2014)

This vid is in german language, sorry for this.


----------



## gbar (Nov 15, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Fri Nov 14 said:


> gbar @ Fri Nov 14 said:
> 
> 
> > It's irrelvant anyway. This current Administration tried to negotiate an extension to keep a large residual force there beyond the withdrawal date established by the previous Administration in a treaty they negotiated and signed, and the Iraqi Government wasn't having any part of it at the time anyway. It was either fight everybody, or let them try to do it themselves. This is just a local partisan rhetorical talking point, IMO. It doesn't reflect conditions or obligations we had singed onto at all.
> ...



Well, you have the present commanding General and another former 3-star just released a book saying pretty much the same thing about Iraqis needing to work this out on their own, or we'll keep getting drug back in, and then you have some political types here either playing local politics or trying to second-guess the failure to unite that country in any way except to agree mostly that we needed to go, and then there's Churchill 's "ungrateful volcano" historical lesson that is not entirely irrelevant.

We can't make them all get along, and we can't keep other actors in the region from exploiting those divisions.

What would Churchill do? We know he opposed continued occupation under similar circumstances, and we have 3 and 4 star generals saying a ground war won't unite that country except in conviction we are their enemy.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 15, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> I guess that's where we divide. *I don't want my government lying to me about anything.* That's perfectly wrong in my book and never acceptable and criminal actually. People go to jail for that sort of thing all the time: lying to Congress.


I personally find it odd that any rational person (which you certainly are, Dave) thinks that the government is *not *lying to you about *everything*.

Guys, these fellows are not on your team (whatever team you may be on). They are pretty much sanctioned criminals - America's mafia. The system is broke. The game is rigged. I don't think any of these politicians are worthy of the faith you are giving them (on either side). It just makes me sad.

_Maybe _if there were term limits, the corruption wouldn't be so pervasive... but, alas, the only people who can change that are...


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that's where we divide. *I don't want my government lying to me about anything.* That's perfectly wrong in my book and never acceptable and criminal actually. People go to jail for that sort of thing all the time: lying to Congress.
> ...



Actually Marc, my top priorities are

1.Public campaign financing, so that elected politicians are not (legally)allowed to be financially supported by special interests, and

2. A five year lobbying moratorium, so that public officials cannot (legally)
peddle influence immediately upon leaving office.

I'm not sure about term limits. You may be right.

I stress "legally" because greed and corruption will always be with us.

Also- sure, there's lots of lying in government, but this idea that EVERY politician lies about EVERYTHING is hyperbole, and the accompanying cynicism is ultimately nihilistic. It DOES matter to some degree who you vote for in terms of what happens subsequently. There are so many examples, it would take a lifetime to remark on them all.

I agree that our system is deeply flawed and broken in some important ways, but to throw up your hands and say nothing can ever be done or take an ironic stance (like my pal Chim :wink: ) is playing into the hands of the most cynical of power brokers- those who count on the majority of people to do nothing, not to try, not to care anymore, to accept the what is.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 15, 2014)

My feeling is that if these guys are only in office 4 years... maybe 8 years... then special interests will not have enough time to really take hold.

This one issue alone could change the game. Politicians would go back to being citizen-servants rather than the elites they are today.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> My feeling is that if these guys are only in office 4 years... maybe 8 years... then special interests will not have enough time to really take hold.
> 
> This one issue alone could change the game. Politicians would go back to being citizen-servants rather than the elites they are today.



You make a good point. I haven't given term limits enough thought.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 15, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Also- sure, there's lots of lying in government, but this idea that EVERY politician lies about EVERYTHING is hyperbole, and the accompanying cynicism is ultimately nihilistic. It DOES matter to some degree who you vote for in terms of what happens subsequently. There are so many examples, it would take a lifetime to remark on them all.
> 
> I agree that our system is deeply flawed and broken in some important ways, but to throw up your hands and say nothing can ever be done or take an ironic stance (like my pal Chim :wink: ) is playing into the hands of the most cynical of power brokers- those who count on the majority of people to do nothing, not to try, not to care anymore, to accept the what is.


Yes, this is why I no longer vote. However, I am not sure I agree that _I_ am the one who is playing into the hands of the power-brokers. I do not play their game of thrones nor do I legitimize their rule by voting for them. And, by choosing not to participate, I get to bitch about ALL of them. :lol: 

On a serious note, I *do *care... but I cannot participate in a system that I feel is flawed and ultimately will never represent my interests.

If that is cynical and nihilistic, I am OK with that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 15, 2014)

I don't like term limits as a solution, much as I agree with the problem. Politician is a highly skilled profession, and I wouldn't want to throw out people like Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately the special interests take hold because of the amount of money it takes to run a campaign. $4 billion in the recent midterm!

They spend much of their time fundraising. The problem is especially bad in the House, where their terms are only two years.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 15, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> *Politician is a highly skilled profession*, and I wouldn't want to throw out people like Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders.


And therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a skill. They are supposed to _serve_... and then go back to their lives before _serving _in office.

Do the gig and go back to your day job. 'Nuff said.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Also- sure, there's lots of lying in government, but this idea that EVERY politician lies about EVERYTHING is hyperbole, and the accompanying cynicism is ultimately nihilistic. It DOES matter to some degree who you vote for in terms of what happens subsequently. There are so many examples, it would take a lifetime to remark on them all.
> ...



Hmmm. The only way you could not be playing into their hands it to leave the country or try to get off the grid. Otherwise, you pay taxes, you're constrained by the rule of law, your health is affected by rulings, etc. You may be disgusted, you may be disheartened, but by being non participatory you are guaranteeing you'll have no chance to affect any outcomes. Agreed that the deck is stacked and you have little chance anyway, but not none. You could, for example, run for office. Actual outfront tyrannies don't allow for such things last I heard.

Hey, i participate and bitch about all of them anyway! :wink: 

I think elections can matter. I do not believe we'd have been in Iraq without G.W. B. I know LBJ prolonged the Vietnam War inadvisedly. I don't know if we'd have had a comprehensive highway system without Eisenhower. I don't know how much longer it would have taken for the Berlin Wall to come down without Reagan. I don't know if we'd have a social safety net for the elderly without Roosevelt. I'm fairly sure we'd have had no national health insurance without Obama, though much of it was Romney's plan- he was made to deny his own achievement's good effect, strangely.

I left the Democratic party in disgust years ago and vote as an independent, so I do understand your thoughts. However, in my declining years, I'm attempting to view the glass as half full. I'll get off my soapbox now. o-[][]-o


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 15, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> I left the Democratic party in disgust years ago and vote as an independent, so I do understand your thoughts. However, in my declining years, I'm attempting to view the glass as half full. I'll get off my soapbox now. o-[][]-o


No reason to get off the soapbox, Larry. I appreciate your perspective more than you might know (and most of the people on this thread, really). It is just something I have struggled with for years now. The ideal of public service is a wonderful thing, but it rarely seems to work out the way it was intended. There have certainly been heroes (and history has yet to judge recent leaders), but there seem to be more weasels than noble servants these days... reminds me of Gladiator! :wink:

PS - I would love nothing more than to get off the grid!


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 15, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I left the Democratic party in disgust years ago and vote as an independent, so I do understand your thoughts. However, in my declining years, I'm attempting to view the glass as half full. I'll get off my soapbox now. o-[][]-o
> ...



I live in Manhattan but I grew up in upstate NY. Easy to get lost in the Adirondacks.
How do you feel about 5 feet of snow?


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

gbar @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Well, you have the present commanding General and another former 3-star just released a book saying pretty much the same thing about Iraqis needing to work this out on their own, or we'll keep getting drug back in, and then you have some political types here either playing local politics or trying to second-guess the failure to unite that country in any way except to agree mostly that we needed to go, and then there's Churchill 's "ungrateful volcano" historical lesson that is not entirely irrelevant.
> 
> We can't make them all get along, and we can't keep other actors in the region from exploiting those divisions.
> 
> What would Churchill do? We know he opposed continued occupation under similar circumstances, and we have 3 and 4 star generals saying a ground war won't unite that country except in conviction we are their enemy.



You have to figure if George W., was able to enumerate the consequences of pulling out prematurely with such great accuracy (his team obviously) than a guy with the uncanny ability to see the world chessboard like Churchill would have in his sleep.

It was really more common sense than great military thinking to stay around until the neighborhood settles down. Afghanistan will show they've learned their lesson. No way will they pull up every stake when they leave there.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sat Nov 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that's where we divide. *I don't want my government lying to me about anything.* That's perfectly wrong in my book and never acceptable and criminal actually. People go to jail for that sort of thing all the time: lying to Congress.
> ...



I agree for the most part as unfortunate as that is. But when you catch them lying you have to give them hell. I don't have faith in either side and do not throw in with either side. The American public will put a team from one side in place and than throw them out - not new given the nature of those folks. I always find myself voting against someone that I see as the worst of two choices.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 15, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Sat Nov 15 said:


> Actually Marc, my top priorities are
> 1.Public campaign financing, so that elected politicians are not (legally)allowed to be financially supported by special interests, and
> 
> 2. A five year lobbying moratorium, so that public officials cannot (legally)
> ...


If you can put term limits on George Washington and Abraham Lincoln you can put them on anyone. 

I like your lobbying clause.

These billion dollar elections are out of control. I don't know how you would vet who gets funded but I would like to see an even playing field for candidates running for office.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 16, 2014)

The reason term limits and special interests will never get changed is the same reason you can't give 8-10,000,000 people health care and take it away.
In the next 2 years the GOP can ruin themselves forever by wasting our time and money litigating this, as that was the plan all along that Insurance Companies wanted.

The best way forward is to make this program into a single payer system, off of an already mature single payer like Medicare.
If these dumb asses would simply look at technology and medicine like a doctor instead of a self serving bureaucrat they could see the trends.

1) 10 Million new people not enough Health Care workers.
Basically a crisis in the making, but 2 kids in my immediate family are graduating from Nursing College in 2015. They owe close to 100k.

2) Elementary Math skills tell us to increase the number of workers needed, while expanding the tax base says to give graduates at least a 50% reduction in debt, maybe up to 75% depending on how well their grades were.

There's a great opportunity here for true representation of the Middle Class, my guess is whoever comes up with a way to incentivize this obvious need, will be in power for a long time.
Add 5-10 Million more "Illegal" aliens, and you can see the potential growth factor here. Let them send their children to Nursing College too.

This would also inspire children in Great Society neighborhoods too, and even add an AFL-CIO Health Care workers Union, as private Unions while still being corrupt will be a far better option than feeding more politicians membership dues for negative ad campaigns.

Have some vision, look in top the future, imagine your kids, maybe yourself as being part of something that actually provides a real service, and trust me the demand is only going to rise for at least 10 years.

If the Crime Families do not see this they are un worthy to remain among us, and need to be eliminated.
This is why I really like Independents as such thinking outside of the usual self serving box is what I want to see.

As far as the poor in America go, this is an opportunity for kids destroyed by life in a Great Society neighborhood to have a purpose too.
For those folks it's way to easy to fail and so hard to succeed.
Shocked that leaders in the Civil Rights Industry can't think about their own people and push for this, instead of organizing riots.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2014)

chimuelo @ Sun Nov 16 said:


> The reason term limits and special interests will never get changed is the same reason you can't give 8-10,000,000 people health care and take it away.
> In the next 2 years the GOP can ruin themselves forever by wasting our time and money litigating this, as that was the plan all along that Insurance Companies wanted.
> 
> The best way forward is to make this program into a single payer system, off of an already mature single payer like Medicare.
> ...



Great idea.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 16, 2014)

> And therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a skill. They are supposed to serve... and then go back to their lives before serving in office.
> 
> Do the gig and go back to your day job. 'Nuff said.




It's not as simple as just serving and being a good person with common sense. Good politicians are policy experts, for openers, and they have to understand and see creative solutions to complicated issues as they come up. They also have to be good managers (to manage their staffs), good speakers, good salespeople, good negotiators...and all that takes experience and more.

I'm not saying most politicians meet all those requirements, but term limits throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Someone like Ted Kennedy *became* a great legislator, for example. It didn't happen because of Camelot or anything else.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 16 said:


> > And therein lies the problem. It shouldn't be a skill. They are supposed to serve... and then go back to their lives before serving in office.
> >
> > Do the gig and go back to your day job. 'Nuff said.
> 
> ...



I don't mean to be contrarian about this because I partially agree with you- but then there's Jesse Helms. To some degree, it depends which side of the aisle you're on, how well this term limit thing works.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Nov 16, 2014)

A quote I just saw here on v.i. control:

"Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are driving taxi cabs and cutting hair" - George Burns 

I would add "surfing internet forums" to the list. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 16, 2014)

Larry, the question of whether you agree with a politician is separate. Jesse Helms was a complete jackass, of course, but there used to be Republican politicians who you could respect but disagree with. Or at least not want to take a shovel to.

The old John McCain, for example. Remember McCain/Feingold (campaign finance reform bill)? That was before Sarah Palin.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 16, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 16 said:


> Larry, the question of whether you agree with a politician is separate. Jesse Helms was a complete jackass, of course, but there used to be Republican politicians who you could respect but disagree with. Or at least not want to take a shovel to.
> 
> The old John McCain, for example. Remember McCain/Feingold (campaign finance reform bill)? That was before Sarah Palin.



Yep. Bob Dole. Bush 1. Etc.


----------

