Conquer Club

I was talking to another business owner yesterday, and the subject of Obamacare came up. She showed me a letter she received from her insurance company. In the letter, in the very words of Obama, it said "If you like your current policy you can keep it." But in the very next paragraph the company warned her, that the policy had to be modified to meet Obamacare standards...or she could be fined. So if it's modified, it's not the same policy she and the company had agreed to, an imposition forced upon both parties by the general government. And....the modified policy will cost more. She can't afford it.

She also told me of her daughters predicament. Her daughter spends all she makes on bills. She can't afford the cost of even the basic insurance required by Obamacare. Odds are that she, a healthy young woman, will not have any catastrophic disease, because most young people are relatively healthy. Obamacare requires young people, who won't be using much healthcare, to pay the way for older folks who will. Feasting on the young, yup, that's a very civilized idea.

This is called socialism.

We must pressure our Senators to do the right thing, defund and repeal this 2,700 page atrocity of an act of congress.

Night Strike wrote:Think there's no media bias?

NYT, 6/25/13, on Wendy Davis: 'The Great Abortion Filibuster.'

NYT, 9/24/13, on Ted Cruz: 'The Embarrassment of Senator Ted Cruz.'

Spoiler

isaiah40 wrote:One of my FaceBook friends posted this this morning:

I was talking to another business owner yesterday, and the subject of Obamacare came up. She showed me a letter she received from her insurance company. In the letter, in the very words of Obama, it said "If you like your current policy you can keep it." But in the very next paragraph the company warned her, that the policy had to be modified to meet Obamacare standards...or she could be fined. So if it's modified, it's not the same policy she and the company had agreed to, an imposition forced upon both parties by the general government. And....the modified policy will cost more. She can't afford it.

She also told me of her daughters predicament. Her daughter spends all she makes on bills. She can't afford the cost of even the basic insurance required by Obamacare. Odds are that she, a healthy young woman, will not have any catastrophic disease, because most young people are relatively healthy. Obamacare requires young people, who won't be using much healthcare, to pay the way for older folks who will. Feasting on the young, yup, that's a very civilized idea.

This is called socialism.

We must pressure our Senators to do the right thing, defund and repeal this 2,700 page atrocity of an act of congress.

Yep so much for keeping her same policy!!!

Baron Von PWN wrote:Question. Even with this ridiculous filibuster is this Ted fellow even able to prevent the bill passing? If he is, what does it say if one person(or a small group of people) can hijack the legislative process ? If he can't, why is he actively wasting the time of the legislature seeing as the bill will pass either way?

thegreekdog wrote:No Good Politics

Frigidus wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:One of my FaceBook friends posted this this morning:

I was talking to another business owner yesterday, and the subject of Obamacare came up. She showed me a letter she received from her insurance company. In the letter, in the very words of Obama, it said "If you like your current policy you can keep it." But in the very next paragraph the company warned her, that the policy had to be modified to meet Obamacare standards...or she could be fined. So if it's modified, it's not the same policy she and the company had agreed to, an imposition forced upon both parties by the general government. And....the modified policy will cost more. She can't afford it.

She also told me of her daughters predicament. Her daughter spends all she makes on bills. She can't afford the cost of even the basic insurance required by Obamacare. Odds are that she, a healthy young woman, will not have any catastrophic disease, because most young people are relatively healthy. Obamacare requires young people, who won't be using much healthcare, to pay the way for older folks who will. Feasting on the young, yup, that's a very civilized idea.

This is called socialism.

We must pressure our Senators to do the right thing, defund and repeal this 2,700 page atrocity of an act of congress.

Yep so much for keeping her same policy!!!

I'd take Facebook posts and chain e-mails with a grain of salt. Not saying that everything on there is true or that I like Obamacare, but there's a lot of propaganda out there.

oVo wrote:Ted Cruz is a tea party puppet blinded by the tea bags over his eyes. His "debate" remarks during the campaign never actually answer questions and were nothing but reciting conservative mantras. He does love the spotlight even when there is nothing intelligent to contribute, which tends to be the majority of the time during his short political existence. Fact is, dumb Texans likely mistook his name on the ballot for Tom Cruise and figured it was time to elect another GOP movie star to represent them.

Meanwhile in Texas Wendy Davis filibustered the Texas State Senate when the Governor attempted to pass a bill closing women's health clinics in Texas on the final day of the legislative session. She drew so much attention to a legitimate good cause that I'm guessing Cruz thinks he can also can political traction by standing up against the Affordable Care Act.

Baron Von PWN wrote:Question. Even with this ridiculous filibuster is this Ted fellow even able to prevent the bill passing? If he can't, why is he actively wasting the time of the legislature seeing as the bill will pass either way?

BVP wrote: If he is, what does it say if one person(or a small group of people) can hijack the legislative process ?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Frigidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Obama did a good job of it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Obama did a good job of it.

Either 'he quit' or more people realized that his stated goals were not his actual goals. Would you go with the former or the latter?

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Obama did a good job of it.

Either 'he quit' or more people realized that his stated goals were not his actual goals. Would you go with the former or the latter?

I don't think you wrote that correctly (or at least in the way you meant). The president got re-elected despite his stated goals being different than his actual goals. In other words, he managed to convince folks (to borrow the president's term) that he cared about stuff that normal folks cared about, despite evidence to the contrary in his first four years.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Obama did a good job of it.

Either 'he quit' or more people realized that his stated goals were not his actual goals. Would you go with the former or the latter?

I don't think you wrote that correctly (or at least in the way you meant). The president got re-elected despite his stated goals being different than his actual goals. In other words, he managed to convince folks (to borrow the president's term) that he cared about stuff that normal folks cared about, despite evidence to the contrary in his first four years.

Oh, yeah, that could be the case, but I'd allow for the possibility that it takes many people >4 years to realize this.

To be clear about my first post, all I'm saying is that many of his supporters thought Obama 'quit', but in my opinion, Obama had never actually quit; he simply has continued to pursue his own goals--regardless of his stated goals.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Question. Even with this ridiculous filibuster is this Ted fellow even able to prevent the bill passing? If he can't, why is he actively wasting the time of the legislature seeing as the bill will pass either way?

Other than gaining prestige/power within his party, he's also signalling to his constituents some fulfillment of their expectations (e.g. "stop the ACA"). If the politician is fulfilling the desires of his constituents, then it's not quite a waste of his time. Besides, there is some chance that the bill might not pass, so why not try (from their perspective)? Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

And let's recall that after we remove the rhetoric, the Democrats weren't open to compromise on this issue, so we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans will pursue the next best alternative of delaying until they regain control. That's reasonable--as far as politics goes.

BVP wrote: If he is, what does it say if one person(or a small group of people) can hijack the legislative process ?

BigBallinStalin wrote: I enjoy the filibuster because it can prevent one party from dominating the legislative process, and this is a key, desirable feature of any democracy. I don't see how having one party dominate the legislative as being optimal.

The threat of filibuster imposes costs, thereby reducing the chances, of passing certain bills, so it's a reasonable and useful tactic--given the circumstances.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

Obama did a good job of it.

Either 'he quit' or more people realized that his stated goals were not his actual goals.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Question. Even with this ridiculous filibuster is this Ted fellow even able to prevent the bill passing? If he can't, why is he actively wasting the time of the legislature seeing as the bill will pass either way?

Other than gaining prestige/power within his party, he's also signalling to his constituents some fulfillment of their expectations (e.g. "stop the ACA"). If the politician is fulfilling the desires of his constituents, then it's not quite a waste of his time. Besides, there is some chance that the bill might not pass, so why not try (from their perspective)? Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

And let's recall that after we remove the rhetoric, the Democrats weren't open to compromise on this issue, so we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans will pursue the next best alternative of delaying until they regain control. That's reasonable--as far as politics goes.

BVP wrote: If he is, what does it say if one person(or a small group of people) can hijack the legislative process ?

I enjoy the filibuster because it can prevent one party from dominating the legislative process, and this is a key, desirable feature of any democracy. I don't see how having one party dominate the legislative as being optimal.

The threat of filibuster imposes costs, thereby reducing the chances, of passing certain bills, so it's a reasonable and useful tactic--given the circumstances.

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:Question. Even with this ridiculous filibuster is this Ted fellow even able to prevent the bill passing? If he can't, why is he actively wasting the time of the legislature seeing as the bill will pass either way?

Other than gaining prestige/power within his party, he's also signalling to his constituents some fulfillment of their expectations (e.g. "stop the ACA"). If the politician is fulfilling the desires of his constituents, then it's not quite a waste of his time. Besides, there is some chance that the bill might not pass, so why not try (from their perspective)? Also, who gets re-elected for saying, "aw shucks, I quit"?

And let's recall that after we remove the rhetoric, the Democrats weren't open to compromise on this issue, so we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans will pursue the next best alternative of delaying until they regain control. That's reasonable--as far as politics goes.

That was beautiful

BVP wrote: If he is, what does it say if one person(or a small group of people) can hijack the legislative process ?

BigBallinStalin wrote: I enjoy the filibuster because it can prevent one party from dominating the legislative process, and this is a key, desirable feature of any democracy. I don't see how having one party dominate the legislative as being optimal.

The threat of filibuster imposes costs, thereby reducing the chances, of passing certain bills, so it's a reasonable and useful tactic--given the circumstances.

and the cost we are talking about is 2.6 trillion (which means 4.5). But this is a game of chess. Let them squabble over the supposed stupidity of a sacrifice. The look on their face when they see the fork, if they even see it at all...

Phatscotty wrote:freestyling this one, I haven't watched it, but the title is intriguing.