BoltProspects Community Forums

BoltProspects Community Forums (http://boltprospects.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Room (http://boltprospects.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   News of the Day II (http://boltprospects.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10386)

Sotnos 04-21-2014 10:40 AM

News of the Day II
 
You know what to do...

Barlow01 04-28-2014 02:31 PM

So after the Donald Sterling tape, a person has spoken in his defense. Donald Trump on Fox news reportedly said he was set up by a "very, very bad girlfriend". It's impossible to make up stuff more ridiculous than comes out of his mouth with no script, but of course if anyone would know a money hungry little tramp of a mistress is The Donald. What a putz!

BurnTHalO 04-28-2014 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barlow01 (Post 167743)
So after the Donald Sterling tape, a person has spoken in his defense. Donald Trump on Fox news reportedly said he was set up by a "very, very bad girlfriend". It's impossible to make up stuff more ridiculous than comes out of his mouth with no script, but of course if anyone would know a money hungry little tramp of a mistress is The Donald. What a putz!

Sterling is saying the same thing. Honestly, she does have motive to do such a thing, and I find it interesting that he isn't appologizing like crazy like you would expect, but is trying to defend it as something he didn't say. Do I believe him? No, and certainly his prior acts make me inclined to believe he did say those things (and completely meant every word), but I do find his response interesting.

Speaking of his prior acts, I think the "Outrage" by current players/coaches is laughable. As I stated before, this is nothing new on him, so I don't know why they all of a sudden are hitting the floor about this.

Let me throw this out there as well, am I in no way defending the ignorant POS or do I have even the slightest bit of sympathy for him (assuming all of this is true which I do). I think it just bothers me to some extent to have guys go and sign with this team when his racism is pretty common knowledge, and then have them complain after they got their contract like this is something new.

RSchmitz 04-28-2014 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barlow01 (Post 167743)
So after the Donald Sterling tape, a person has spoken in his defense. Donald Trump on Fox news reportedly said he was set up by a "very, very bad girlfriend". It's impossible to make up stuff more ridiculous than comes out of his mouth with no script, but of course if anyone would know a money hungry little tramp of a mistress is The Donald. What a putz!

Well, the tape didn't magically make its way to TMZ. It sounds like what Trump is stating should be fairly obvious, given his "girlfriends" checkered past. Sterling is an idiot for allowing it to happen. The vast majority of people harbor stereotypes of some type, but they're just smart enough to keep those private and not reveal their biases to people who have something to gain from the extortion of that knowledge to the public.

Derek28 04-28-2014 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz (Post 167745)
Well, the tape didn't magically make its way to TMZ. It sounds like what Trump is stating should be fairly obvious, given his "girlfriends" checkered past. Sterling is an idiot for allowing it to happen. The vast majority of people harbor stereotypes of some type, but they're just smart enough to keep those private and not reveal their biases to people who have something to gain from the extortion of that knowledge to the public.

I agree with this. It is just in the human nature to be stereotypical towards things. This whole thing with Sterling is a bit amusing honestly. You own an NBA team where the players are predominantly African American and you make comments like this? I honestly wonder if this happened with a NHL owner, if this would be such a big deal?

Flycoon 04-28-2014 04:43 PM

He (allegedly) asked Rollie Massimino waaay back on 1983 why he thought he could coach those n$&@@&$s. Told Elgin Baylor he would like to run the franchise like a plantation; beneficent massa taking care of his happy players.

Nothing new. No TMZ years ago.

This sort of stupidity doesn't (mostly) go away until all of us boomers are six feet under. There will always be some of this stupidity but younger people didn't grow up with institutionalized racism as we did.

WaiverWire 04-28-2014 06:12 PM

He is the perfect example that racism has no boundaries.

Flycoon 04-28-2014 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167751)
He is the perfect example that racism has no boundaries.

Always fewer boundaries for the wealthy.

pete 04-28-2014 07:09 PM

She totally set him up. She knew what he was, and he was too stupid to realize the obvious that she was baiting him and taping him. It sounded like she was reading from a script, for crying out loud.

I found the whole thing creepy and bizarre. The guy's still married and has a girlfriend on the side (I guess it's an open secret?) and is telling said girlfriend on the side he doesn't mind her sleeping with other guys as long as she's not seen with them in public?

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhh, it was very LA. Too LA for me.

BurnTHalO 04-28-2014 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 167754)
She totally set him up. She knew what he was, and he was too stupid to realize the obvious that she was baiting him and taping him. It sounded like she was reading from a script, for crying out loud.

I found the whole thing creepy and bizarre. The guy's still married and has a girlfriend on the side (I guess it's an open secret?) and is telling said girlfriend on the side he doesn't mind her sleeping with other guys as long as she's not seen with them in public?

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhh, it was very LA. Too LA for me.

I agree, that makes the most sense to me. Though how long has the wife been "estranged?"

Barlow01 04-28-2014 08:20 PM

Yes she set him up but he spoke the words. He is the one thinking and believing the words. I have no sympathy whatsoever and am glad his sham of a life of discrimination is now beyond question.

RSchmitz 04-28-2014 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 167746)
I would hope that isn't the case.

I think it goes without saying that the vast, vast majority of people harbor stereotypes. Maybe there is a pure as snow saint out there who can resist human instinct and be completely unjudgemental, but I have yet to see them.

Obviously not condoning what Sterling said. I have no sympathy for him or his money. At the same time, lets be real about what actually happened

WaiverWire 04-28-2014 10:33 PM

At least the actions of some are taking effect. Seems some of his sponsors have cancelled all dealings with him.

timothy 04-28-2014 11:11 PM

My disappointment has no bounds with the Clippers players and especially Doc Rivers, whom I'll refrain from disparaging descriptions of his role within the plantation organization. Opportunity wide open to do something meaningful with respect to calling attention to the continued pervasive and institutional racism in this country. Meaningful. In an epic way. But championships mean so much more....

My guess is that if my wife's Auntie Rita, a veteran of the Nashville sit-ins, were a Clippers player, she wouldn't be playing another game -- NBA championship or not. She already sacrificed far more than an NBA title shot in a previous era.

There's some self-respecting players on that Clippers squad, since it is known a boycott was discussed in the locker room, but Rivers and others quickly shot it down.

BurnTHalO 04-29-2014 05:39 AM

Bomani Jones summed up why this story is bothering me so much INCREDIBLY well.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

Barlow01 04-29-2014 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167765)
At least the actions of some are taking effect. Seems some of his sponsors have cancelled all dealings with him.

And sadly, this is the only way the NBA does something substantial. It's all fair in love and war until you rip a dollar bill out of the clutches of some of these owners, then they'll sell you out with no second thoughts.

Not to mention Adam Silver having to clean up David Stern's mess of neglect.

WaiverWire 04-29-2014 02:07 PM

The NBA has spoken!

$2,500,000 fine, a lifetime ban and the league is going to try and make him sell the team.

Barlow01 04-29-2014 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167786)
The NBA has spoken!

$2,500,000 fine, a lifetime ban and the league is going to try and make him sell the team.

It goes to a vote of the board of governors to force the sale of the team. Which of those guys wants to vote no and risk having results of the vote leak out?

Sotnos 04-29-2014 02:23 PM

Granted, I haven't read much about this incident, but I'm confused about motivation here. If girlie was trying to blackmail him...she did it wrong.

Derek28 04-29-2014 02:31 PM

Is it technically legal to fine and ban someone for a private conversation in that person's home? I get what he said was wrong and all but it's not like he made these comments during an interview out in the public. He made his comments in his own home in a "private" phone call.

WaiverWire 04-29-2014 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek28 (Post 167792)
Is it technically legal to fine and ban someone for a private conversation in that person's home? I get what he said was wrong and all but it's not like he made these comments during an interview out in the public. He made his comments in his own home in a "private" phone call.

Depends on the laws in California. In Florida it is illegal to tape a phone call without permission or a court order.

I have only heard a few seconds of the call. I heard that it was an hour long. Does anyone have a link to the full conversation?

uf1910 04-29-2014 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek28 (Post 167792)
Is it technically legal to fine and ban someone for a private conversation in that person's home? I get what he said was wrong and all but it's not like he made these comments during an interview out in the public. He made his comments in his own home in a "private" phone call.

California's rule on tapping conversations is 2-party consent (or more I guess if more people are present in the conversation). Supposedly this was covered b/c she said Sterling asked him to record his conversations so he could remember what he was saying

uf1910 04-29-2014 03:04 PM

What I really don't understand is why the LA chapter of the NAACP was set to award Sterling with a "Lifetime Achievement Award". What a crock of shit that he was even considered much less set to be awarded

Sotnos 04-29-2014 03:06 PM

That's a phone call? Doesn't sound like one at all.

RSchmitz 04-29-2014 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 167791)
Granted, I haven't read much about this incident, but I'm confused about motivation here. If girlie was trying to blackmail him...she did it wrong.

She extorted 3 million already, and I'm pretty sure the wife is going after that. Probably realized she wasn't going to get any more $$$ and took him down. Doesn't surprise me to see someone do something so petty

Sotnos 04-29-2014 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz (Post 167806)
She extorted 3 million already, and I'm pretty sure the wife is going after that. Probably realized she wasn't going to get any more $$$ and took him down. Doesn't surprise me to see someone do something so petty

Didn't know she had gotten some money already (like I said, haven't read much about this).

I don't know about petty. It doesn't say a whole lot for her that she would put up with someone who apparently viewed her as inferior, but I can't say I mind seeing a giant idiot such as that guy being brought low.

RSchmitz 04-29-2014 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 167807)
Didn't know she had gotten some money already (like I said, haven't read much about this).

I don't know about petty. It doesn't say a whole lot for her that she would put up with someone who apparently viewed her as inferior, but I can't say I mind seeing a giant idiot such as that guy being brought low.

Petty as in it was out or revenge/gain personal satisfaction by downing somebody else. Personally, I just don't like the hypocrisy and mob mentality, nor do I believe that people should be punished for their views as long as they keep them private nor act on them in a business environment.

I shed no tears for the bigot, but in the big picture, its setting bad precedents.

WaiverWire 04-29-2014 10:26 PM

According to the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, Ralph Hudgens, 220,000 Georgians signed up for healthcare. He is reporting that his office asked the 5 insurance companies of that state for the numbers that have paid because the Federal Gov would not give him those figures. As of tonight that number is only 108,000, or less than half have paid and are now covered.

Other states are attempting to get their numbers and so far Illinois and Nevada are seeing the same low numbers as Georgia.

The Commissioner stated that Georgia healthcare premiums should be much higher in for 2015.

Bolthed 04-30-2014 12:44 AM

So the fuck what? So what if half of the 7 million targeted sign ups haven't paid YET? That's still millions of people who are happy to have affordable health insurance. It's a damn good step in the right direction and away from the insane "we don't have an alternative" approach of your poor-hating Koch heads and their conservative flock of sheeple.

C'mon Waiver, what's your next talking point? I mean, surely they've fed one to you. Or do you bother to think about WHY your leaders have nothing but negativity to offer while covering their assets?

BurnTHalO 04-30-2014 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz (Post 167810)
Petty as in it was out or revenge/gain personal satisfaction by downing somebody else. Personally, I just don't like the hypocrisy and mob mentality, nor do I believe that people should be punished for their views as long as they keep them private nor act on them in a business environment.

I shed no tears for the bigot, but in the big picture, its setting bad precedents.

Thats how I feel. Eight years ago he did just as racist things that directly impacted and ruins people's lives, and no outrage at all. But then he says some words about a celebrity and people go nuts.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 167816)
So the fuck what? So what if half of the 7 million targeted sign ups haven't paid YET? That's still millions of people who are happy to have affordable health insurance. It's a damn good step in the right direction and away from the insane "we don't have an alternative" approach of your poor-hating Koch heads and their conservative flock of sheeple.

C'mon Waiver, what's your next talking point? I mean, surely they've fed one to you. Or do you bother to think about WHY your leaders have nothing but negativity to offer while covering their assets?

Bolthed, maybe if you take the time to look at the numbers that were cancelled due to their poor policies, the numbers that signed up for coverage, and the numbers that actually now are covered because they have made a payment or were placed on Medicaid you may find that the numbers look like we may have less now with healthcare than we did prior to the ACA being passed.

That was my point.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167819)
Thats how I feel. Eight years ago he did just as racist things that directly impacted and ruins people's lives, and no outrage at all. But then he says some words about a celebrity and people go nuts.

I'm wondering if he had conversations with other owners and have talked like this over the years and would he come out and say so.

Flycoon 04-30-2014 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167815)
According to the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, Ralph Hudgens, 220,000 Georgians signed up for healthcare. He is reporting that his office asked the 5 insurance companies of that state for the numbers that have paid because the Federal Gov would not give him those figures. As of tonight that number is only 108,000, or less than half have paid and are now covered.

Other states are attempting to get their numbers and so far Illinois and Nevada are seeing the same low numbers as Georgia.

The Commissioner stated that Georgia healthcare premiums should be much higher in for 2015.

Signed up? Or policys in effect?

Big difference. As discussed ad nauseum, payment IS NOT REQUIRED until the effective date of the policy. No pay, no insurance.

By the way, I am a big fan of the State of GA. The levels of stupidity, right wing extremism, and just plain meanness makes FL look good. Take Atlanta out of the state and Louisiana or Mississippi would point and laugh at the state of that state. GA is an embarrassment.

Flycoon 04-30-2014 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167819)
Thats how I feel. Eight years ago he did just as racist things that directly impacted and ruins people's lives, and no outrage at all. But then he says some words about a celebrity and people go nuts.

I see it as an indication of progress. Tolerance of these sort of "opinions" is decreasing.

Except on right wing radio where it continues to ramp up. But that audience is just a wee bit different from the NBA fan base. Probably not much crossover between the two.

Flycoon 04-30-2014 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167821)
Bolthed, maybe if you take the time to look at the numbers that were cancelled due to their poor policies, the numbers that signed up for coverage, and the numbers that actually now are covered because they have made a payment or were placed on Medicaid you may find that the numbers look like we may have less now with healthcare than we did prior to the ACA being passed.

That was my point.

Where is the link to these numbers?

All of the anecdotal crap and assumptions on said numbers are useless.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 167825)
Where is the link to these numbers?

All of the anecdotal crap and assumptions on said numbers are useless.

That is my point. Washington says they don't have them or they won't release them.

From past news reports around 6,000,000 lost their policies. Many of these were able to renew for one more year. According to Washington they were counting those that were able to renew or found a new policy as "sign ups".

I think just over 3,000,000 were added to Medicaid.

But for the ACA to work the end result is not about how many signed up. The end result has to be who are now paying for coverage. Coverage is what matters.

Hell, when the site first came up and was working I assigned up twice to see what it was like and what the fuse was all about. I never made a payment as I already had insurance. So was I counted twice in that figure released by the White House? How many others did what I did?

Now we learn that the back end of the system, the one that allows you to make payments to the insurance carrier, still is not working.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 07:09 AM

And now we have this.

Quote:

If his girlfriend hadn’t recorded his hate-filled diatribe, racist Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling would be getting his second (not a typo) lifetime achievement award from the local chapter of the NAACP. That would be the venerable civil rights organization known in full as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Unless the tape is proven to be fraudulent or doctored to remove mitigating context—both scenarios seem highly unlikely—Sterling is no fan of such advancement. Nevertheless, if TMZ hadn’t obtained the audio, Sterling would have shared the stage with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Reverend Al Sharpton. (On second thought, maybe Sharpton isn’t such bad company.) - See more at: http://rare.us/story/did-the-naacp-i....XA6gIUoq.dpuf
Quote:

Sterling didn’t really deserve his first lifetime achievement award from the NAACP. It came in 2009, shortly after he agreed to a $2.765 million settlement in a case where he was accused of discriminating against blacks and Hispanics in apartment buildings he owned in Los Angeles County. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/did-the-naacp-i....XA6gIUoq.dpuf
Say what??? This guy is a walking, talking bigot and he gets an award for doing what is right. What is this world coming to.


http://rare.us/story/did-the-naacp-i...his-checkbook/

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 07:16 AM

GM bailout was more expensive than we first thought.


Quote:

Taxpayers lost $11.2 billion on the GM bailout, up from $10.3 billion the Treasury Department estimated when it sold its last GM shares on Dec. 9.

A Treasury Department auditor said the government had written off an $826-million “administrative claim” tied to the GM bailout on March 20.

http://www.freep.com/article/2014043...Motors-bailout

Sotnos 04-30-2014 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167821)
Bolthed, maybe if you take the time to look at the numbers that were cancelled due to their poor policies, the numbers that signed up for coverage, and the numbers that actually now are covered because they have made a payment or were placed on Medicaid you may find that the numbers look like we may have less now with healthcare than we did prior to the ACA being passed.

If you're going to say it, prove it. Why should someone else have to do the research?

I think you'll find this is a load of BS.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 167830)
If you're going to say it, prove it. Why should someone else have to do the research?

I think you'll find this is a load of BS.

Prove it wrong

Today the cost of their web site fix was released. $121,000,000. This is more than they paid to build the site.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 167830)
If you're going to say it, prove it. Why should someone else have to do the research?

I think you'll find this is a load of BS.

From NBC

Quote:

They said the widespread cancellations in the individual health insurance market — roughly 5 million and counting -- are in line with what was projected under regulations drawn up by the administration in 2010, requirements that both insurers and businesses objected to at the time. Cancellations also are occurring in the small group market, which covers businesses with between two and 50 employees, they noted.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/in...ey-f2D11603425

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypip...cancellations/

Quote:

More than 3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program since October, according to new data released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Friday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...id-enrollment/

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-b...g-the-numbers/

And this is from the latest figures that says we reached the 8,000,000 mark. Remember this also includes the 3,000,000 that were added to Medicaid, so the real number of non Medicaid policies is roughly 5,000,000.

The 50% numbers were from a show that the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Georgia quoted. He claimed that of the 220,000+ that had "signed up" for healthcare only 108,000 have followed through and made a payment and thus the other 112,000+ do not have healthcare.

He also claimed that the States of Illinois and Nevada are seeing the same numbers.

And found this.................

Quote:

Georgia insurers received more than 220,000 applications for health coverage in the Affordable Care Act’s exchange as of the official federal deadline of March 31, state officials said Wednesday.

Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens, though, said premiums have been received for only 107,581 of those policies, which cover 149,465 people.

“Many Georgians completed the application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage,” Hudgens said in a statement Wednesday.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/21/ha...-sign-ups-have

Quote:

But fewer than half have paid for the first's month's premium on those policies -- an essential step in buying coverage through the federal insurance marketplace, a report from Georgia'sInsurance Commission said.
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle...l#.U2ENzWdOX3g

He went on to say that his office had to do the calculations as HHS will not provide the "in-service account" numbers. He, like Illinois and Nevada had to call each insurer in their state and ask for the number of "in-service" policies from the ACA.

Now the reason that HHS does not have the "in-service" policy numbers could be because the back end of the web site, the part that allows you to pay for your selection, still is not working and it is not known when it will be working.

uf1910 04-30-2014 12:04 PM

I won't add anything to this conversation beyond this, but these are cold hard facts. I work in a Tampa based family business that is over 100 years old. We have 2 locations and for the past 20+ years we have offered health insurance to our employees. Prior to the ACA our health costs had been consistently rising by 5-20% per year with our highest year cost coming in around $250K (and that's just the company contribution). Post ACA we exhausted every avenue to continue offering health insurance, HOWEVER, the cheapest plan that met the ACA requirements would have raised the company obligations 140% over prior year.

Now, we are a small business with a total of approx 75 employees between both branches. Our health plans, while not the greatest compared to other "big" companies, was decent. We worked hard to find the best plan year after year. We obviously would have continued offering health insurance but with the rise in costs we would in our best years be working for free just to cover health expenses. We now offer a health plan reimbursement to employees where we took last year's health costs, subtract the "fine", and divvy up the remaining $ in a monthly stipend to employees to more or less cover their personal health expenses.

As for me, I am 33 and my new plan sucks compared to what I had before. My script costs doubled from a co-pay of $15 for my thyroid drug to now being $29 (same drug). All the while paying $267 per month premium.

I don't want to get in a back and forth with anyone regarding personal views, but these are real facts that not only my family's company faced but many other small businesses around the country.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uf1910 (Post 167840)
I won't add anything to this conversation beyond this, but these are cold hard facts. I work in a Tampa based family business that is over 100 years old. We have 2 locations and for the past 20+ years we have offered health insurance to our employees. Prior to the ACA our health costs had been consistently rising by 5-20% per year with our highest year cost coming in around $250K (and that's just the company contribution). Post ACA we exhausted every avenue to continue offering health insurance, HOWEVER, the cheapest plan that met the ACA requirements would have raised the company obligations 140% over prior year.

Now, we are a small business with a total of approx 75 employees between both branches. Our health plans, while not the greatest compared to other "big" companies, was decent. We worked hard to find the best plan year after year. We obviously would have continued offering health insurance but with the rise in costs we would in our best years be working for free just to cover health expenses. We now offer a health plan reimbursement to employees where we took last year's health costs, subtract the "fine", and divvy up the remaining $ in a monthly stipend to employees to more or less cover their personal health expenses.

As for me, I am 33 and my new plan sucks compared to what I had before. My script costs doubled from a co-pay of $15 for my thyroid drug to now being $29 (same drug). All the while paying $267 per month premium.

I don't want to get in a back and forth with anyone regarding personal views, but these are real facts that not only my family's company faced but many other small businesses around the country.

And the sad thing is that you are one of what they say will be many many many millions more like you when the employer mandate for businesses kicks in.

We are being told that our county offered plan, which I pay for, is going to be one of those Cadillac Plans and be taxed for having a benefit to good. Funny how the unions were able to get themselves exempt.

uf1910 04-30-2014 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167842)
And the sad thing is that you are one of what they say will be many many many millions more like you when the employer mandate for businesses kicks in.

We are being told that our county offered plan, which I pay for, is going to be one of those Cadillac Plans and be taxed for having a benefit to good. Funny how the unions were able to get themselves exempt.

The worst part is, even though the gov't delayed the employer mandate until 2015, they didn't do so until February. Well we operate in fiscal year and so did our health plans. The delay came too late for us to continue "status quo" for 2014 b/c we couldn't wait to see what was going to happen. Come December 31, 2013 our plan was expiring and we had to proceed according to the rules as they were or leave the employees without coverage "hoping" that it would be delayed or anything else. All the while we still were faced with a huge hike in the company obligations just to offer an "ACA compliant" plan. I'm sure many other small businesses had to make the same hard decisions for 2014, and many others will be faced with the same decision come 2015.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uf1910 (Post 167843)
The worst part is, even though the gov't delayed the employer mandate until 2015, they didn't do so until February. Well we operate in fiscal year and so did our health plans. The delay came too late for us to continue "status quo" for 2014 b/c we couldn't wait to see what was going to happen. Come December 31, 2013 our plan was expiring and we had to proceed according to the rules as they were or leave the employees without coverage "hoping" that it would be delayed or anything else. All the while we still were faced with a huge hike in the company obligations just to offer an "ACA compliant" plan. I'm sure many other small businesses had to make the same hard decisions for 2014, and many others will be faced with the same decision come 2015.

My next door neighbor is a CFO for a business with 53 employees. He ran into the same problem as you. Being a family operation they did not want to lay anyone off to get under that magic number. Instead they did just what your employer did.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 01:02 PM

First let me say this. Fox is the only place I could find the White House and Benghazi email that came to light in a FOIA by Judicial Watch. Seems we now know where Susan Rice got her talking point. If you look at who was CC in the email most are the same people that denied any knowledge of where she got her talking points.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...ghazi-on-film/

Now this email does not lay any blame as to why or what agency, if any at all, was to blame that one night. This email only asks why were those in this email claiming they knew nothing?

UPDATE

Carney now says this email is not about Benghazi. ABC News try's to press Carney on this issue.

Now Judicial Watch claims that the FOIA only requested emails on Benghazi. So how can Carney make such a claim when this email was in that group?

Sotnos 04-30-2014 01:29 PM

When in doubt, bring up Benghazi. :rolleyes:

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 167849)
When in doubt, bring up Benghazi. :rolleyes:

When in doubt, close your eyes. Once again we have been lied to.

WaiverWire 04-30-2014 02:57 PM

Very sad day for those that follow Mad Magazine through the years as Al Feldstein has died at the age of 88.

Was one of my favorite reads though out the years.

http://tbo.com/news/business/al-feld...t-88-20140430/

Dman21 05-01-2014 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167854)
Very sad day for those that follow Mad Magazine through the years as Al Feldstein has died at the age of 88.

Was one of my favorite reads though out the years.

http://tbo.com/news/business/al-feld...t-88-20140430/

I enjoyed reading the parodies in those when I was younger. RIP

BurnTHalO 05-01-2014 07:08 AM

Gotta love that the people who kicked and fought and kept health care from being what it should be are the same ones now placing all the blame on others for it's shortcomings.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167902)
Gotta love that the people who kicked and fought and kept health care from being what it should be are the same ones now placing all the blame on others for it's shortcomings.

Say what???

The ACA was written and passed by a majority in the house and senate which was controlled by ne party. Not one single republican voted for the ACA. And I do recall when the republicans sat at a table with Obama and gave him and the democrats ideas on how to make the bill better. You have to remember, it was the meeting that Obama promised would be on tv and ended up on cspan or something like that.

Any way a few of the ideas were very good ones and even Obama said so. Other ideas were awful. Guess how many of the republican ideas got into the bill? NONE

The ACA is 100% democrat so enjoy it as the democrats own it.

ZeykShade 05-01-2014 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167930)
Say what???

The ACA was written and passed by a majority in the house and senate which was controlled by ne party. Not one single republican voted for the ACA. And I do recall when the republicans sat at a table with Obama and gave him and the democrats ideas on how to make the bill better. You have to remember, it was the meeting that Obama promised would be on tv and ended up on cspan or something like that.

Any way a few of the ideas were very good ones and even Obama said so. Other ideas were awful. Guess how many of the republican ideas got into the bill? NONE

The ACA is 100% democrat so enjoy it as the democrats own it.

1989 Heritage Foundation - Assuring Affordbale Healthcare for All Americans

Nevermind that you're attributing the flawed, but better than what we had, ACA to the Democrats while conveniently ignoring the GOP's "Get sick? Better Die Quick Plan". If you really want to attribute the ACA to someone, attribute it to the assorted industry lobbyists who are gonna make bank from it.

the_narrow_way 05-01-2014 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167930)
The ACA is 100% democrat so enjoy it as the democrats own it.

:spitcoffee:

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 167933)
1989 Heritage Foundation - Assuring Affordbale Healthcare for All Americans

Nevermind that you're attributing the flawed, but better than what we had, ACA to the Democrats while conveniently ignoring the GOP's "Get sick? Better Die Quick Plan". If you really want to attribute the ACA to someone, attribute it to the assorted industry lobbyists who are gonna make bank from it.

Just one question for you ZeykShade..............Did the republicans ever implement the 1989 Heritage Foundation - Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans?

ZeykShade 05-01-2014 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167958)
Just one question for you ZeykShade..............Did the republicans ever implement the 1989 Heritage Foundation - Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans?

So the overall butt-fucking of the Overton Window is your defense? 1989 Republicans are pretty much today's Democrats, so in that sense, yes is the answer to your silly question.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeykshade (Post 167959)
so the overall butt-fucking of the overton window is your defense? 1989 republicans are pretty much today's democrats, so in that sense, yes is the answer to your silly question.

hahahahahahaha

BurnTHalO 05-01-2014 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167930)
Say what???

The ACA was written and passed by a majority in the house and senate which was controlled by ne party. Not one single republican voted for the ACA. And I do recall when the republicans sat at a table with Obama and gave him and the democrats ideas on how to make the bill better. You have to remember, it was the meeting that Obama promised would be on tv and ended up on cspan or something like that.

Any way a few of the ideas were very good ones and even Obama said so. Other ideas were awful. Guess how many of the republican ideas got into the bill? NONE

The ACA is 100% democrat so enjoy it as the democrats own it.

So you are saying the Republicans had no influence over this bill? You are saying THIS is the bill that Democrats wanted (not, you know, Universal coverage)? Are you willing to go the next step and say that the Republican solution to the health care problems of this country were far greater, went much further, and would have helped people even greater?

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167962)
So you are saying the Republicans had no influence over this bill? You are saying THIS is the bill that Democrats wanted (not, you know, Universal coverage)? Are you willing to go the next step and say that the Republican solution to the health care problems of this country were far greater, went much further, and would have helped people even greater?

What I am saying is that the democrats had full control of the house and senate and could do what they wanted. The republicans did not cast one vote for the ACA. This bill was the result of 100% input form the democrat side.

I could care less what took place in 1989 or with the Heritage Foundation. What took place then was never ever implemented and only used as a foundation to the ACA because the democrats could not agree on what the bill should look like. Instead those that wanted a single payer system saw this as only as a stepping stone.

The problem with the ACA is that the WH has issued far too many exemptions to the law and has extended delay after delay. This is all while the roll out of the web site crash and to this day the back end where you can make a payment for your insurance selection still does not work.

Then there are parts of this law that are totally being ignored IMHO. The biggest is before the courts and if the court sides with those suing, the ACA will implode.

And if that happens you can not blame the republicans for writing the ACA. It was written and passed by the democrats. Sad part is that I do believe that most will be so fed up that any chance for a single payer system will be pushed back for years.

BurnTHalO 05-01-2014 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167963)
What I am saying is that the democrats had full control of the house and senate and could do what they wanted. The republicans did not cast one vote for the ACA. This bill was the result of 100% input form the democrat side.

I could care less what took place in 1989 or with the Heritage Foundation. What took place then was never ever implemented and only used as a foundation to the ACA because the democrats could not agree on what the bill should look like. Instead those that wanted a single payer system saw this as only as a stepping stone.

The problem with the ACA is that the WH has issued far too many exemptions to the law and has extended delay after delay. This is all while the roll out of the web site crash and to this day the back end where you can make a payment for your insurance selection still does not work.

Then there are parts of this law that are totally being ignored IMHO. The biggest is before the courts and if the court sides with those suing, the ACA will implode.

And if that happens you can not blame the republicans for writing the ACA. It was written and passed by the democrats. Sad part is that I do believe that most will be so fed up that any chance for a single payer system will be pushed back for years.

You avoided my questions completely. You believe there was no influence by Republicans on this (don't care what the votes say)? And what is the Republican solution that you are so in favor of that would do so much better?

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167964)
You avoided my questions completely. You believe there was no influence by Republicans on this (don't care what the votes say)? And what is the Republican solution that you are so in favor of that would do so much better?

I did not avoid your question. Maybe you just did not like my answer.

If you are talking about the bill that became the ACA then yes, not one member of the republican party in the House or Senate contributed to that bill. They offered ideas, but ever one was rejected or ignored. And please don't bring up "Romneycare" as the members of the US House and US Senate never voted for that law.

As we all know as of today there still is no republican solution. I just know that there are many like me that do not like the ACA. Has the ACA help some people? Absolutely. As it harmed some people? Absolutely.

I agree 100% that no one should ever be denied coverage. I also believe that someone should not have to pay more because they have a medical condition.

I believe that you should be able to purchase insurance across stateliness, but I do not believe we should be mandated to purchase insurance if we do not want to.

I believe that any doctor, clinic, hospital, treatment center, and pharmacy should be able to offer their services to all, and not just one insurance company.

I do not believe the President should create exemptions and waivers to the ACA, but instead follow the law as written or seek a change via Congress.

nutznboltz 05-01-2014 03:57 PM

My daughter signed up for health care then saw the dental coverage was so cheap she decided to sign up for that too. And she was able to pay directly thru the HC website, and her account was charged within a week. I had to do a lot of persuading to get her to sign up, as she is still at the age where she thinks she is invincible health wise, but at least now I have peace of mind that if she gets in a bad car accident on the way to work, or gets hit by a drunk driver after going to a club on a Friday night, that she doesn't bankrupt her or myself (me trying to help her pay her health care/hospital bill). She has the catastrophic coverage, but I can at least help her out with meeting the deductible if necessary. A $100K+ hospital bill for a 5 day stay would be a stretch to pay.

Was the ACA meant to solve all the issues right out of the gate, or was it something just to get the process started that could be tweaked as we went along? Health care coverage is a necessary evil now, just like any other insurance coverage, and I feel would have kept escalating out of most working people's price range eventually. At least this is a start to try and rein in costs and stop making the Rick Scott's of the world multi millionaires on the back of the working class.

Bolthed 05-01-2014 06:10 PM

WW, if you have those beliefs, why don't you call your representatives and express yourself instead of playing political football with something so obviously critical to our economy and well being? You come off as a "red side/blue side" scorekeeper too often with remarks like "enjoy it, Dems, you own it." Fuck that noise.

I can't stand the way an entire political party has committed itself to obstruction, and I think it's shameful that their supporters either don't have a problem with it, don't care or don't do anything about it.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 167985)
WW, if you have those beliefs, why don't you call your representatives and express yourself instead of playing political football with something so obviously critical to our economy and well being? You come off as a "red side/blue side" scorekeeper too often with remarks like "enjoy it, Dems, you own it." Fuck that noise.

I can't stand the way an entire political party has committed itself to obstruction, and I think it's shameful that their supporters either don't have a problem with it, don't care or don't do anything about it.

Bolthed, you think I haven't already done that?

For about 7 years prior to retirement I made about 5-6 trips each session to Tally to let my views be known to the Senate and the House. To this day I still get a call every once in awhile from this one state agency asking for my input. I have even talked to Marion Hammer multiple times to try and get her to change her mind on something, and man what a waste of my time.
but you know what, I tried

And yes, I have written those in Washington several times only to receive back a nice form letter about something I never inquired about.

Washington is broke. It has been for some time now. Both sides are to blame. Both sides are at fault in this mess we are in. The House has the republican lock, and the senate has Harry Reid who won't even allow a bill on the floor if he is against it and members of his party are for it. The system is broke. It may be so broke I don't even think term limits would help. Maybe the answer, or start, would be to eliminate half of the house positions in each state thus making it easier to work if you had fewer people.

One thing is for sure. Once upon a time or elected leaders moved to Washington with their families. The kids went to the same schools. The wife's got together. All the families got together and went to dinner and party together. Not any more. Their is just far to much tension between all parties in DC.

And who is playing "political football"? I was asked what I would do and said so. Instead of saying hey, that would work or this would not many here just bash an idea that one may place here no matter how good or bad. Some refuse to look for the common ground and build from there.

Some here are no better than what we have in DC.

BurnTHalO 05-01-2014 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167971)
I did not avoid your question. Maybe you just did not like my answer.

If you are talking about the bill that became the ACA then yes, not one member of the republican party in the House or Senate contributed to that bill. They offered ideas, but ever one was rejected or ignored. And please don't bring up "Romneycare" as the members of the US House and US Senate never voted for that law.

As we all know as of today there still is no republican solution. I just know that there are many like me that do not like the ACA. Has the ACA help some people? Absolutely. As it harmed some people? Absolutely.

I agree 100% that no one should ever be denied coverage. I also believe that someone should not have to pay more because they have a medical condition.

I believe that you should be able to purchase insurance across stateliness, but I do not believe we should be mandated to purchase insurance if we do not want to.

I believe that any doctor, clinic, hospital, treatment center, and pharmacy should be able to offer their services to all, and not just one insurance company.

I do not believe the President should create exemptions and waivers to the ACA, but instead follow the law as written or seek a change via Congress.

No, you did not (and still haven't answered half). I didn't ask if they voted for or against it. I asked if you think that Republicans (not only talking Congress Republicans) had a major influence on the final bill. Do you honestly believe this is the bill that Democrats really wanted.

As for your next part, you are right in the sense that Republicans have not offered any solution. All they are doing is complaining and crying they want to repeal it with nothing to replace it. I can't figure out how if you completely support the type of bill Obama and Democrats wanted, why you are so angry and against what Obama and the Democrats tried to accomplish in the face of the screaming right.

And beyond that, I don't know how this will work. I do know it is ridiculous to sit here and try to determine how a major change in health care is working 1 month after mandatory signup ended. And what is sad is I don't like this bill, I wanted it to go MUCH further to give us something similar to First World countries, but I at least appreciate something being done and hope it will continue to lead to something better.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167998)
No, you did not (and still haven't answered half). I didn't ask if they voted for or against it. I asked if you think that Republicans (not only talking Congress Republicans) had a major influence on the final bill. Do you honestly believe this is the bill that Democrats really wanted.

As for your next part, you are right in the sense that Republicans have not offered any solution. All they are doing is complaining and crying they want to repeal it with nothing to replace it.
And beyond that, I don't know how this will work. I do know it is ridiculous to sit here and try to determine how a major change in health care is working 1 month after mandatory signup ended. And what is sad is I don't like this bill, I wanted it to go MUCH further to give us something similar to First World countries, but I at least appreciate something being done and hope it will continue to lead to something better.

So which republican senator or house member pushed for and got changes in this bill?

Quote:

I can't figure out how if you completely support the type of bill Obama and Democrats wanted, why you are so angry and against what Obama and the Democrats tried to accomplish in the face of the screaming right.
Where have I ever said I completely support the ACA? Where have I ever said that I was against Obama and the democrats? Please don't put words in my mouth.

There are some good parts to the ACA, there are also some bad. I feel there should be some added features, like tort reform and, like I said just a few posts back, every doctor and medical facility should be open to all.

Why can't you say what you like or dislike about the ACA? Instead we get you saying stuff about complaining and crying or other typical bashing of the right.

BurnTHalO 05-01-2014 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168001)
So which republican senator or house member pushed for and got changes in this bill?



Where have I ever said I completely support the ACA? Where have I ever said that I was against Obama and the democrats? Please don't put words in my mouth.

There are some good parts to the ACA, there are also some bad. I feel there should be some added features, like tort reform and, like I said just a few posts back, every doctor and medical facility should be open to all.

Why can't you say what you like or dislike about the ACA? Instead we get you saying stuff about complaining and crying or other typical bashing of the right.

Alright, my last attempt at a straight answer before I forever give up that no matter what you will hate aca and blame democrats for everything. CONSIDERING ALL REPUBLICANS INCLUDING THE PUNDITS, do you honestly believe that they did not significantly influence the ACA.

As for your question to me. I lkee the concept. I am far from knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the act. I call it whining and crying because all you do is site the same political crap the right blabs. And then I see the left crap about how great this is On Facebook. And I laugh that people are judging a long-term plan that is supposed to lower our costs over time a month after implementation. I honestly doubt it will do what it needs to because the right got what they wanted by pressuring people in swing seats and using insane babble that idiots who can't research or think on their own believed (see Palin and death panels). So I think the dems were pansies and the republicans were bullies, and we got something that I believe may fail, though I'm willing to wait and see some evidence and at least give it an attempt instead of believing that my thoughts on it is evidence, or that the "experts" who are dead split o it know exactly what is happening. That is my stance.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 168006)
Alright, my last attempt at a straight answer before I forever give up that no matter what you will hate aca and blame democrats for everything. CONSIDERING ALL REPUBLICANS INCLUDING THE PUNDITS, do you honestly believe that they did not significantly influence the ACA.

As for your question to me. I lkee the concept. I am far from knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the act. I call it whining and crying because all you do is site the same political crap the right blabs. And then I see the left crap about how great this is On Facebook. And I laugh that people are judging a long-term plan that is supposed to lower our costs over time a month after implementation. I honestly doubt it will do what it needs to because the right got what they wanted by pressuring people in swing seats and using insane babble that idiots who can't research or think on their own believed (see Palin and death panels). So I think the dems were pansies and the republicans were bullies, and we got something that I believe may fail, though I'm willing to wait and see some evidence and at least give it an attempt instead of believing that my thoughts on it is evidence, or that the "experts" who are dead split o it know exactly what is happening. That is my stance.

From all reports the republicans weren't even allowed into the meetings that the democrats had when drafting the bill.

And why did Obama back away from the public option? If he did not the insurance companies, who met with him in the WH, would had never had gone along with the bill. And without the insurance companies and the drug companies Obama would have to kiss many of the democrat votes good bye.

ZeykShade 05-01-2014 09:53 PM

Because Obama equates saying the right thing with actually doing the right thing. He's a shit President. Better than the one before him, but that's a low bar.

Obama campaigned in the primary from the left of Clinton, because that is what the people actually want. He fooled everyone, including me(but only once). He's not a progressive in the least. He's a pro-establishment, status quo center-right corporatist. He backed off the public option because he never really supported it in the first place. Taking about it/paying it lip service is enough for him.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168009)
Because Obama equates saying the right thing with actually doing the right thing. He's a shit President. Better than the one before him, but that's a low bar.

Obama campaigned in the primary from the left of Clinton, because that is what the people actually want. He fooled everyone, including me(but only once). He's not a progressive in the least. He's a pro-establishment, status quo center-right corporatist. He backed off the public option because he never really supported it in the first place. Taking about it/paying it lip service is enough for him.

I really think he compromised with the drug and insurance companies on this as he knew he could never defeat their lobbying power on Congress. If he had not there would not be an ACA today.

WaiverWire 05-01-2014 10:36 PM

Here is a little info for anyone that has an old set of Bose Noise Cancelling headphones.

Recently I called customer service to see if I could buy a replacement ear cup. They said yes and asked me what model number I had. I was then told I could purchase a new pair, not a refurbished, in the box for just under half the price of a new pair. I think I paid about $138.

They will ship the new pair and you will have them in a few days. They box the box within a box and all you have to do is slap their return label on it and ship the old pair back.

They don not want you to ship back anything other than the headphones.

Bolthed 05-02-2014 01:19 AM

The ACA might have been opposed by every Republican, but it predated their stated policy of obstructing everything Obama was in favor of. I think Obama has some progressive leanings, but at his core he is a pragmatist. Do not forget that when the ACA passed it was still early enough in his administration that he was trying to work with the Republicans. I think that has a lot to do with why a conservative think-tank plan was the choice. I just wish that when it became obvious that the Republicans were vehemently against it that the Democrats had realized that if they were going to ram it through Congress and into existence that it might as well have been something more progressive that made a lot more sense — like Medicare for all. But again, don't forget that today's culture of Republicans crying "socialism!" didn't really get going until the ACA was being debated.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 167933)
1989 Heritage Foundation - Assuring Affordbale Healthcare for All Americans

Nevermind that you're attributing the flawed, but better than what we had, ACA to the Democrats while conveniently ignoring the GOP's "Get sick? Better Die Quick Plan". If you really want to attribute the ACA to someone, attribute it to the assorted industry lobbyists who are gonna make bank from it.

Amen, brother. This was the gift that keeps on giving.

A few physicians are going to get squeezed, but much of the squeezing will be done by the insurance companies protecting their bottom line.

You will see hand wringing from the insurers if Medicare Advantage plans go away. That is the real goose that laid the golden egg and Palin's death panel rolled into one. There are MDs in Family Practice and Internal Medicine literally making millions from these plans. And they do so by keeping patient costs low; in plain talk rationing care and providing the bare necessity. These are full risk plans to the provider. Keep your patients out of the hospital, test less, and prescribe the cheapest drugs and you are handsomely rewarded. But, if one patient ends up in the hospital and Ron's up a bill of several hundred thousand! that provider is contractually on the hook to reimburse the insurance company.

If you or a family member chooses such a plan, Humana Gold+ is the largest in this area be certain that you or a family member watches the care prescribed. Be hyper critical. And if that practitioner is a sole practitioner with a small office staff, yet lives in Avila and drives a Bentley, go elsewhere. He/she is strictly a business man. If you are skeptical of this, speak with any medical professional not eating at the trough of a Medicare advantage provider.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 167962)
So you are saying the Republicans had no influence over this bill? You are saying THIS is the bill that Democrats wanted (not, you know, Universal coverage)? Are you willing to go the next step and say that the Republican solution to the health care problems of this country were far greater, went much further, and would have helped people even greater?

Yes, thus us the bill Dems wanted. Most of them are corporatist whores and had no interest in a public option, certainly universal coverage was never a consideration.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 167963)
What I am saying is that the democrats had full control of the house and senate and could do what they wanted. The republicans did not cast one vote for the ACA. This bill was the result of 100% input form the democrat side.

I could care less what took place in 1989 or with the Heritage Foundation. What took place then was never ever implemented and only used as a foundation to the ACA because the democrats could not agree on what the bill should look like. Instead those that wanted a single payer system saw this as only as a stepping stone.

The problem with the ACA is that the WH has issued far too many exemptions to the law and has extended delay after delay. This is all while the roll out of the web site crash and to this day the back end where you can make a payment for your insurance selection still does not work.

Then there are parts of this law that are totally being ignored IMHO. The biggest is before the courts and if the court sides with those suing, the ACA will implode.

And if that happens you can not blame the republicans for writing the ACA. It was written and passed by the democrats. Sad part is that I do believe that most will be so fed up that any chance for a single payer system will be pushed back for years.

Please. The chance of universal coverage is slimmer than the chance that Israel and Iran join together to fight religious intolerance.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 167976)
My daughter signed up for health care then saw the dental coverage was so cheap she decided to sign up for that too. And she was able to pay directly thru the HC website, and her account was charged within a week. I had to do a lot of persuading to get her to sign up, as she is still at the age where she thinks she is invincible health wise, but at least now I have peace of mind that if she gets in a bad car accident on the way to work, or gets hit by a drunk driver after going to a club on a Friday night, that she doesn't bankrupt her or myself (me trying to help her pay her health care/hospital bill). She has the catastrophic coverage, but I can at least help her out with meeting the deductible if necessary. A $100K+ hospital bill for a 5 day stay would be a stretch to pay.

Was the ACA meant to solve all the issues right out of the gate, or was it something just to get the process started that could be tweaked as we went along? Health care coverage is a necessary evil now, just like any other insurance coverage, and I feel would have kept escalating out of most working people's price range eventually. At least this is a start to try and rein in costs and stop making the Rick Scott's of the world multi millionaires on the back of the working class.

Good for you.

My 56 yo golf partner has coverage through his wife's employer but would not, under any circumstances, buy it for himself or his 16 yo son if he had to go on the market to get coverage. No one in his family has ever had cancer or heart disease and all lived long lives.

What could possibly go wrong?

Here is an example. 32 yo friend of my daughter, amateur boxer in excellent shape, suffered a debilitating stroke last weekend. In a coma with a piece of his skull removed to relieve pressure.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168009)
Because Obama equates saying the right thing with actually doing the right thing. He's a shit President. Better than the one before him, but that's a low bar.

Obama campaigned in the primary from the left of Clinton, because that is what the people actually want. He fooled everyone, including me(but only once). He's not a progressive in the least. He's a pro-establishment, status quo center-right corporatist. He backed off the public option because he never really supported it in the first place. Taking about it/paying it lip service is enough for him.

Couldn't agree more. Obama is to the right of Saint Reagan on many issues and is slightly more progressive than Jeb!

I voted for him in '08 and again in'12; the '12 vote was a vote against Romney. Strictly a pragmatic move. A Clinton Bush election will put me in a further quandary. That will be my first vote for a third party candidate as the only substantive difference between the two is genitalia.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168010)
I really think he compromised with the drug and insurance companies on this as he knew he could never defeat their lobbying power on Congress. If he had not there would not be an ACA today.

You give O too much credit. Compromise was not needed, he simply let them have what they wanted.

Bolthed 05-02-2014 09:15 AM

Elizabeth Warren 2016! No more corporate retreads!

uf1910 05-02-2014 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168024)
Couldn't agree more. Obama is to the right of Saint Reagan on many issues and is slightly more progressive than Jeb!

I voted for him in '08 and again in'12; the '12 vote was a vote against Romney. Strictly a pragmatic move. A Clinton Bush election will put me in a further quandary. That will be my first vote for a third party candidate as the only substantive difference between the two is genitalia.

:hysterical:

Sotnos 05-02-2014 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168009)
Because Obama equates saying the right thing with actually doing the right thing. He's a shit President. Better than the one before him, but that's a low bar.

Obama campaigned in the primary from the left of Clinton, because that is what the people actually want. He fooled everyone, including me(but only once). He's not a progressive in the least. He's a pro-establishment, status quo center-right corporatist. He backed off the public option because he never really supported it in the first place. Taking about it/paying it lip service is enough for him.

Makes me laugh when I see people STILL calling him a socialist/communist/whatever-ist. Those folks wouldn't know a socialist if one jumped up & bit them.

ZeykShade 05-02-2014 11:13 AM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a86f318a6...5v94o1_500.jpg

Well done FauxNews.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168046)

If that was an actual "news" item, they have hit a new low.

ZeykShade 05-02-2014 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168048)
If that was an actual "news" item, they have hit a new low.

That was broadcast to their audience. That's not the first time they've done this kind of thing with graphs. It's intentionally designed to mislead upon first glance. You can't "accidentally" create the graph this way.

WaiverWire 05-02-2014 12:40 PM

Just announced that the House is to vote on a special committee on Benghazi.

nutznboltz 05-02-2014 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168052)
That was broadcast to their audience. That's not the first time they've done this kind of thing with graphs. It's intentionally designed to mislead upon first glance. You can't "accidentally" create the graph this way.

It misled me on first glance until I studied the X and Y graphs coordinates :coolwink: Can you imagine one of their target audience in The Villages catching it on first glance?:rolleyes:

nutznboltz 05-02-2014 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168023)
Good for you.

My 56 yo golf partner has coverage through his wife's employer but would not, under any circumstances, buy it for himself or his 16 yo son if he had to go on the market to get coverage. No one in his family has ever had cancer or heart disease and all lived long lives.

What could possibly go wrong?

Here is an example. 32 yo friend of my daughter, amateur boxer in excellent shape, suffered a debilitating stroke last weekend. In a coma with a piece of his skull removed to relieve pressure.

I convinced my daughter to sign up but not my 32 year old son. He's become pretty much anti-government anything, changed his voters registration from Dem to Libertarian, voted for Ron Paul in '12, listens to Alan Jones etc. This is like a 360 degree opposing view than mine.

He says he will pay the fine in 2015 after he changes jobs to one that provides coverage to their employees. He currently works for one of the biggest banks in the world, but as a contractor with no benefits, but hopes to get hired on FT after the 1st of the year. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that nothing happens to him, but at some point, even though I am his father, he is an adult and his own person making adult decisions, and I have to respect that, though my gut instinct is to protect him.

RSchmitz 05-02-2014 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168052)
That was broadcast to their audience. That's not the first time they've done this kind of thing with graphs. It's intentionally designed to mislead upon first glance. You can't "accidentally" create the graph this way.

Wow, Incredibly misleading.

P.S.- I didn't vote for either Romney or Obama, I figure the best way to show disdain for the status quo and the alternative is to simply vote for neither.

WaiverWire 05-02-2014 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168048)
If that was an actual "news" item, they have hit a new low.

100% wrong

WaiverWire 05-02-2014 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 168075)
I convinced my daughter to sign up but not my 32 year old son. He's become pretty much anti-government anything, changed his voters registration from Dem to Libertarian, voted for Ron Paul in '12, listens to Alan Jones etc. This is like a 360 degree opposing view than mine.

He says he will pay the fine in 2015 after he changes jobs to one that provides coverage to their employees. He currently works for one of the biggest banks in the world, but as a contractor with no benefits, but hopes to get hired on FT after the 1st of the year. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that nothing happens to him, but at some point, even though I am his father, he is an adult and his own person making adult decisions, and I have to respect that, though my gut instinct is to protect him.

Wow, that would be hard for almost any parent.

My son has a terrible low paying job with the county but he is very happy to have the insurance they offer him.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168052)
That was broadcast to their audience. That's not the first time they've done this kind of thing with graphs. It's intentionally designed to mislead upon first glance. You can't "accidentally" create the graph this way.

Looked like something that would have come from the Onion or Colbert Report.

Flycoon 05-02-2014 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168079)
100% wrong

Wrong how? That it was actually broadcast or it is a new low for them?

Flycoon 05-02-2014 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 168075)
I convinced my daughter to sign up but not my 32 year old son. He's become pretty much anti-government anything, changed his voters registration from Dem to Libertarian, voted for Ron Paul in '12, listens to Alan Jones etc. This is like a 360 degree opposing view than mine.

He says he will pay the fine in 2015 after he changes jobs to one that provides coverage to their employees. He currently works for one of the biggest banks in the world, but as a contractor with no benefits, but hopes to get hired on FT after the 1st of the year. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that nothing happens to him, but at some point, even though I am his father, he is an adult and his own person making adult decisions, and I have to respect that, though my gut instinct is to protect him.

Big banking and libertarianism seems an odd combination.

nutznboltz 05-02-2014 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168087)
Big banking and libertarianism seems an odd combination.

LOL that's what I thought too, but he's very capitalistic as well, always looking for new ways to get rich quick so he can retire at 35. I hope he does, but I tell him not to count on it and start saving for retirement instead...

WaiverWire 05-02-2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 168090)
When are those morons going to stop wasting the taxpayer's money on right wing nonsense and actually try to govern? That's right, they won't. As long as their base keeps blathering about there made up conspiracies, this craziness won't ever end.

I really think that we now have to let this play out.

Sotnos 05-02-2014 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 168090)
When are those morons going to stop wasting the taxpayer's money on right wing nonsense and actually try to govern? That's right, they won't. As long as their base keeps blathering about there made up conspiracies, this craziness won't ever end.

Echoing my thoughts on this. Waste of taxpayers' money.

Sent from my YP-GS1 using Tapatalk 2

pete 05-03-2014 12:27 PM

It's actually smart political calculus for the Republicans in non-Presidential year elections. Because midterms and other such elections are low turnout, base elections, refusing to govern and making government impotent depresses the excitement of Democratic base voters (who, you know, actually believe in having government), and gets the dander up of Republican base voters (who see that the government isn't doing anything, which reinforces their core beliefs, even though the Republicans are the reason the government isn't doing anything).

The problem Republicans have is that strategy is so built on political extremism they have no prayer anymore in Presidential year elections when people are more motivated to vote regardless. Over time, Democrats will erode Republican legislative advantages in Presidential year elections and peel back enough House and Senate seats to break this deadlock and actually get government back to doing business, at which point Republicans will have to find a new strategy (and they'll likely spend decades cleaning up the mess such a scorched earth political strategy has already done and continues to do, especially with women and Hispanic voters).

But, that peeling back could take 10 years (because it also depends on the eroding strength of gerrymanders as district demographics change over time), at which point many of the ones obstructing at all costs will be retired and moved into new, cushy lobbying jobs on K Street, so they ultimately don't care. If the Republican brand is tarnished for a generation, it won't matter because they'll have theirs.

WaiverWire 05-03-2014 08:11 PM

Accidental history: How Michigan may have triggered convention to amend U.S. Constitution???

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in...w_michiga.html

ChaseSpace 05-03-2014 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168131)
Accidental history: How Michigan may have triggered convention to amend U.S. Constitution???

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in...w_michiga.html

If a balanced budget amendment was passed the defense budget would be obliterated before any other programs were touched. There's nothing else to cut from them.

WaiverWire 05-04-2014 06:32 PM

This is cool. Chrysler is a green energy leader in the work place.

http://www.freep.com/article/2014050...-Green-Leaders

BurnTHalO 05-05-2014 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 168132)
If a balanced budget amendment was passed the defense budget would be obliterated before any other programs were touched. There's nothing else to cut from them.

I think that is the true humor of it all. The programs with excess funding are all Republican-backed programs. Unless the goal is to eliminate all regulations, standards, progress, and science (and enter China water/air territory without the work to get out of it), you have to look at programs which use the most money (military, medicare, SS, etc.).

uf1910 05-05-2014 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 168174)
I think that is the true humor of it all. The programs with excess funding are all Republican-backed programs. Unless the goal is to eliminate all regulations, standards, progress, and science (and enter China water/air territory without the work to get out of it), you have to look at programs which use the most money (military, medicare, SS, etc.).

Social security SHOULD be a self-funded program. The fact it is not and is now considered an albatross on the gov't budget is a failure by BOTH parties who robbed from the coffers to fund inflated gov't programs in the past. Absolutely ridiculous that any gov't run by any party can be operated in this manner. Rob the future to pay for the present, and even in spite of this we still can't even pay for all of the present bills as it is.

Just typing this pissed me off and is one reason I don't debate politics. I hate all politicians honestly. In reality all they represent is who gave them the most campaign money for re-election.

End rant and my apologies for the rant but I just couldn't help myself. Damn Mondays

Bolthed 05-05-2014 02:18 PM

This is the No. 1 thing I hear from the sheep who spout mindless talking points: "We've got too much debt. It's gonna kill this country/economy."

They have no idea what they're talking about. Every economist who isn't paid for by the right wing has said that our recent debt reduction efforts have more than addressed the issue and put us back on a very sustainable track. There's always been debt, but now it's some kind of rallying cry of the stupid.

BurnTHalO 05-05-2014 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 168185)
This is the No. 1 thing I hear from the sheep who spout mindless talking points: "We've got too much debt. It's gonna kill this country/economy."

They have no idea what they're talking about. Every economist who isn't paid for by the right wing has said that our recent debt reduction efforts have more than addressed the issue and put us back on a very sustainable track. There's always been debt, but now it's some kind of rallying cry of the stupid.

There are people on this board that no much more than me and can probably verify exactly how this is the case, but I seem to remember hearing that not only have we always had debt, we actually need to have debt, that eliminating all debt is a very bad thing (or something to that effect. Like I said, someone please fill in the blanks on this one).

WaiverWire 05-05-2014 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 168185)
This is the No. 1 thing I hear from the sheep who spout mindless talking points: "We've got too much debt. It's gonna kill this country/economy."

They have no idea what they're talking about. Every economist who isn't paid for by the right wing has said that our recent debt reduction efforts have more than addressed the issue and put us back on a very sustainable track. There's always been debt, but now it's some kind of rallying cry of the stupid.

No doubt you are correct about the right. But the same can be said for the left.

What is needed is economists that have nothing to gain nor lose.

Hoek 05-05-2014 03:52 PM

There's debt and then there's so much fucking debt that interest payments alone will dwarf other government spending. Paying it all the way down is a bit naive yes, but we're at the point where we're going to start paying more to maintain the bat shit retarded debt than on the things we actually need the government to do. That is kind of a problem, even if you loves you some more government spending.

Flycoon 05-05-2014 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 168189)
There's debt and then there's so much fucking debt that interest payments alone will dwarf other government spending. Paying it all the way down is a bit naive yes, but we're at the point where we're going to start paying more to maintain the bat shit retarded debt than on the things we actually need the government to do. That is kind of a problem, even if you loves you some more government spending.

I'm all for chopping Defense by 2/3, removing the cap on SS taxes, and instituting a tax on financial transactions that are executed by buy/sell bots. Raise the minimum wage so nobody working full time qualifies for food stamps or other government assistance. Eliminate the child tax credit and earned income credit. Personal exemptions will only be for the working heads of the household; why should you pay less taxes for having more dependents using services furnished by the government?

Many things that can be done without raising tax rates that will increase revenue. But that seems to be a no-no as well.

WaiverWire 05-05-2014 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168190)
I'm all for chopping Defense by 2/3, removing the cap on SS taxes, and instituting a tax on financial transactions that are executed by buy/sell bots. Raise the minimum wage so nobody working full time qualifies for food stamps or other government assistance. Eliminate the child tax credit and earned income credit. Personal exemptions will only be for the working heads of the household; why should you pay less taxes for having more dependents using services furnished by the government?

Many things that can be done without raising tax rates that will increase revenue. But that seems to be a no-no as well.

Flycoon.......it is nice to see you put your thoughts out on this subject. Some I agree with and others I don't.

I also feel that the cap should be off on SS. I also have no problem with the tax on transactions.

One question. What would you raise the minimum wage to? I say start at $10 and then increase with set increments over a set period of time.

dannybolt 05-05-2014 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168190)
I'm all for chopping Defense by 2/3, removing the cap on SS taxes, and instituting a tax on financial transactions that are executed by buy/sell bots.

Agreed on all this. Maybe not 2/3 of the defense budget, but it is long overdue for a healthy haircut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168190)
Eliminate the child tax credit and earned income credit. Personal exemptions will only be for the working heads of the household; why should you pay less taxes for having more dependents using services furnished by the government?

After doing VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) this tax season, I'm not sure I'm on board with this. I saw far too many people doing their best with next to no resources where a $100 or $200 EIC was huge for them. I'm generally not for kicking the downtrodden while they are down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168190)
Raise the minimum wage so nobody working full time qualifies for food stamps or other government assistance.

On the other hand, I disagree with this.

The reason why minimum wage is even an issue is because we have more low skilled workers than we need. By a lot. That is keeping wages depressed. Raising the minimum wage doesn't solve that problem, it merely slaps a band-aid on it. One that will likely begin to peel away quicker than we think.

In 2004, when the economy was screaming along (albeit through unsustainable means), the unemployment rate in the TB area was sub-4% I believe. McDonald's was starting people at $10 an hour. Because they had to pay that to get people in the door. Nobody gave a shit about the minimum wage in 2004. Now it's a hot button issue because real unemployment has been above 10% for more than half a decade, and really is showing no signs of coming down.

While large fast-food corps can certainly absorb the costs of raising the minimum wage, my guess is there are a lot of small business owners who are really gonna get squeezed if the minimum wage is raised by a significant amount. I would think it would also raise the cost of food quite a bit, which is already outpacing inflation before cost of labor increases.

Another aspect of raising the minimum wage across the country is that it increases the wages of the jobs directly above minimum wage. Jobs that are also low-skilled, but may not be direct service oriented, meaning working in customer service or a call center vs. retail or restaurant work. As those job costs increase for the employer, it increases their incentive to offshore or outsource that work. That increases the possibility of increasing the low and middle-skilled unemployed pool, which exacerbates the problem.

I think it's great that Seattle is trying to raise theirs to $15, so we can actually see what will happen instead of everyone working off of hypotheticals or examples from a decade or two or three ago. Maybe I'm wrong, and raising it will solve all kinds of problems. My hunch is that a lot of small businesses will move out of the city, and the price of restaurants and other low skilled services will go up, thereby raising everyone's standard of living; but I love that it is being tried at the local level first, which is as it should be. Laboratories of democracy, etc.

I think the real question is how do you solve the problem of an overabundance of unskilled labor in a country as big as ours? In Europe and Asia, there has been a lot of central planning that has gone into increasing education levels and building economically useful skill sets within their populations. We don't do that. In fact, central planning is an anathema to a large portion of our populace.

BurnTHalO 05-06-2014 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 168210)
The reason why minimum wage is even an issue is because we have more low skilled workers than we need. By a lot. That is keeping wages depressed. Raising the minimum wage doesn't solve that problem, it merely slaps a band-aid on it. One that will likely begin to peel away quicker than we think.

In 2004, when the economy was screaming along (albeit through unsustainable means), the unemployment rate in the TB area was sub-4% I believe. McDonald's was starting people at $10 an hour. Because they had to pay that to get people in the door. Nobody gave a shit about the minimum wage in 2004. Now it's a hot button issue because real unemployment has been above 10% for more than half a decade, and really is showing no signs of coming down.

While large fast-food corps can certainly absorb the costs of raising the minimum wage, my guess is there are a lot of small business owners who are really gonna get squeezed if the minimum wage is raised by a significant amount. I would think it would also raise the cost of food quite a bit, which is already outpacing inflation before cost of labor increases.

Another aspect of raising the minimum wage across the country is that it increases the wages of the jobs directly above minimum wage. Jobs that are also low-skilled, but may not be direct service oriented, meaning working in customer service or a call center vs. retail or restaurant work. As those job costs increase for the employer, it increases their incentive to offshore or outsource that work. That increases the possibility of increasing the low and middle-skilled unemployed pool, which exacerbates the problem.

I think it's great that Seattle is trying to raise theirs to $15, so we can actually see what will happen instead of everyone working off of hypotheticals or examples from a decade or two or three ago. Maybe I'm wrong, and raising it will solve all kinds of problems. My hunch is that a lot of small businesses will move out of the city, and the price of restaurants and other low skilled services will go up, thereby raising everyone's standard of living; but I love that it is being tried at the local level first, which is as it should be. Laboratories of democracy, etc.

I think the real question is how do you solve the problem of an overabundance of unskilled labor in a country as big as ours? In Europe and Asia, there has been a lot of central planning that has gone into increasing education levels and building economically useful skill sets within their populations. We don't do that. In fact, central planning is an anathema to a large portion of our populace.

Couldn't you go look at what it has done in Australia from 2 years ago? I don't disagree that education is a major issue that needs overhaul, but that is not everything. You bring up Europe, but every European country outside of the Czech Republic has a higher minimum wage/median wage ratio than the US, so I do think there is something to having the minimum wage discussion. Personally, I'm with WW on this in that you probably start in the $10/hour range and go from there. And I'll even include what he said before, and suggest that top economists should be brought together to discuss, debate, and come up with the correct starting point.

BurnTHalO 05-06-2014 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168187)
No doubt you are correct about the right. But the same can be said for the left.

What is needed is economists that have nothing to gain nor lose.

There are tons out there. There are entire journals with published data from researchers that have tackled all of these issues before. The problem is no politician wants to look at them as it may disprove their point or upset the lobby paying them, and the media is so worried about presenting two sides to an argument while only allowing discussion on the subject for about 3 minutes (you know, you do have to get to the next story about the youtube video of a dog doing some cute trick), that nobody ever gets informed. The media is also lazy, and that would require hours of reading material to be informed on the issue, and why do that when you can watch internet videos.

the_narrow_way 05-06-2014 01:18 PM

I think the minimum wage should be a sliding figure, based on what it would take for a single person working an average of a 30-hour work week to make enough annually to reach the official poverty line, with adjustments for inflation and cost-of-living. When a minimum wage worker doesn't even make enough to reach the poverty line, then something is clearly out of whack.

WaiverWire 05-06-2014 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 168233)
I think the minimum wage should be a sliding figure, based on what it would take for a single person working an average of a 30-hour work week to make enough annually to reach the official poverty line, with adjustments for inflation and cost-of-living. When a minimum wage worker doesn't even make enough to reach the poverty line, then something is clearly out of whack.

It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way. It was not until the ACA was passed has the 40 hour work week been reduced to 30 hours. That 30 hours was a mistake and it should be raised to 40 hours. The only reason they passed the ACA with this 30 hour rule was so more individuals would have to purchase insurance.

Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.

BurnTHalO 05-06-2014 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168236)
It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way. It was not until the ACA was passed has the 40 hour work week been reduced to 30 hours. That 30 hours was a mistake and it should be raised to 40 hours. The only reason they passed the ACA with this 30 hour rule was so more individuals would have to purchase insurance.

Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.

Yeah, I agree on that. I know in Australia it also slides based on age (so a 16 year old makes less than say a 23 year old, who has the bills and essentials to pay for a 16 year old does not).

Flycoon 05-06-2014 03:49 PM

I threw the part on EIC in to see what sort of response it would get. It is needed, but should also have an asset test that accompanies it. Have had a few clients over the years who owned profitable C Corps yet qualified for EIC.

I would like to see tax refund anticipation loans eliminated for low income filers getting EIC. No reason they should give dirt bags like Liberty exorbitant fees for getting their refund a week or so early. Glad to see h & r get out of this slimy business.

ZeykShade 05-06-2014 03:57 PM

The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.

dannybolt 05-06-2014 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168247)
I threw the part on EIC in to see what sort of response it would get. It is needed, but should also have an asset test that accompanies it. Have had a few clients over the years who owned profitable C Corps yet qualified for EIC.

I would like to see tax refund anticipation loans eliminated for low income filers getting EIC. No reason they should give dirt bags like Liberty exorbitant fees for getting their refund a week or so early. Glad to see h & r get out of this slimy business.

I'm on board with that.

While we're on the subject of personal income taxes, I think an employer who dictates the terms of employment, and then issues their employees 1099s (independent contractor forms) should be put out of business through draconian fines, if not imprisoned if it is their standard course of business. I prepared more than a dozen returns for people who wound up paying not only their own income taxes (which weren't taken out of their checks like they thought), but are then on the hook for the employer side of FICA, S/S, etc. These people are uniformly not financially savvy, although I don't think most people would realize it was happening to them. You have shitty employers not only paying poorly, but then they offload their taxes onto their employees. Technically, it is illegal, but if the employee speaks up, they get fired. It is shameful. To prepare a return for someone who made less than 10 grand, and then owes 2K for the year...it's infuriating.

Flycoon 05-06-2014 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 168251)
I'm on board with that.

While we're on the subject of personal income taxes, I think an employer who dictates the terms of employment, and then issues their employees 1099s (independent contractor forms) should be put out of business through draconian fines, if not imprisoned if it is their standard course of business. I prepared more than a dozen returns for people who wound up paying not only their own income taxes (which weren't taken out of their checks like they thought), but are then on the hook for the employer side of FICA, S/S, etc. These people are uniformly not financially savvy, although I don't think most people would realize it was happening to them. You have shitty employers not only paying poorly, but then they offload their taxes onto their employees. Technically, it is illegal, but if the employee speaks up, they get fired. It is shameful. To prepare a return for someone who made less than 10 grand, and then owes 2K for the year...it's infuriating.

I couldn't agree more. I parted ways with a client a few years ago, a freaking bar owner of all things, who INSISTED that it was perfectly legal to issue 1099s to all employees. It's not.

The USDOL has been castrated more than audit staff at the IRS so forcing clowns like this to comply with the law is practically impossible.

Flycoon 05-06-2014 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168248)
The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.

EITC is the lifeblood of many buy here/pay here car lots.

the_narrow_way 05-07-2014 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168236)
It should not be based on a 30 hour work week. Our work week has always been 40 hours and should remain that way.

The only reason I suggested 30 is because that is a typical max hours for non-managerial staff now. 40 is fine by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168236)
Next you will be asking employers to reduce your work week from 40 hours to 30 hours ,but you will want the pay to remain the same.

Don't put words in my mouth. Who, anywhere, is asking for employers to pay employees for hours that they didn't work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 168248)
The EITC ends up going directly into the community for the most part. I don't qualify for it anymore, but back in the day I know for a fact what I did with my returns. Spent them immediately on larger items I couldn't normally afford but needed. Durable goods like appliances. It has a multiplied effect on the economy because it's given to folks who can't afford to save and typically spend.

It's not just appliances, it is often spent to catch up on bills or on the kids directly for clothes and toys, or their medical and educational expenses. I even might be game for a restriction on the EIC credit that prevented it being spent on 'luxury' items like TV's or cars.

WaiverWire 05-07-2014 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 168266)
The only reason I suggested 30 is because that is a typical max hours for non-managerial staff now. 40 is fine by me.


Don't put words in my mouth. Who, anywhere, is asking for employers to pay employees for hours that they didn't work?


First 30 hours is not the norm for "non managerial" staff. It may be for entry level positions such as fast food, but in your everyday work place it is still 40 hours.

I did not put words in your mouth. Maybe you need to explain yourself better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way View Post
I think the minimum wage should be a sliding figure, based on what it would take for a single person working an average of a 30-hour work week to make enough annually to reach the official poverty line, with adjustments for inflation and cost-of-living. When a minimum wage worker doesn't even make enough to reach the poverty line, then something is clearly out of whack.
You are already saying the 30 hour work week is a given. Is that because the ACA uses the 30 hour to determine was is full time and what is part time? If so that definition is only for healthcare.

And yes I am for raising the minimum wage but only if it is based on a 40 hour work week.

the_narrow_way 05-07-2014 04:27 PM

In the retail and service industry world right now, many employers have cut back non-managerial types to under 30 hours. This was happening before the ACA kicked in.

I'm saying that somebody who works 30 or more hours per week should be making enough, gross, to reach the poverty line.

WaiverWire 05-07-2014 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 168290)
In the retail and service industry world right now, many employers have cut back non-managerial types to under 30 hours. This was happening before the ACA kicked in.

I'm saying that somebody who works 30 or more hours per week should be making enough, gross, to reach the poverty line.

Question???

You say for the ACA kicked in. How many of the jobs were cut from 40 hours to 30 hours between the time the ACA was passed and became law and the time before it took effect?

Flycoon 05-07-2014 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168291)
Question???

You say for the ACA kicked in. How many of the jobs were cut from 40 hours to 30 hours between the time the ACA was passed and became law and the time before it took effect?

Wal Mart did it when Clinton was in office.

WaiverWire 05-07-2014 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168299)
Wal Mart did it when Clinton was in office.

Yeah but in the final quarter of 2013 they moved 35,000 of their part time workers to full time. But then I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart

Want to talk about poverty wages we have one of the largest employers in the State of Florida that pays a majority of their employees below poverty and that employer is Disney World.



http://www.fashiontimes.com/articles...imum-wages.htm

the_narrow_way 05-08-2014 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168291)
You say for the ACA kicked in. How many of the jobs were cut from 40 hours to 30 hours between the time the ACA was passed and became law and the time before it took effect?

The sucky economy has been taking its toll for years. Many businesses, especially in retail and service, have had much lower total payroll for hourly employees for a long time now. The decision is either to outright lay-off people and keep a few at their old hours or see how many are willing to squabble over the pitiful available hours, leaving many with 10-30 hours. The ACA wasn't even an acronym yet when this stuff started. The ACA is not the devil so many are making it out to be. I've been working the shitty retail sector for years, and in construction, and the situation has been a free-fall going back a long time.

the_narrow_way 05-08-2014 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168312)
Yeah but in the final quarter of 2013 they moved 35,000 of their part time workers to full time. But then I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart

And even at 'full-time', many are still not making enough to meet the poverty line. This has been part of Wal-Mart's business model for years. Pay the people a shitty wage and the government will pick up the slack. It's a fucking tragedy what they been allowed to do. They move in, ruin the local small businesses, absorb the employees, and pay them shitty wages.

BurnTHalO 05-08-2014 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168312)
Yeah but in the final quarter of 2013 they moved 35,000 of their part time workers to full time. But then I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart

Want to talk about poverty wages we have one of the largest employers in the State of Florida that pays a majority of their employees below poverty and that employer is Disney World.



http://www.fashiontimes.com/articles...imum-wages.htm

Pretty funny article considering the people they interviewed were not employees of Disney. At any rate, the issue may be there why is housing $800/month, shouldn't there be something more affordable (though I do think the employees should get much more. End of the article talks about how that may raise to $10/hour). I've had some friends work as photographers there and loved it. The pay wasn't the best, but they got great perks (free entry to the park for themselves and their guests, etc.).

Flycoon 05-08-2014 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 168316)
And even at 'full-time', many are still not making enough to meet the poverty line. This has been part of Wal-Mart's business model for years. Pay the people a shitty wage and the government will pick up the slack. It's a fucking tragedy what they been allowed to do. They move in, ruin the local small businesses, absorb the employees, and pay them shitty wages.

HR at Walmart instructs employees on how to get gubment benefits; primarily Medicaid and SNAP. But they need lower corporate tax rates.....

WaiverWire 05-08-2014 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168322)
HR at Walmart instructs employees on how to get gubment benefits; primarily Medicaid and SNAP. But they need lower corporate tax rates.....

And just what is Wal-Mart doing that is illegal? Your example is what is wrong with the system and why we need to demand changes.

BurnTHalO 05-08-2014 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168326)
And just what is Wal-Mart doing that is illegal? Your example is what is wrong with the system and why we need to demand changes.

He never said it was, he is pointing out how laughable it is that Walmart is taking advantage of the system for the poor to increase revenue while then turning around and getting giant tax breaks for being a big business. Not illegal, but if we are looking to fix the money issues of the country, not letting corporations use these multiple things to keep the poor down and keep them up even higher would probably be a good place to start (all of that is mine, don't know if that is how Flycoon feels).

Sotnos 05-08-2014 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 168251)
While we're on the subject of personal income taxes, I think an employer who dictates the terms of employment, and then issues their employees 1099s (independent contractor forms) should be put out of business through draconian fines, if not imprisoned if it is their standard course of business. I prepared more than a dozen returns for people who wound up paying not only their own income taxes (which weren't taken out of their checks like they thought), but are then on the hook for the employer side of FICA, S/S, etc. These people are uniformly not financially savvy, although I don't think most people would realize it was happening to them. You have shitty employers not only paying poorly, but then they offload their taxes onto their employees. Technically, it is illegal, but if the employee speaks up, they get fired. It is shameful. To prepare a return for someone who made less than 10 grand, and then owes 2K for the year...it's infuriating.

First, we have the free tax preparers at our library, what a tough volunteer gig that must be. Kudos to you for doing it! I've had people who run stalls at the flea market ask me for 1099s and never knew why. I guess now I know, and that is disgusting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 168321)
I've had some friends work as photographers there and loved it. The pay wasn't the best, but they got great perks (free entry to the park for themselves and their guests, etc.).

Same here. Most people do it as a part time gig solely for the perks. Back when I lived in the area, it was more expensive than other parts of Florida but even now I'm finding the $800 figure for an "average" apartment hard to believe.

I also wonder if they're counting the IMMENSE number of exploited undocumented workers in those average income figures. We had maybe 10+ people living next door to us at one of our apartments (1 bedroom).

ChaseSpace 05-08-2014 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 168330)


Same here. Most people do it as a part time gig solely for the perks. Back when I lived in the area, it was more expensive than other parts of Florida but even now I'm finding the $800 figure for an "average" apartment hard to believe.

In Gainesville an average apartment(1/1) will run you about $800 on average. The 'average' doesn't always include utilities or tv/internet in your rent as well.

Flycoon 05-08-2014 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168326)
And just what is Wal-Mart doing that is illegal? Your example is what is wrong with the system and why we need to demand changes.

And exactly where did I say, or even imply, it is illegal?

I WILL say the Walton family are examples of what is wrong with America. And those who support them are no better.

One might think that a company that had a profit, after taxes, of $18B could throw their workers a few scraps.

Flycoon 05-08-2014 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 168327)
He never said it was, he is pointing out how laughable it is that Walmart is taking advantage of the system for the poor to increase revenue while then turning around and getting giant tax breaks for being a big business. Not illegal, but if we are looking to fix the money issues of the country, not letting corporations use these multiple things to keep the poor down and keep them up even higher would probably be a good place to start (all of that is mine, don't know if that is how Flycoon feels).

I concur. We are on a path to becoming India.

WaiverWire 05-08-2014 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168335)
And exactly where did I say, or even imply, it is illegal?

I WILL say the Walton family are examples of what is wrong with America. And those who support them are no better.

One might think that a company that had a profit, after taxes, of $18B could throw their workers a few scraps.

I never said that you said that. I asked you what are they doing that is illegal? You, and others, are reading too much into my post.

We complain about things that are perfectly legal, and within one's right, for all to do.

If we do not like something we should demand change.

This is how the Tea Party came to be. Many, on both sides, did not like what was happening in Washington. Thus they ran their own candidates and started a change in Congress. Then somewhere along the line the extreme right wing took over. Bottom line is if you not like what is going on in DC you have the right to replace your parties nominee. If move of us would do that maybe we could get Congress back on the right track. This is what is happening in the republican party now. We elected tea partiers and now see how unwavering they are and are now defeating their candidates in almost all races.

the_narrow_way 05-08-2014 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168347)
If we do not like something we should demand change. This is how the Tea Party came to be. Many, on both sides, did not like what was happening in Washington. Thus they ran their own candidates and started a change in Congress. Then somewhere along the line the extreme right wing took over.

You need to check your facts, and especially your time-line.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4136722.html

WaiverWire 05-08-2014 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 168348)
You need to check your facts, and especially your time-line.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-z...b_4136722.html

A very left wing pub. And to think many here criticize Fox.

Truth is TNW many democrats also were drawn into this movement in 2008-2010. Many wanted to see a balanced budget or spending cuts. Michigan had many many democrats at their rallies. I have several democrat friends in Michigan and they were the first to tell me how great this "Tea Party" was........................little did they know.

Now the more main stream republicans are rejecting them election after election. Look no further than Tuesday night.

Why don't we just agree that the tea party is not a good thing for this country.

dannybolt 05-08-2014 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
A very left wing pub. And to think many here criticize Fox.

The Fox equivalent you are looking for is Mother Jones. HuffPo is left, sure, but not "very left wing". More left-leaning populist than anything else. Fox does a hell of a lot more than lean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
Truth is TNW many democrats also were drawn into this movement in 2008-2010. Many wanted to see a balanced budget or spending cuts. Michigan had many many democrats at their rallies. I have several democrat friends in Michigan and they were the first to tell me how great this "Tea Party" was........................little did they know.

Yeah, I think you are being overly generous in that timeline. Tea Party became the angry white party pretty damn quick, although I agree with the initial premise. Anger at the financial collapse and Washington's complete selling out of main street to lick wall street's boots spawned both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. The Tea Party lost me when they started inviting Sarah Palin to their rallies where they decried the evils of the government whilst on public land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
Now the more main stream republicans are rejecting them election after election. Look no further than Tuesday night.

Running from lunacy doesn't make them right, or make their answers for what ails the country correct, it just means they have realized that a solid 2/3 of the country think the Tea Partiers are nutbars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
Why don't we just agree that the tea party is not a good thing for this country.

Agreed.

I'd have a whole lot more sympathy for the Republicans if their ideas for governance weren't as rooted in fantasy as the Democrats. They are for cutting the budget except for the military, they are for fiscal responsibility, except for fighting unfunded wars, and personal liberties except for who you can marry and what you can put in your body. I find it interesting that they are cutting the Tea Party loose because of their purity over pragmatism stance, yet their own economic policies are as unpragmatic and long-term unfeasible as the Democrats.

There is simply no way to square their rhetoric, much less their voting records or what they do when given the launch codes and control of the Congress with any sort of logic outside of political expedience. None.

Example: They say they want free markets (fantastic idea), but oppose regulations on the grounds that it stifles business. OK, tenuous, but let's logic that out. Free markets =/= the wild west. Markets have to be overseen, as there are disparities within bargaining sides that a (supposedly) impartial arbitrator levels. The Republican position is that the arbitrator is not needed. This is patently, objectively false. With deregulations, we have seen a corporate oligarchies spring up, which has stifled competition, increased malfeasance and lowered economic choices; all of which are antithetical to free markets. When the Obama administration tries (albeit ineffectively) to reinstitute some of the safeguards that worked for 70 years (Glass-Steagal), with Dodd-Frank (horribly flawed and overly complicated, but it was something) the wall street shills freaked out. Another good example is the derivatives market. It is completely opaque. A free market necessarily REQUIRES transparency. This is one of the root causes of the last financial collapse. The Republican response? Do NOTHING, the free market (which we don't have) will correct this. Not only is that not pragmatic, as 2008 should have been enough to beat it into their concrete skulls, but it is also antithetical to free markets. It is not rooted in any sort of objective history or evidence. Pure fantasy land political expediency.

So, here I sit, waiting for either party to get their shit together, and continuing to vote third party.

Edit: That last bit wasn't a criticism directed at you, WW. I'm incredibly frustrated by the Republicans, because they purport to believe the things I believe in (small government, personal liberties), yet they almost never practice what they preach.

the_narrow_way 05-09-2014 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
A very left wing pub. And to think many here criticize Fox.

Yeah, it is generally left-leaning. It was just the first link I found. Try searching for 'who started the tea party' and take your pick of links.

https://www.google.com/search?q=who+...+the+tea+party

Flycoon 05-09-2014 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168347)
This is how the Tea Party came to be. Many, on both sides, did not like what was happening in Washington. Thus they ran their own candidates and started a change in Congress.

And Obama is STILL black. They just can't make that a change they can believe in.

If you really think these crackpots are about "changing the culture" of Washington.....

Flycoon 05-09-2014 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 168349)
A very left wing pub. And to think many here criticize Fox.

I see HuffPo as a left leaning National Enquirer with all of the "celebrity news" and stupid fluff they publich.

I subscribe to REAL left wing mags, Mother Jones and The Nation.

Sotnos 05-09-2014 06:44 PM

To answer some of the fake concern re: if fewer are insured & if people are paying for their new coverage, overall snarky article that nonetheless links to actual findings on both topics. http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/05/t...ble-death.html
Quote:

Despite predictions that cancellations would dull the impact of the law, America’s uninsured population has been reduced by 25 percent in just 7 months.

Despite a sleazy Republican report saying that only 69 percent of Obamacare marketplace enrollees paid for their coverage, we are finding out that the number is closer to 83 – 90 percent.

BurnTHalO 05-12-2014 11:46 AM

Think this sums up climate change pretty well.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

Top Shelf 05-12-2014 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 168390)
And Obama is STILL black. They just can't make that a change they can believe in.

If you really think these crackpots are about "changing the culture" of Washington.....

Yup. Because we'd all really be OK with the loss of individual freedoms, the lies about the tax cut, about Fast & Furious, Solyndragate, Benghazigate, IRSgate, NSAgate and all the other rampant scandals and about being able to keep your doctor, the years of stagnant economy, unemployment, weakened military, being unable to afford health insurance, the out-of-control ballooning national debt,...we'd be fine with a complete, iron-fisted socialist dictatorship if ONLY he were WHITE. We just can't handle anyone naturally having a complexion resembling what we try all summer to achieve for ourselves. There can be no rational, sensible objection to any government policy, no matter how insanely draconian or perverted, as long as the person promoting it lacks melanin pigmentation in their skin cells.

BurnTHalO 05-12-2014 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 168451)
Think this sums up climate change pretty well.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

And fresh on the heals of this, the brilliant Marco Rubio.

Quote:

I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," the first term senator said Sunday on ABC "This Week," after being asked by ABC News' Jon Karl whether humans were contributing to the heating up of the planet.

"I think severe weather has been a fact of life on earth since man started recording history. I understand that there's a vast consensus of scientists that are saying that human activity is what's contributing to changes in our climate. I think it's an enormous stretch to say that every weather incident that we read about or the majority of them are attributable to human activity," Rubio told CNN's Bill Weir Tuesday on "CNN Tonight."
This idiot actually states that he understands that scientists and experts have concluded this is happening, but he is smarter than them and believes it is not. Thanks to everyone thinking like this twit for attempting to ensure my daughter will need to walk around ocean waterfront of Memphis.

Rubio doesn't believe humans are contributing to climate change

pete 05-12-2014 03:43 PM

Gonna put this right here and let you all infer the rest:

http://images.dailykos.com/images/82...png?1399308476

Flycoon 05-12-2014 05:36 PM

[quote=Top Shelf;168453]Yup. Because we'd all really be OK with the loss of individual freedoms, the lies about the tax cut, about Fast & Furious, Solyndragate, Benghazigate, IRSgate, NSAgate and all the other rampant scandals and about being able to keep your doctor, the years of stagnant economy, unemployment, weakened military, being unable to afford health insurance, the out-of-control ballooning national debt,...we'd be fine with a complete, iron-fisted socialist dictatorship if ONLY he were WHITE. We just can't handle anyone naturally having a complexion resembling what we try all summer to achieve for ourselves. There can be no rational, sensible objection to any government policy, no matter how insanely draconian or perverted, as long as the person promoting it lacks melanin pigmentation in their skin cells.[/]

So the tea party of Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, and Sarah Palin are champions fighting these programs?

Iron fisted, socialist dictator? I see a timid corporatist blowing with the breeze from Walk Street, big oil, and big pharma. Look no further than the free ride BP is getting on compliance with the settlement they wrote.

BurnTHalO 05-13-2014 07:18 AM

Pretty sure Ann Coulter is the definition of what is wrong with America. The fact she would use the hashtag which people are using to try and save hundreds of kidknapped school children to peddle more hate, there is a special place in hell for her. That, said these are funny.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...htag-backfires

ZeykShade 05-13-2014 02:23 PM

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

BurnTHalO 06-05-2014 12:49 PM

Quote:

According to a first draft the Chronicle obtained, the Texas GOP will now endorse ex-gay therapy for “patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle”:
Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, in public policy, nor should family be redefined to include homosexual couples. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We recognize the legitimacy and value of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment to patients who are seeking escape from the homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/0...atform-ex-gay/

I, um, yeah. Just to cap it off, from the Texas GOP platform on their website (I kid you not, this is their official platform):

Quote:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
http://www.texasgop.org/about/

So, they oppose learning that causes kids to think, ask questions, and learn. Wow, I mean, yeah.

nutznboltz 06-08-2014 03:56 PM

I'm pretty apolitical - I dislike both parties and how the political process has devolved over the years. No one willing to step up and be a real leader, as they are all beholden to lobbyists and getting re-elected. But I do vote every year, for the candidate and their views, not their party affiliation.

The latest thing to confuse me on politics is the Bergdahl release. Over the five years he was in captivity, I really can't recall hearing these stories that have come out since last Sunday. How he was drunk the night he was captured, how he deserted his unit, how the other men in his unit did not like him or respect him. I recall stories of yellow ribbons tied around trees and that the POTUS was not doing enough to secure his release. I've read he was promoted to sergeant even after he was captured.

I feel Obama should have at least consulted with senior members of both parties and gotten their approval of any deal before acting. Releasing 5 members of the Taliban (and not just grunts but key members of the terrorist group) was a high price to pay. Even if time was of the essence, this should not have been the sole decision of anyone, no matter what their party.

But once again, this seems to have been another opportunity for politicians to crush the President for anything he does. I'm sure there must be links out there prior to the release that he is not doing anything to secure Bergdahl's release. There may have been other Presidents that have done similar deals to get Americans released that have been praised.

Bergdahl will have his chance to tell his side of the story. In my mind, if he was a deserter, why wasn't he sent to a military prison hospital instead for evaluation? Hopefully the medical staff is preparing him for what awaits him from the news media when he does get released. Right now, I just feel he is the latest pawn in the most recent firestorm of the Obama administration. What will it take for the American public to demand more out of their elected representatives than platitudes and months and months of vitriol leading up to the next election?

WaiverWire 06-08-2014 04:37 PM

The only problem I have with his release was the whole dog and pony show that took place at the White House and with Susan Rice declaring that he was a hero. Maybe he was, but wait for the DOD to do their investigation until you declare him a hero.

2 or 3 years ago the President did go to Congress and talk to them about this possible trade and the releasing of these 5 prisoners. Many, from both sides of the aisle, did not like the idea and did voice their opinion.

Then Congress passed a bill that said the President has to give them a 30 day notice prior to any release of prisoners of this type. President Obama reluctantly signed the bill into law. Many in Congress, once again on both sides of the aisle, are claiming that the President violated the law. But did he? Yes he did violated this law, but this law does take away power that was given to the President by the Constitution therefore I do not think this law would ever stand up in a court of law.

I think a bigger question is why has he for several years been trying to get these same 5 prisoners released and why now. This war is not over yet and in the future we will still have troops there. I think that those that remain will now become targets in hopes of swapping them out. Some think with these guys gone that they can finally close down the hell hole in Cuba as these were the 5 worst there.

No one should be even thinking now what was going through this soldier's head. Those that were stationed with him said he was becoming bored and wanted more action. Hell maybe he thought he could end the war.

One has to wonder why this President would try for years to get these guys out of here and bring one back, while at the same time doing nothing about the VA and the problems he has known about for years and even campaigned against claiming he would reform the VA. Didn't happen until one doctor came forward and spilled his guts.

timothy 06-08-2014 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169393)
The only problem I have with his release was the whole dog and pony show that took place at the White House and with Susan Rice declaring that he was a hero. Maybe he was, but wait for the DOD to do their investigation until you declare him a hero.

There's a certain heroic quality in being a POW survivor, IMO. Regardless of any thing else you may or may not have done.

And while I'm at it.... you bring people home. No matter if they AWOL'd or not. Mainly because that's the kind of people we need to be. But also because no one wants to go to war, but when the suits order you to go, they should do their damnest to bring you back, regardless of what you do while you are there. That's just got your back 101.

All of this morality or ethics litmus tests the conservatives now seem to be throwing around about whether some deserves to be ransomed home or not absolutely disgusts me.

pete 06-08-2014 06:10 PM

Quote:

But once again, this seems to have been another opportunity for politicians to crush the President for anything he does. I'm sure there must be links out there prior to the release that he is not doing anything to secure Bergdahl's release. There may have been other Presidents that have done similar deals to get Americans released that have been praised.
There are some pretty funny screen shots people have put together of the Twitter timelines of rank and file conservatives tweeting or retweeting 2-3 weeks ago that the POTUS shouldn't forget Bowe Bergdahl and that it was shameful to leave any soldier behind... and then absolutely slaying him for bringing Bergdahl back. There's literally nothing Obama can do that they won't criticize. He could come out tomorrow for puppies and kittens and they'd call him a pet ageist.

timothy 06-08-2014 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169395)
There's literally nothing Obama can do that they won't criticize. He could come out tomorrow for puppies and kittens and they'd call him a pet ageist.

You cannot convince me that the "criticize everything; applaude nothing" tactic that the conservative nation has adopted for this President is anything but racially motivated -- consciously or subconsciously. For those that believe, there are spiritual laws in which demons manifest uncontrollably, and I believe we have witnessed this manifestation. It brings to the surface that which tries to hide itself and fly deep below the radar. And, you'll see those same manifestations if Hillary is elected as there's a thick and hidden misogynous demonic presence also deep in the conservative pool. Bill C. had opposition, but not like what we've seen with Obama.

I abide somewhat though... by 2020 or so, there will be more total minorities in the nation than whites, and I'm smart enough to recognize all of this petulance and manifestation as the desperate last gasp at control of power.

nutznboltz 06-08-2014 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169395)
There's literally nothing Obama can do that they won't criticize. He could come out tomorrow for puppies and kittens and they'd call him a pet ageist.

This made me chuckle. He has done plenty to make me shake my head (and I voted for him), but it does seem there is nothing he can do to break the gridlock without being castigated. The country will remain flatlining for at least another two years, while other countries pass us by. Where are the great politicians of the past to restore this country's reputation as the greatest country in the world? Every politician should be one termers so that maybe they would actually do something during their term instead of scheming and fund raising for their next term.

pete 06-08-2014 06:59 PM

These conservative politicians will find themselves pining for Obama in a few years. He's a nice guy and a pushover, in many ways. She, on the other hand, will cut your heart out and feed it to you without even blinking if you cross her.

WaiverWire 06-08-2014 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169395)
There are some pretty funny screen shots people have put together of the Twitter timelines of rank and file conservatives tweeting or retweeting 2-3 weeks ago that the POTUS shouldn't forget Bowe Bergdahl and that it was shameful to leave any soldier behind... and then absolutely slaying him for bringing Bergdahl back. There's literally nothing Obama can do that they won't criticize. He could come out tomorrow for puppies and kittens and they'd call him a pet ageist.

And what do you say to the democrats that came out against what he did? This was not from one side of the aisle.

And Donnie is correct. This guy sounds very unstable.

And if someone doesn't want to believe that who in their right mind would leave their gear behind and then crawl through the grass, as 2 Afgan kids told those looking for him.

The real tragedy in this whole mess was those that died looking for him.

Makes me wonder if our military isn't as screwed up as our VA, but then the WH rarely listens to what the military leaders have to say.

nutznboltz 06-08-2014 08:45 PM

We are all speculating on the mental condition of Bergdahl. At the time he was captured and currently. I don't take anything a POW says on a video as his true feelings, as they could be under extreme mental duress and will say anything to appease his captors. I've also heard he tried twice escape from his captors while in Afghanistan or Pakistan, doesn't sound to me like a sympathizer to the cause of the Taliban. McCain, of all people, should know that and be careful in his remarks.

I do find it curious that he has been allowed to speak to his parents but does not want to do so. :noidea: Feelings of shame or remorse, guilt over the circumstances of his capture? That's something I would want to know about.

I just don't like the fact he has become a political pawn in the continuous battle between the two parties that make up the political system. The man has been through hell, he deserves time to recover mentally and physically.

As for the VA and how screwed up it is, don't get me started. My Dad, a WWII veteran, died at the hands of VA doctors in New York, having unnecessary surgery done that prolonged his suffering and prematurely ended his life....in 2002. This crap has been going on for many years. It didn't mysteriously begin on Inauguration Day 2008. Even after my Dad's death, the VA screwed up by sending my Mom some other vet's death certificate in an envelope addressed to my Dad...who died in their care. More salt in the wound, and I will never forgive them for what they put her through.

pete 06-08-2014 10:37 PM

Quote:

And what do you say to the democrats that came out against what he did?
I'd say "Democrats" from swing districts and/or in election years are often scared of their own shadows, and have a tendency to piss their pants at fabricated controversies when they shouldn't. That says more about them than it does about Obama.

BTW, while their politicians and mouthpieces were attacking the integrity of an American POW, evidently some of the rank and file wingnuts have been sending death threats to Berdahl's parents. If you have a long beard and give an interview where you attack gays and stupidly say black people had it good before desegregation, that makes you a political martyr. But, if you have a long beard and want your POW son released, you're a f'ing terrorist sympathizer and need to die, or something. And that's why the GOP can't win national elections anymore: because they fail the test when it comes to basic sanity/decency.

And, the VA's been screwed up for as long as I've been alive. You can be mad at Obama for not fixing it, because he's said it's a priority of his (I would say there's blame to share with the austerity budgets that have been rolled out the past few years, which starves the VA of resources at a time when they're adding many more vets who need help), but you can't say he's the one who broke the system to begin with.

the_narrow_way 06-09-2014 12:50 AM

Everybody should read this article. There's a lot more to this story than most news outlets are sharing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...ahl-here-s-why


Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169409)
Even after my Dad's death, the VA screwed up by sending my Mom some other vet's death certificate in an envelope addressed to my Dad...who died in their care. More salt in the wound, and I will never forgive them for what they put her through.

That reminds me of a sarcastic jab against WWII England's treatment of its fallen, courtesy of Roger Waters.
From 'When the Tigers Broke Free':
And kind old King George
Sent Mother a note
When he heard that father was gone.
It was, I recall,
In the form of a scroll,
With gold leaf adorned,
And I found it one day
In a drawer of old photographs, hidden away.
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His Majesty signed
With his own rubber stamp.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169410)
I'd say "Democrats" from swing districts and/or in election years are often scared of their own shadows, and have a tendency to piss their pants at fabricated controversies when they shouldn't. That says more about them than it does about Obama.

BTW, while their politicians and mouthpieces were attacking the integrity of an American POW, evidently some of the rank and file wingnuts have been sending death threats to Berdahl's parents. If you have a long beard and give an interview where you attack gays and stupidly say black people had it good before desegregation, that makes you a political martyr. But, if you have a long beard and want your POW son released, you're a f'ing terrorist sympathizer and need to die, or something. And that's why the GOP can't win national elections anymore: because they fail the test when it comes to basic sanity/decency.

And, the VA's been screwed up for as long as I've been alive. You can be mad at Obama for not fixing it, because he's said it's a priority of his (I would say there's blame to share with the austerity budgets that have been rolled out the past few years, which starves the VA of resources at a time when they're adding many more vets who need help), but you can't say he's the one who broke the system to begin with.

So why is Dianne Feinstein so upset with the WH? Every Sunday news show had someone from the democrat side say that behind the scenes many of the democrats are upset how the WH handled this issue. Even some of your most stanch supporters of the WH from the media are wondering why.

As for the gang of 5, we will not know if these 5 were the right 5 to release until time has passed. History will tell of if we did the right thing or did we allow 5 criminals to re-enter society to reek havoc on their own people or worse, us. If it was left up to me I would have a drone following each one of them and if they made one false move...........

What others have said here, that you have to wait till the reports are filled by the DOD, is what everyone must do. This is not just about what this guy did to get captured, but it is about what he had done prior to this and why did the military, or his platoon mates, not report this guy sooner.

As for the VA, yes it has been a mess for years and under several different Presidents. But our current President campaigned on these problems and is on record several times saying he would take action. Prior to the firing what has he done?

pete, you know you make good points, but when you try to blame the issues at hand on past administrations it is like a little kid screaming "but Johnny did it". I don't give a rats behind about the past, I care about the present and getting the help our veterans need. This President has been in office for 6 years now. He has had more than enough time to deal with the VA. But it took whistleblowers and social media to get this disgraceful problem out in the open. I, like many others, am tired of the President saying he didn't know about the problem until he say it in the news. Sounds to me like he needs a new staff.

Many in Tampa thought that our VA was doing a great job. Turns out that they are now open 7 days a week to get those in a "backlog" seen by a doctor and to get the treatment they need. I have a funny feeling man VA hospitals will be doing the same.

Sotnos 06-09-2014 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169422)

As for the VA, yes it has been a mess for years and under several different Presidents.

Maybe if the last one didn't create so many new injured vets we wouldn't have the issues we're having.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 169430)
Maybe if the last one didn't create so many new injured vets we wouldn't have the issues we're having.

This could be true, but that doesn't change the fact that after 6 years someone did nothing even with the whispers for years there was a problem. Even the Bush administration let the Obama White House know, in a final transition report, that there was a problem at the VA with a back log on wait times.

Nor the fact that those that work at the VA deceived everyone with cooking the books with these secret lists and by manipulating their computers to hide and mislead the Auditor General when conducting reviews by hiding information they did not wand the AG to find.

This is a VA that still has $450,000,000 in an account for aiding our veterans and had no intention on using these funds to better staff the hospitals.

So be my guest and throw stones at the past actions of prior administrations while our veterans are not getting the care they need.

You see Sotnos, this is not about which side of the aisle one may be on. It is about doing what is right for those that served for us.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 169435)
Than again, maybe that is why the they asked for $17 billion in additional funding for the VA system to hire more medical personnel. Unfortunately, the house didn't want to increase the debt. They didn't mind increasing the debt to go to war - they just don't want to increase the debt to take care of those injured in that war.

I see this as a classic setup job. We won't give you the resources that you tell us are necessary to do your job and then blame you when you don't do your job properly as a result of not receiving those resources.

But you do not hide lists and manipulate your computers to avoid an audit. You do not let veterans die by putting them on these "hidden" lists. You do not hide the issues at hand from Congress or the AG in order to get a bonus.

There are people at the VA that cooked these books for one reason and one reason only..............they wanted that almighty bonus.

Funny how many say we should never leave a soldier behind. Well as I see it, we left many behind once they got home

I hope they all go to prison.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 10:15 AM

Scott signs tuition bill
 
Governor Scott has signed the bill which will allow those without documentation to receive in-state tuition.

This was the right thing to do.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...mented/2183562

pete 06-09-2014 10:41 AM

Quote:

pete, you know you make good points, but when you try to blame the issues at hand on past administrations it is like a little kid screaming "but Johnny did it". I don't give a rats behind about the past, I care about the present and getting the help our veterans need. This President has been in office for 6 years now. He has had more than enough time to deal with the VA. But it took whistleblowers and social media to get this disgraceful problem out in the open. I, like many others, am tired of the President saying he didn't know about the problem until he say it in the news. Sounds to me like he needs a new staff.
You know, when you look at the VA you have a number of things taking place:

1. As I mentioned, the VA has been broken for decades. They've been lampooned for their archaic record-keeping system, which the Obama Administration has been trying to fix and has made some headway on.

2. Even if the Bush Administration hadn't decided to wage a completely illegal and completely unnecessary war in Iraq on top of the war he failed to finish in Afghanistan, both of which lasted longer than the whole of World War II, the VA would still have to deal with the influx of baby boomers who are now reaching an age where there medical needs are going up considerably.

3. When you add on top of that the number of Iraq and Afghanistan vets who are coming home, the pool of veterans who need care is expanding at a far faster rate than the funding/resources to take care of them.

4. Where I find fault is that Obama, rather than meekly trying to be everybody's buddy and trying not to rock the boat, should have been pounding tables and cussing out Republicans on Capitol Hill if fixing the VA was truly one of his top priorities. He has not made the case to the American people about how destructive the House Republicans' austerity policies are, and he needs to. He needs to shout from the highest building how destructive those policies are.

5. It's utter bullshit, though, for the same Republicans who have starved the VA of funding in the face of 1-3 to try to pin all the blame on Obama and take zero responsibility for their own contributions to the mess. They could've tried to fix the VA during the Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II Administrations. They did not. They could've, I dunno, not fervently supported the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. Or, if they took responsibility for the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq, perhaps they could've made sure the necessary extra funding was kicked in to the VA in order to serve the influx of veterans said illegal and unnecessary war was creating. Just sayin'.

BurnTHalO 06-09-2014 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 169440)
I can't believe you would think that way. Just because when the President proposed a health care plan developed by a conservative group and implemented by a republican governor that stresses the private marketplace, they did everything they could to keep it from working and called him a socialist? Or is it because the Republicans - led by Jeb Bush - developed a system at the state level that established national standards for eduction and they said that Obama developed the standards and that those standards were causing people to become gay? Or is it becuase they have focused on the unfortunate death of an ambassador that felt so safe that he freely walked the streets days earlier and tried to make political points out of it? Or is it because he endorsed a proposal on immigration that was developed by President Bush (not to mention that he has deported twice as many illegals as the previous president did) that he is soft on immigration? Or is it because days after being critical of not bringing home a POW that they now say that he has brought back a deserter?

I'm sorry, there just isn't enough evidence to show that this is the case Tim.

Come to think of it, it would be more accurate for the republicans to blame Obama for stealing their ideas.

So, question for you and timothy and others with this thought. I have considered this, but I admittedly hate everything always being considered "founded in racism" (not saying that is not the case here). Do you believe that every Republican criticizing Obama for EVERYTHING has foundation in racism, or do you believe that the initial start from the extreme right was founded in racism, and the rest of the right feels the necessity to stay with these views in sort of a self-preservation role (those extremists will keep them from winning primaries)?

To be honest, as I said, I still have a tough time with the racist thing, but I honestly (I swear to this) don't really think of Obama being black in the first place, it just doesn't cross my mind. But, on the other end of it, there is definitely something, as this type of hate and govt shutdown is pretty unprecedented in my limited memory.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169441)
You know, when you look at the VA you have a number of things taking place:

1. As I mentioned, the VA has been broken for decades. They've been lampooned for their archaic record-keeping system, which the Obama Administration has been trying to fix and has made some headway on.

2. Even if the Bush Administration hadn't decided to wage a completely illegal and completely unnecessary war in Iraq on top of the war he failed to finish in Afghanistan, both of which lasted longer than the whole of World War II, the VA would still have to deal with the influx of baby boomers who are now reaching an age where there medical needs are going up considerably.

3. When you add on top of that the number of Iraq and Afghanistan vets who are coming home, the pool of veterans who need care is expanding at a far faster rate than the funding/resources to take care of them.

4. Where I find fault is that Obama, rather than meekly trying to be everybody's buddy and trying not to rock the boat, should have been pounding tables and cussing out Republicans on Capitol Hill if fixing the VA was truly one of his top priorities. He has not made the case to the American people about how destructive the House Republicans' austerity policies are, and he needs to. He needs to shout from the highest building how destructive those policies are.

5. It's utter bullshit, though, for the same Republicans who have starved the VA of funding in the face of 1-3 to try to pin all the blame on Obama and take zero responsibility for their own contributions to the mess. They could've tried to fix the VA during the Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II Administrations. They did not. They could've, I dunno, not fervently supported the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. Or, if they took responsibility for the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq, perhaps they could've made sure the necessary extra funding was kicked in to the VA in order to serve the influx of veterans said illegal and unnecessary war was creating. Just sayin'.

1-3 if a given.
Today we have learned that 57,000 new vets have signed up with the VA. That is a good thing as long as we can handle them.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:

The audit released Monday says 13 percent of VA schedulers reported supervisors telling them to falsify appointment dates to make waiting times appear shorter.
Sounds like a manager problem to me or managers that do not want someone higher up to know there is a problem.

#4..how do you expect him to react? He is so tied to the unions he can't sign anything that would allow their membership to be fired. And that is what the republicans have done. In their bill they gave the power to the administrators to fire the bad workers. What is so wrong with that? Why won't Harry Reid bring that to the floor?

And just how destructive has these evil people been when they have given the VA records budgets year after year and yet not every dime is being spent. Was it the republicans that failed to spend $450,000,000 that was marked for vet healthcare?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...as-slashed-fu/

#5....pete, you really need to take those blinders off.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...eases/9464699/

This Congress for the past 5-6 years have tried to fix this mess and has increase the funding in recorded numbers. Just look at the link above.

This was not a funding issue, hell they can't even spend what they have. This is a management issue. This was employees hiding the facts for one reason and one reason only.........they wanted to make sure they got their bonus.

And just how one side are you pete?

Quote:

They could've tried to fix the VA during the Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II Administrations. They did not.
All along I have been saying this was the fault from both side of the aisle. Funny how you left out Bill Clinton on your list. Or was this because you are so blind? Thank you for making my point.

pete 06-09-2014 11:33 AM

Quote:

Funny how you left out Bill Clinton on your list.
Oh for God's sake... use your head, man.

And, as Donnie already pointed out, the VA got $17B less than they wanted for their budget. The "record levels" thiing is always misleading (and a misleading thing Republicans absolutely love to point to), because "record levels" doesn't mean keeping up with inflation, or the rate of increasing costs, or actuarial needs, etc.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169447)
Oh for God's sake... use your head, man.

And, as Donnie already pointed out, the VA got $17B less than they wanted for their budget. The "record levels" thiing is always misleading (and a misleading thing Republicans absolutely love to point to), because "record levels" doesn't mean keeping up with inflation, or the rate of increasing costs, or actuarial needs, etc.

I did pete, and found it very convenient that you did not include Bill Clinton in that list. Do you think he didn't have the same problems or issues with the VA as the others on that list?

You see you only like to point out what is wrong with just one party instead of looking at what is wrong with all parties.

And if the VA is so under funded, as you claim, then why didn't they spend the $450,000,000 that the AG audit found? Yes, it is a drop in the bucket, but every penny helps the vets or was every penny saved helped to get a bonus? Funny also how you failed to mention that the republican house voted in 2013 budget the exact same dollars for the VA that Obama requested.

Quote:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP budget for discretionary spending for the VA was exactly the same as proposed by President Obama for FY 2013.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/stor...rats/10183855/


Or what about this piece from CBS News?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-did...ndal-and-when/

Quote:

According to a 2008 memo obtained by CBS News, VA officials briefed the Obama-Biden transition team that its facilities might be concealing the true amount of time veterans had to wait for care.

"The problems and causes associated with scheduling, waiting times and waiting lists are systemic," the officials wrote. The memo urged the to "properly document desired appointment dates and ensure patient waiting times are accurate" and failure to do so would affect "quality of care by delaying - and potentially denying - deserving veterans timely care."

Yes I am happy that the first thing the acting secretary did was cancel all bonuses. There is no business of giving bonuses when cutting healthcare costs and especially when it comes to the healthcare of our vets.

Why can't you post something about fixing the problem instead of trying to place the blame on others who are no longer in Washington?

As history has shown past administrations, from both sides of the aisle, can claim blame. But there is only one administration that has been in office the past 6 years. There is only one administration that can fix the current problem.

pete 06-09-2014 02:47 PM

Quote:

I did pete,
Then you didn't think hard enough. My point wasn't to absolve the Clinton Administration of anything. My point was Republican administrations have had their opportunities to do something about the issue, too. Hence why I listed Republican administrations.

There's nothing shifty about what I wrote.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169459)
Then you didn't think hard enough. My point wasn't to absolve the Clinton Administration of anything. My point was Republican administrations have had their opportunities to do something about the issue, too. Hence why I listed Republican administrations.

There's nothing shifty about what I wrote.

pete, but you never, ever, say anything against the democrats. That was my point. This was not a discussion about which party was at fault. It was getting the problem fixed.



But as always you made it out to be something that was solely the fault of one party. Just like you claimed it was the republicans that were holding back or reducing the VA funding when in fact the VA funding has increased year after year, even when the republicans control the House. In fact the you even failed to mention that the republicans gave the President the exact amount he wanted in 2013. You always seem to fail to give the republicans credit when due as if doing so would cause God to strike you dead.

So yes "shifty" is the correct word.

pete 06-09-2014 03:33 PM

Quote:

pete, but you never, ever, say anything against the democrats.
Re-read my last half dozen posts. Seriously.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169463)
Re-read my last half dozen posts. Seriously.

Why don't you just cut and paste them I they are so readily available.

pete 06-09-2014 04:21 PM

Because I'm on an iPhone right now, and that's a pain in the ass. Besides, I think you clearly need the reading comprehension work.

Hoek 06-09-2014 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169441)
4. Where I find fault is that Obama, rather than meekly trying to be everybody's buddy and trying not to rock the boat, should have been pounding tables and cussing out Republicans on Capitol Hill if fixing the VA was truly one of his top priorities. He has not made the case to the American people about how destructive the House Republicans' austerity policies are, and he needs to. He needs to shout from the highest building how destructive those policies are.

There you go, WW.

For some reason I recall the VA being brought up as an example of government success in previous healthcare debates, which always raised my eyebrows. Now we're getting admissions that it's been broken for decades. So which is it? Can't have it both ways.

nutznboltz 06-09-2014 05:08 PM

This is not meant as a criticism of pete and Waiver, but these posts are a reflection of what's wrong with our political system. Each side takes a position or ideology, digs in and won't consider that maybe the other side might be right or has a valid point, intransigence settles in, and the intensity of the debate escalates. No one is willing to compromise on anything anymore, so nothing gets done. Deliberate untruths are stated as fact and spreads like wildfire through social media. It doesn't matter what party is in power it seems. No one can change the mind of the other, yet insults are thrown from both sides of the fence. Until enough people get fed up with the status quo, it will only get worse. Just wait until the Rick $cott/Charlie Cri$t money machine gets into gear and swamps the airwaves with attack ads for the next five months. :mad:

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 169473)
There you go, WW.

For some reason I recall the VA being brought up as an example of government success in previous healthcare debates, which always raised my eyebrows. Now we're getting admissions that it's been broken for decades. So which is it? Can't have it both ways.

One, one! Out of how many???

Quote:

This is not meant as a criticism of pete and Waiver, but these posts are a reflection of what's wrong with our political system. Each side takes a position or ideology, digs in and won't consider that maybe the other side might be right or has a valid point, intransigence settles in, and the intensity of the debate escalates. No one is willing to compromise on anything anymore, so nothing gets done. Deliberate untruths are stated as fact and spreads like wildfire through social media. It doesn't matter what party is in power it seems. No one can change the mind of the other, yet insults are thrown from both sides of the fence. Until enough people get fed up with the status quo, it will only get worse. Just wait until the Rick $cott/Charlie Cri$t money machine gets into gear and swamps the airwaves with attack ads for the next five months.
Not a problem what so ever. If fact your are so right.

If one would care to read my posts they are a response to something the pete, or someone else have posted and state that both sides are at fault. My posts give examples as to why both sides are at fault. Others will never admit the same.

And with all honesty I think the #4 post by pete is the first time he has ever admitted there is fault with Obama. Am I shocked by this? Nope as many die hard democrats have been scratching their heads lately with the VA scandal and now the incident in the Rose Garden.

The VA scandal has happened over several administrations. But it is clear that Obama was warned of this possible scandal as early as 2008 by the out going Bush administration. The solution was to throw more money at the VA, but the problems just got worse.

I see two problems with the VA. 1) it is almost impossible to fire the workers due to the union rules and 2) they allowed bonuses to those that kept costs in line. Today we learned that over 60,000 veterans who have requested to see a doctor during the last 10 years have never been seen, this while saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Everyone should be outraged by this behavior and treatment of those that would give their life in order for you and I to have our freedom.

Quote:

For some reason I recall the VA being brought up as an example of government success in previous healthcare debates, which always raised my eyebrows. Now we're getting admissions that it's been broken for decades. So which is it? Can't have it both ways.
Yup, it sure was brought up.

And this one last thing. Why would the WH, against the advise of the commanders in the field, allow the Bergdahl parents to take part in over 20 secure video conferences calls since his capture. Reports are that they were allowed to go to a National Guard Post in their home state in order to listen to these calls. Commanders warned against this due to the sensitive nature of these briefings. But then WH would not even call Dianne Feinstein or the republican counter part on her committee as the WH was worried about a possible leak to the media............say what!

Barlow01 06-09-2014 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169477)
This is not meant as a criticism of pete and Waiver, but these posts are a reflection of what's wrong with our political system. Each side takes a position or ideology, digs in and won't consider that maybe the other side might be right or has a valid point, intransigence settles in, and the intensity of the debate escalates. No one is willing to compromise on anything anymore, so nothing gets done. Deliberate untruths are stated as fact and spreads like wildfire through social media. It doesn't matter what party is in power it seems. No one can change the mind of the other, yet insults are thrown from both sides of the fence. Until enough people get fed up with the status quo, it will only get worse. Just wait until the Rick $cott/Charlie Cri$t money machine gets into gear and swamps the airwaves with attack ads for the next five months. :mad:

This is the best post this thread has ever seen. EVER!!!!

Thank you sir, I agree with every fiber of my being.

nutznboltz 06-09-2014 07:09 PM

Thank you sir, but I guess I am just getting so fed up that it's all coming out. I voted for Obama, yes, and I tried to defend him at the beginning. I knew he inherited a mess and it would take time to turn things around in the economy, plus try and fight a war against a many time, unseen enemy. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Come 2012 and I was really on the fence the whole election season. I listened to both sides, really studied the platforms, and admittedly, reluctantly, voted for him again as a lesser of two evils. And I HATE having to be put in that position.

America has always had great leaders that put the good of the country first before their own agendas. They were able to work with both sides of the aisle to get a consensus and approval on major and minor issues. They seemed to know that without a strong middle class, the country would not succeed and prosper. I have not seen any politician of either party that comes close to this model any longer.

Now it's like every man and woman for themselves, who can accumulate the most gold wins, those that are trying but struggling to get a piece of the American dream, are lazy shiftless welfare slurpers who won't work and expect handouts. I used to be in this rat race for years, making my company profitable only to see my job get moved overseas and given a pink slip. Losing my wife to cancer and seeing how the Big Pharma and Insurance Lobby controls health care has put things in perspective. Watching how my wife's oncologist was so caring and concerned while he was giving her $5500 bi weekly chemo treatments, but when it spread so much he couldn't give her any more and had to turn over to Hospice how his whole expression changed (like a corporate bureaucrat giving HER the pink slip) and we never heard from him again, has soured me on a lot of things.

This forum has helped me vent and express myself in typed words, where sometimes verbally I would get too emotional to continue. I just sit and wonder sometimes whether our country is also turning into uncaring corporate bureaucrats that only care about the top 1% and the rest of us can go to hell. :mad:

Barlow01 06-09-2014 07:41 PM

Agree. Why, in this country does our medical care cost so much yet the outcomes are not even on par with several other countries where the costs are lower. Why in the most innovative culture do we pay so much more for crappy internet and cable with even worse customer service. Why are we behind so many countries in efforts of conservation. There is an endless list of why questions to be asked and the answers in most cases is that our politicians and agency heads are owned by the deep pockets of special interests.

When we should be using our hands to build a bridge between the sides our representatives instead only use them to grab money from lobbyists then point a finger at the other side.

Both sides of the aisle created this and there is plenty of blame to be owned by both.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169482)
Thank you sir, but I guess I am just getting so fed up that it's all coming out. I voted for Obama, yes, and I tried to defend him at the beginning. I knew he inherited a mess and it would take time to turn things around in the economy, plus try and fight a war against a many time, unseen enemy. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Come 2012 and I was really on the fence the whole election season. I listened to both sides, really studied the platforms, and admittedly, reluctantly, voted for him again as a lesser of two evils. And I HATE having to be put in that position.

America has always had great leaders that put the good of the country first before their own agendas. They were able to work with both sides of the aisle to get a consensus and approval on major and minor issues. They seemed to know that without a strong middle class, the country would not succeed and prosper. I have not seen any politician of either party that comes close to this model any longer.

Now it's like every man and woman for themselves, who can accumulate the most gold wins, those that are trying but struggling to get a piece of the American dream, are lazy shiftless welfare slurpers who won't work and expect handouts. I used to be in this rat race for years, making my company profitable only to see my job get moved overseas and given a pink slip. Losing my wife to cancer and seeing how the Big Pharma and Insurance Lobby controls health care has put things in perspective. Watching how my wife's oncologist was so caring and concerned while he was giving her $5500 bi weekly chemo treatments, but when it spread so much he couldn't give her any more and had to turn over to Hospice how his whole expression changed (like a corporate bureaucrat giving HER the pink slip) and we never heard from him again, has soured me on a lot of things.

This forum has helped me vent and express myself in typed words, where sometimes verbally I would get too emotional to continue. I just sit and wonder sometimes whether our country is also turning into uncaring corporate bureaucrats that only care about the top 1% and the rest of us can go to hell. :mad:

nutznboltz I am so sorry to hear about your wife and your career. I have always felt that a patient should always be given what ever care that could possibly work and then some. You are so right, we as Americans value life as the most important thing we could have. No insurance company or government should block any treatment that may help our sick.

It is time for the super pacs to go away. All of them, including the Koch brothers and the Vegas billionaire along with Soros and others on the left.

It is also time to change our tax laws that make taking jobs overseas profitable. I think if you want to sell in the United States then it should be built here.

I also feel that we should say "screw the middle east" and we should stop funding their terror on their own people by moving to become 100% energy independent. Last month I took the train from Chicago to Seattle and I was amazed at the number of oil tankers on our rail system. We passed an oil transfer depot and there were 2 trains one mile long each dumping Canadian oil into the pipeline. And on a Sunday we watched as they laid more track around the depot in order to hold more trains. We passed train after train heading east with their load of oil only to wonder how dangerous this was and if the Keystone XL would be a safer way to transport what is already coming into the States. I would also have no problem with Congress passing Keystone with language that would mandate more development in wind in solar with the ultimate goal to make the latter 2 the energy of choice when costs can be controlled and the parts made in the States.

Many talk about fast rail trains being part of the solution to our transportation problems. While on the train I was told by several Amtrak employees that the current administration quietly change the rules for passenger trains. Prior to this administration passenger trains had the right of way and all freight train traffic had to wait on a side track. As a gift to the unions the WH changed this rule and now all passenger trains must yield to freight traffic. This added time to our tri and caused us to be late by several hours due to untimed rail traffic as freight traffic is up over 400% on our route and a majority of this traffic was oil cars.

With all you have been through nutznboltz remember that as people we are the most caring in the world, we just have a screwed up political system. I do believe that this will change with the pace of social media. No longer can the media nor the government sensor what we are told as options like twitter can expose the truth within minutes.

nutznboltz 06-09-2014 08:31 PM

Luckily, Waiver, even though I was laid off 9 months before my wife passed away, I was with the company long enough that I had severance pay for nearly a year, plus was able to keep all my health insurance benefits during this time. Otherwise, I would have lost her and ended up probably homeless and in bankruptcy with all the medical bills. I also found a better job 3 months before she passed and continue to work there today (even though 6-8 of our jobs are also going overseas, to Manila this time).

Social media has been a great thing, but again, you would have to research every tweet from a politician or Dem or Repub website to fact check what may be the truth and what is more BS. I agree totally with your Super Pacs statement. Money truly has become the root of all evil.

WaiverWire 06-09-2014 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169487)
Luckily, Waiver, even though I was laid off 9 months before my wife passed away, I was with the company long enough that I had severance pay for nearly a year, plus was able to keep all my health insurance benefits during this time. Otherwise, I would have lost her and ended up probably homeless and in bankruptcy with all the medical bills. I also found a better job 3 months before she passed and continue to work there today (even though 6-8 of our jobs are also going overseas, to Manila this time).

Social media has been a great thing, but again, you would have to research every tweet from a politician or Dem or Repub website to fact check what may be the truth and what is more BS. I agree totally with your Super Pacs statement. Money truly has become the root of all evil.

I am glad that things worked out for you during a time when you need all the support you can get. My wife had cancer several years ago and was one of the lucky ones to beat it. It is not a good feeling for those that care about their loved ones.

I don't know if I could ever believe a tweet from a politician without doing a ton of research.

But tweets helped for the Clippers and the VA. This is a very empowering tool for the common person who gets no response on an issue from the media or a politician.

Several weeks ago my nephew in law had a problem with a certain airline while on a layover in Dallas while on a business trip. He was told by an airline employee he was at the wrong gate and he needed to be at gate so and so. He went to that gate only to be told he had been at the right gate. We he got back there he had missed the connection and the same employee did nothing, not even an apology. He then went to a manager for the airline who said the best they could do is get him out on a flight the next morning at 10:30 am.

He then made himself comfortable as best he could and recorded a tweet about his episode in which he refused to may the airline but would do so in 2 hours if he was not contacted by airline management. Once the tweet was out it was ret-tweeted by several thousand. Within his deadline he was contacted by and airline VP who refunded his ticket, gave him a future flight free and placed him in first class on the next flight. All the VP asked was for a tweet saying Will was not satisfied and made whole by the airline, which he did.

Point is businesses are listening to social media. I know that the news media is also listening. Lets hope that others will follow suit.

nutznboltz 06-09-2014 09:41 PM

Great story! I haven't joined Twitter (yet) because I don't think my life is interesting enough that anyone would follow me lol. But your nephew's story is a great example of the power of social media. This would never have happened pre-Twitter, you could never get through the layers to get someone to hear your complaint and act on it. How did airline management know to contact him if he didn't/wouldn't name the airline for two hours? Thinking maybe through his twitter handle, you could find out a persons real name, then they scanned their reservations lists to see if his name was on it?

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169494)
Great story! I haven't joined Twitter (yet) because I don't think my life is interesting enough that anyone would follow me lol. But your nephew's story is a great example of the power of social media. This would never have happened pre-Twitter, you could never get through the layers to get someone to hear your complaint and act on it. How did airline management know to contact him if he didn't/wouldn't name the airline for two hours? Thinking maybe through his twitter handle, you could find out a persons real name, then they scanned their reservations lists to see if his name was on it?

During his video he said he would not reveal their name but then posted a picture of one of their planes from an ad promo taking off. He spoke like a political, what he said was half true as "he" never mentioned their name, but allowed the photo to do all the talking.

Twitter, it is a wonderful thing. It was the use of twitter by the soldiers of Bergdahl's squad that allowed them to get out their message as they could not get the main stream media to listen to them. Now they have the government trying to discredit them.

Sotnos 06-10-2014 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 169435)
Than again, maybe that is why the they asked for $17 billion in additional funding for the VA system to hire more medical personnel. Unfortunately, the house didn't want to increase the debt. They didn't mind increasing the debt to go to war - they just don't want to increase the debt to take care of those injured in that war.

I see this as a classic setup job. We won't give you the resources that you tell us are necessary to do your job and then blame you when you don't do your job properly as a result of not receiving those resources.

That's been the story of many things during this administration (including BEN GHAZI).

As for the VA issues...didn't they also recently decide to stop questioning Agent Orange claims? That added a lot to the burden.

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 169505)
That's been the story of many things during this administration (including BEN GHAZI).

As for the VA issues...didn't they also recently decide to stop questioning Agent Orange claims? That added a lot to the burden.

Agent Orange claims have been being paid out for many years. I have a close friend that is getting this for about 7 years now.

He told me that his claim rep at the VA told him almost anyone can get this claim now. He gave an example that he, the claim rep, served on a ship that had dock in Nam. Because he stepped off the ship while being assigned to another ship, which then left Nam the same day, he was able to file a claim as he set
"boots on the ground". He also said that was the only time he was in Nam, which was about 5 hours total.

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 169511)
I'm confused. The problem is that it takes more than 90 days for an initial visit? It takes me 9 months to get an appointment for a physical with my doctor. I wonder how long it would take a private patient to see a doctor for the first time?

Most times it takes that long for an exam appointment when you are first seen, note first seen.

Most times to get in for your first appoint it only takes a few days. These 57,000 were still waiting after 90 days. Not a good way to treat our vets.

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 169530)
Isn't an initial visit the first time you are being seen?

Most doctors want to 1st meet with you if you are becoming a new patient and then they will schedule the physical at a later date.

For the 57,000 vets they have waited over 90 days for their first visit. This is in addition to the 64,000 that had requested an appointment and still have not received one.

nutznboltz 06-10-2014 08:49 PM

House Majority leader Eric Cantor (R) loses to a Tea Party candidate tonight :ohmy:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...ted-in-primary

pete 06-10-2014 09:01 PM

Not a good thing. Funny, but not a good thing. Cantor's uber-conservative, but because he came out for immigration reform he got whacked by an opponent who had zero funding. The message to every Republican politician in the House is that if you don't toe the extreme line, you're vulnerable because even the frickin' Majority Leader can go down in flames that way. GOP moves further right. Bad for the country.

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169541)
Not a good thing. Funny, but not a good thing. Cantor's uber-conservative, but because he came out for immigration reform he got whacked by an opponent who had zero funding. The message to every Republican politician in the House is that if you don't toe the extreme line, you're vulnerable because even the frickin' Majority Leader can go down in flames that way. GOP moves further right. Bad for the country.

I'm in shock. He lost by 11.2%.

pete 06-10-2014 09:34 PM

You should be. Nobody saw that coming. I expect fear to spread through the GOP House caucus like a wildfire.

WaiverWire 06-10-2014 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169543)
You should be. Nobody saw that coming. I expect fear to spread through the GOP House caucus like a wildfire.

After the Rays game I was flipping channels and caught part of an interview with Brat who said that he thought he had a chance when he noticed that Cantor was more interested in running for Speaker than re-election.

This should send a message to both Reid and Boehner that they need each other to get bills passed. Time for both sides to move toward the middle in order to get bills passed for the good of the people. And yes, I know, it is a pipe dream.

pete 06-10-2014 10:29 PM

Any Republican that takes 1 step to the middle runs the risk of getting whacked in a primary. Ask Cantor. Democrats can move to the center. Republicans can't join them there because of intraparty politics. That's the problem.

Hoek 06-10-2014 10:39 PM

The heck does Virginia care so much about immigration for? Bad sign if that was decided it.

dannybolt 06-10-2014 10:46 PM

I don't know anything about the views of the guy who beat Cantor. However, he is an economics professor, which makes him more qualified to make decisions with economic ramifications than 99% of our elected representatives. We need more people in Washington who can understand the economic ramifications of their decisions; whether this guy is the right one, I have no idea. I do know that a Congressional body populated mostly by attorneys does a pretty bad job at rational and pragmatic economic policy.

the_narrow_way 06-10-2014 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169508)
Agent Orange claims have been being paid out for many years. I have a close friend that is getting this for about 7 years now. He told me that his claim rep at the VA told him almost anyone can get this claim now. He gave an example that he, the claim rep, served on a ship that had dock in Nam. Because he stepped off the ship while being assigned to another ship, which then left Nam the same day, he was able to file a claim as he set "boots on the ground". He also said that was the only time he was in Nam, which was about 5 hours total.

This is an example of why the problem is not all on the VA side of the equation. False claims like this contribute to the backlog.

BurnTHalO 06-11-2014 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 169546)
The heck does Virginia care so much about immigration for? Bad sign if that was decided it.

Could be good for dems. Keep pushing the right further right, and more of the sane people are going to vote exclusively democrat.


Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 169547)
I don't know anything about the views of the guy who beat Cantor. However, he is an economics professor, which makes him more qualified to make decisions with economic ramifications than 99% of our elected representatives. We need more people in Washington who can understand the economic ramifications of their decisions; whether this guy is the right one, I have no idea. I do know that a Congressional body populated mostly by attorneys does a pretty bad job at rational and pragmatic economic policy.

Yes and no. Sure, he would be nice to have helping on some economic aspects. But it is crazy to sit here and think that the only thing Congress needs to know is economics. He may be able to say "This and this and this are spending too much, we need to do this to raise revenues," but he doesn't understand climate change and how his eliminating restrictions will effect that. Hell, what does he honestly know about immigration as an economist (the very thing he ran on it sounds like). I think my biggest issue in Congress is not that they aren't experts (they shouldn't be), but that they don't LISTEN to experts.

What I find funny, is that no matter dem or republican, the winner of this seat will be a Randolph-Macon College professor. Brat's opponent (Jack Trammell) is a professor of Sociology.

Flycoon 06-11-2014 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169439)
Governor Scott has signed the bill which will allow those without documentation to receive in-state tuition.

This was the right thing to do.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...mented/2183562

Blind hog....acorn....

Flycoon 06-11-2014 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169508)
Agent Orange claims have been being paid out for many years. I have a close friend that is getting this for about 7 years now.

He told me that his claim rep at the VA told him almost anyone can get this claim now. He gave an example that he, the claim rep, served on a ship that had dock in Nam. Because he stepped off the ship while being assigned to another ship, which then left Nam the same day, he was able to file a claim as he set
"boots on the ground". He also said that was the only time he was in Nam, which was about 5 hours total.

They learned a hard lesson on Agent Orange and are denying claims regarding the poisoned water source at Camp LeJune (sp) as it happened too long ago. Just like the private sector would.

Flycoon 06-11-2014 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 169547)
I don't know anything about the views of the guy who beat Cantor. However, he is an economics professor, which makes him more qualified to make decisions with economic ramifications than 99% of our elected representatives. We need more people in Washington who can understand the economic ramifications of their decisions; whether this guy is the right one, I have no idea. I do know that a Congressional body populated mostly by attorneys does a pretty bad job at rational and pragmatic economic policy.

Economics/ethics (odd combination) professor AND to the right of Cantor?

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169545)
Any Republican that takes 1 step to the middle runs the risk of getting whacked in a primary. Ask Cantor. Democrats can move to the center. Republicans can't join them there because of intraparty politics. That's the problem.

Not if the bills passed make sense and are really a move forward. Republicans would pick up a large section of the independent vote which could offset those on the far right that chose to stay home in a general election.

Some how, some way this wall blocking immigration reform, energy, education and economic issues has got to be smashed in order for the country to move forward.

Everyone has got to face the facts. Not everyone, or either side for that matter, will be happy with the outcome from one perspective or another. But it still has to be done.

I really do not think that the Cantor's loss was such a huge win for Brat. He now has to win in November for this to be a big issue. I think the Cantor loss was more about sending a message to Congress that those in Virginia are fed up and will not stand by and watch theses games being played by Congress. So they sent the first volley by ousting one of the bigger names. This could also happened across the aisle to any of them.

I do have one question about Virginia??? Is Virginia one of the States that allows a voter from any party, say democrat, to vote in a another party's election, say like a republican primary?

Only time will tell.

BurnTHalO 06-11-2014 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169568)
Not if the bills passed make sense and are really a move forward. Republicans would pick up a large section of the independent vote which could offset those on the far right that chose to stay home in a general election.

Some how, some way this wall blocking immigration reform, energy, education and economic issues has got to be smashed in order for the country to move forward.

Everyone has got to face the facts. Not everyone, or either side for that matter, will be happy with the outcome from one perspective or another. But it still has to be done.

I really do not think that the Cantor's loss was such a huge win for Brat. He now has to win in November for this to be a big issue. I think the Cantor loss was more about sending a message to Congress that those in Virginia are fed up and will not stand by and watch theses games being played by Congress. So they sent the first volley by ousting one of the bigger names. This could also happened across the aisle to any of them. It is a huge loss for Republicans because it shows you can not show the slightest inkling for being moderate if you want to win a primary, which aside from alienating 80% of the country, also means they will continue to keep any bills from passing.

I do have one question about Virginia??? Is Virginia one of the States that allows a voter from any party, say democrat, to vote in a another party's election, say like a republican primary?

Only time will tell.

I think you missed the point of what Pete was making. Sure, doing that would be fine in the general elections. The problem is the extremes are taking over the primaries, and this is proof that you have to go extreme right just to win your primary, leaving all of that middle for the dems when the actual election rolls around.

To answer your question, yes, they can. However, that did not impact Cantor:

Quote:

While Republican primary turnout spiked by 28 percent over 2012, according to the State Board of Elections, Cantor received nearly 8,500 fewer votes this year than he did in the 2012 Republican primary, a drop that was larger than Brat's 7,200-vote margin of victory. Regardless of how many Democrats turned out to oppose Cantor, he still would have prevailed had he maintained the same level of support as in his 2012 landslide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m-eric-cantor/

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 169570)
I think you missed the point of what Pete was making. Sure, doing that would be fine in the general elections. The problem is the extremes are taking over the primaries, and this is proof that you have to go extreme right just to win your primary, leaving all of that middle for the dems when the actual election rolls around.

To answer your question, yes, they can. However, that did not impact Cantor:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m-eric-cantor/

I didn't miss his point. Cantor was one election out of how many the tea party has lost?

Many are saying that Cantor lost because of the immigration issue. Brat kept pounding away that Cantor wanted to give those here "amnesty". That is so untrue. I do not think that I can name one politician that wants to give anayone "amnesty". Can you?

Brat took the definition of "amnesty" to a whole new level of meaning with a definition that is not even close to the definition.

timothy 06-11-2014 12:35 PM

Cantor lost because his constituency rightly sees him as blocker in Congress for getting things done. The polls in VA have folks overwhelmingly in favor for immigration reform, so that's not why he lost despite what the tea party winner might claim. He is the benefactor of a constituency fed up with the GOP doing nothing in Congress but stalemating any kind of progress.

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 12:47 PM

Don't know when this are but it is very refreshing. It is from the show "What Would You Do".

http://pulptastic.com/black-man-whit...em-barbershop/

the_narrow_way 06-11-2014 12:52 PM

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elec...verall-n128126

pete 06-11-2014 01:42 PM

Quote:

Cantor lost because his constituency rightly sees him as blocker in Congress for getting things done. The polls in VA have folks overwhelmingly in favor for immigration reform, so that's not why he lost despite what the tea party winner might claim. He is the benefactor of a constituency fed up with the GOP doing nothing in Congress but stalemating any kind of progress.
You're assuming rationalism permates the GOP primary voting process these days. You're incorrect.

You have to understand, the universe of voters in a statewide general election in Virginia is purple, but the universe of voters in a midterm GOP primary in Eric Cantor's congressional district is blood red (another "bonus" of gerrymandering creating highly polarized districts). The Teahadist in question ran his whole campaign attacking Cantor for supporting anything resembling a path to citizenship. He used it as the central issue to paint Cantor as a puppet of the GOP establishment who is rolling over for President Obama's "extreme socialist agenda of doom," or whatever. Now, in a general election scenario, that wouldn't have really hurt Cantor. But in the blood red universe of that election, where only the extreme right of the right showed up to the polls, he got frickin' creamed for it.

Don't think every semi-sane GOP House member didn't piss their britches a little when they saw what happened last night. The interpretation of the results will be that the slightest step to the middle could be the thing that costs you your seat. The takeaway is not going to be that they should stop obstructing and start working on compromise legislation. The takeaway is that if they don't take every opportunity to throw red meat to their base voters, they could be out of a job. Again, that's bad for the country, because even if these GOP politicians want to do the right thing, doing the right thing can cost them their jobs.

pete 06-11-2014 02:03 PM

I think this story summarizing the Twitter chatter of Cantor's loss explains it well:

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1306027

The largely unspoken thing, btw, is that Cantor was one of the few Jewish Republicans in office. If you're not a white, Christian male, that's an instant strike against you in the universe of a GOP primary these days.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ns-107698.html

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 04:41 PM

From what I am hearing this whole Cantor loss is being blown out of proportion.

I heard that things started going down hill for him when he created a national super pac as he was looking into the future. His biggest ally was the republican county chair in his district. Pressure from around the state got this chair removed. Cantor should had taken notice, but he did not. Other republican chairmen throughout the State then turned on him and wanted him gone. Then his district office was giving out poor service, and again he did nothing. This is why several shows last night said this defeat could very well be the end of his political career as no current county chair would support him in any effort.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/why-eric-cantor-lost

Flycoon 06-11-2014 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169568)
Not if the bills passed make sense and are really a move forward. Republicans would pick up a large section of the independent vote which could offset those on the far right that chose to stay home in a general election.

Some how, some way this wall blocking immigration reform, energy, education and economic issues has got to be smashed in order for the country to move forward.

Everyone has got to face the facts. Not everyone, or either side for that matter, will be happy with the outcome from one perspective or another. But it still has to be done.

I really do not think that the Cantor's loss was such a huge win for Brat. He now has to win in November for this to be a big issue. I think the Cantor loss was more about sending a message to Congress that those in Virginia are fed up and will not stand by and watch theses games being played by Congress. So they sent the first volley by ousting one of the bigger names. This could also happened across the aisle to any of them.

I do have one question about Virginia??? Is Virginia one of the States that allows a voter from any party, say democrat, to vote in a another party's election, say like a republican primary?

Only time will tell.

The problem Republicans have that prevent them from moving even center-right is the wing nuts show in force for primaries. The old whites who feel they are being discriminated against. The "keep your gubmint hands off my medicare" crowd.

Brat will win. This is one of the most gerrymandered districts in the country
and the Dems have given up on ever winning here. The Democratic nominee (they don't even bother with a primary in this district) is also a faculty member at the same tiny school.

Just for the record, bills that make sense to mainstream America NEVER make sense to tea baggers.

Flycoon 06-11-2014 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169573)
Brat took the definition of "amnesty" to a whole new level of meaning with a definition that is not even close to the definition.

No he didn't. Any path to legalization is opposed by the hard right. Those are the jobs they want to make those "shiftless" characters living the high life on food stamps, AFDC, and talking on "Obama phones" to fill.

Flycoon 06-11-2014 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 169581)
I think this story summarizing the Twitter chatter of Cantor's loss explains it well:

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1306027

The largely unspoken thing, btw, is that Cantor was one of the few Jewish Republicans in office. If you're not a white, Christian male, that's an instant strike against you in the universe of a GOP primary these days.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ns-107698.html

Always found it odd that a Jew could be elected in that district.

pete 06-11-2014 06:25 PM

It's not as mismatched as Congressman Cohen from Memphis.

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 07:32 PM

I know many here hate Fox News. But if any of this is true, Benghazi is not a dead issue and Clinton may have some more explaining to do.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...all-terrorist/


Quote:

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.”

A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.
Yet Major Stahl was never interview by the ARB.:noidea:


Quote:

Stahl also contended that given his crew’s alert status and location, they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” he told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.”

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 08:09 PM

Thanks for the link.

But in Clinton's book, and now even in the interviews she has said that basically she had no idea how bad it was since it "was not her job" as she had people below her to handle the security there.

What, did she really say something like that???

Did she not know of the prior attacks? Did she not know that others pulled out of Benghazi? Did she not know that even the Red Cross left?

I just want to see a clean slate in Washington. No more of the past. Let others have a chance to lead.

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 08:16 PM

Crap!

Quote:

(CNN) -- It's official. Sen. Ted Cruz is now a citizen of the United States -- and the United States only.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3

WaiverWire 06-11-2014 09:55 PM

U.S. may provide air strike for Iraq according to CNN


http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Flycoon 06-12-2014 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169604)
U.S. may provide air strike for Iraq according to CNN


http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Please, not again. No more intervention into civil/religious wars.

WaiverWire 06-12-2014 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timothy (Post 169574)
Cantor lost because his constituency rightly sees him as blocker in Congress for getting things done. The polls in VA have folks overwhelmingly in favor for immigration reform, so that's not why he lost despite what the tea party winner might claim. He is the benefactor of a constituency fed up with the GOP doing nothing in Congress but stalemating any kind of progress.

in the words of Dick Durbin: A simpler way to look at it, Cantor sat on the fence, some said he was a blocker, when it came to immigration reform. Lindsey Graham was calling for immigration reform and trounced his 6 other opponents.

Flycoon 06-12-2014 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169612)
in the words of Dick Durbin: A simpler way to look at it, Cantor sat on the fence, some said he was a blocker, when it came to immigration reform. Lindsey Graham was calling for immigration reform and trounced his 6 other opponents.

Huge difference was Graham campaigned hard and personally in SC for the last 2 - 3 years. Being a "bachelor", he has nothing on his plate but politics and winning elections. Cantor rarely visited his district and thought he could campaign in absentia.

WaiverWire 06-12-2014 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 169617)
Huge difference was Graham campaigned hard and personally in SC for the last 2 - 3 years. Being a "bachelor", he has nothing on his plate but politics and winning elections. Cantor rarely visited his district and thought he could campaign in absentia.

Cantor was there almost every week. Problem was he was campaigning for Speaker of the House and even set up a super pac. This got the committee chair in his county ousted. When he went to the attack he turned every county committee chair against him.

It was very dumb on his part and then he didn't even see that the republicans in his district were 72% for immigration reform.

Yes he was in a conservative district, but if the democrat challenger plays their cards right and campaigns on being more in the middle of the political spectrum, they can beat Brat.

nutznboltz 06-12-2014 05:36 PM

Stock market continues to go down on fears of what is happening in Iraq. No matter what our country has done in the past, when trained homegrown troops put down their weapons and turn tail, what else is expected of the US? At some point, the country has to stand on it's own two feet and the US has to stop enabling them in another potential quagmire. :mad:

the_narrow_way 06-12-2014 10:33 PM

What is there to panic about? Why would anyone think we'd do anything more than send in some drones, long-range missiles, or drop some bombs from so high up the targets on the ground wouldn't even see the plane?

BurnTHalO 06-13-2014 09:40 AM

Sounds like Iran is now going to get involved and help out Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06...istorical-foe/

Flycoon 06-13-2014 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 169642)
Stock market continues to go down on fears of what is happening in Iraq. No matter what our country has done in the past, when trained homegrown troops put down their weapons and turn tail, what else is expected of the US? At some point, the country has to stand on it's own two feet and the US has to stop enabling them in another potential quagmire. :mad:

It is difficult to muster support for a country that doesn't give a shit. Who do we support? The Iranian (Hezbollah) backed Malicki regime? Do we continue to fund the opposition on Syria, who just happen to be ISIS?

We are screwed regardless of our course of action.

The entire region is a Shia vs Sunni conflict with a bit of Kurd tossed in for good measure.

WaiverWire 06-13-2014 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 169660)
It is difficult to muster support for a country that doesn't give a shit. Who do we support? The Iranian (Hezbollah) backed Malicki regime? Do we continue to fund the opposition on Syria, who just happen to be ISIS?

We are screwed regardless of our course of action.

The entire region is a Shia vs Sunni conflict with a bit of Kurd tossed in for good measure.

A religion war that no one can solve unless they kill each other.

Problem is the ISIS will use there new land to for their war camps and then they will strike out again with terror, and Israel and the U.S. are their prime targets.

Flycoon 06-14-2014 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 169661)
A religion war that no one can solve unless they kill each other.

Problem is the ISIS will use there new land to for their war camps and then they will strike out again with terror, and Israel and the U.S. are their prime targets.

ISIS is the group we have been weaponizing in Syria.

This will anger you Biden haters, but he had it right. Iraq should have been three countries; one Kurd, one Shia, and one Sunni. Difficult to integrate peoples who have been at war with each other for centuries without a strong arm like Saddam running rough shod.

The Saddam Hussein days are really looking like the "good, old days" in Iraq.

Top Shelf 06-16-2014 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 169690)
This will anger you Biden haters, but he had it right. Iraq should have been three countries; one Kurd, one Shia, and one Sunni.

That's a fine idea if it'd reduce the amount of religious idiots killing each other (which is doubtful), but Biden is far from the originator of it. Gaffe-ter all, he says he never called for partition of Iraq, and politifact agrees fully:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...artition-iraq/

The less time spent trying to lend credence to cretins the better

WaiverWire 06-24-2014 01:46 PM

But nothing will ever happen..............

Archivist: IRS didn’t follow law regarding lost emails

Quote:

David Ferriero says federal law requires that government agencies must notify the National Archives and Records Administration when it becomes aware that federal records are lost.



Ferriero says his organization learned of the lost records about three years after the fact.

http://tbo.com/ap/archivist-irs-didn...ails-20140624/

BurnTHalO 06-24-2014 05:06 PM

Note to self. When this has been done for 8 years to liberal groups, ignore. When it happens to conservatives, it is the most communistic, socialist, horrid thing done in history.

Also, I can't stop laughing at what Obama apparently directly works on. I'm sure he is directly working to go after conservative groups with the IRS, that he doesn't concentrate on anything other than what Fox supported groups do. For the love of God, the nonsense in this country is so absurd and out of control, I'm honestly questioning if there is any hope for this country anymore.

WaiverWire 06-24-2014 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 170176)
Note to self. When this has been done for 8 years to liberal groups, ignore. When it happens to conservatives, it is the most communistic, socialist, horrid thing done in history.

Also, I can't stop laughing at what Obama apparently directly works on. I'm sure he is directly working to go after conservative groups with the IRS, that he doesn't concentrate on anything other than what Fox supported groups do. For the love of God, the nonsense in this country is so absurd and out of control, I'm honestly questioning if there is any hope for this country anymore.

Who gives a rats behind what groups are targeted. The fact is this should not be happening at all with an agency that is suppose to be "neutral" when it comes to politics.

Hoek 06-24-2014 05:30 PM

And then blatantly obstructs justice by conveniently "losing" e-mails where somehow everyone who was involved has their hard drive crash. Give me a break. That stuff is on a server that is backed up if there's any remotely competent IT involved. I don't care too much about the partisan bickering, but this "dog ate my homework" excuse to avoid inquiry is pitiful and disturbing.

pete 06-24-2014 06:44 PM

Quote:

The Saddam Hussein days are really looking like the "good, old days" in Iraq.
Which is why Bush Sr. did not press on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, and that's why Bush Jr. and Cheney were such goddamned idiots for going into Iraq when they didn't have to. There's nothing that's occurring now that wasn't obvious 25 years ago. Nothing.

When you ignore the fundamental tenets of post-WWII American foreign policy to fight an elective, "pre-emptive" war, this is the garbage that happens. That's why no neoconservative should ever be allowed to hold a position of power in any administration anywhere ever again.

WaiverWire 06-24-2014 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 170211)
It's illegal for a political group to be a 501c3 non profit. The fact that the government went after these political groups was not a mistake and those who engage in political activities should have their request to be a nonprofit denied. The question is whether tea party groups were targeted MORE than liberal groups. That has already been answered - NO. A higher percentage of liberal groups were denied 501c3 status than conservative groups. Both groups were targeted when the IRS became aware of them. The difference and the only difference is that there were tons of tea party groups established after Obama was elected so numerically more tea party groups were reviewed.

Once again, let's ignore the fact that conservative political organizations were illegally registering as 501c3 organizations and go after the IRS who was just doing their job.

When I did 2 501(c)(3)'s I was told by the IRS we could not endorse a candidate but we could lobby if that was not our main function.

Sorry, but I do think you are wrong. 501(c)(3) groups were not the ones the IRS went after. Once the Citizens United ruling came out and the President lashed out at the SCOTUS things started going downhill. Several democrat congressional leaders asked the IRS to look into this issue. Lerner also started looking into this issue, but they were looking at those applying for the 501(c)(4). They used catch words that were more to the right, but they also caught a few on the left. In total many on the right still do not have their 501(c)(4) approval, but all on the left were approved.

It could had all been a huge misunderstanding. But once again those running DC blew it and now it looks more and more like a special prosecutor should be assigned as we do know that laws were violated.

One of the biggest problems is that you can not fire a federal worker that is in a union. So today we have workers that have violated laws and nothing is being done.

Here is a nice break down on the mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

dannybolt 06-24-2014 09:10 PM

This is the most interesting the News thread has been in a long time. Good points being made all around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top Shelf (Post 169771)
That's a fine idea if it'd reduce the amount of religious idiots killing each other (which is doubtful), but Biden is far from the originator of it. Gaffe-ter all, he says he never called for partition of Iraq, and politifact agrees fully:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...artition-iraq/

The less time spent trying to lend credence to cretins the better

Biden strikes me as the Democrats version of Dan Quayle. The other side paints him as an idiot, but he's smarter than he's given credit for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 170192)
Which is why Bush Sr. did not press on to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, and that's why Bush Jr. and Cheney were such goddamned idiots for going into Iraq when they didn't have to. There's nothing that's occurring now that wasn't obvious 25 years ago. Nothing.

When you ignore the fundamental tenets of post-WWII American foreign policy to fight an elective, "pre-emptive" war, this is the garbage that happens. That's why no neoconservative should ever be allowed to hold a position of power in any administration anywhere ever again.

Myself and a lot of other people got fooled into going along with the Iraq war. What's the saying? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice? Won't get fooled again.

I have no respect for any of the Hawks opinion on how we need to "fix" Iraq, or what we need to do about what is going on over there. The hornet's nest in the middle east, of which Iraq is only a part, goes back to Isaac and Ishmael, and now Ishmael's descendants can't get along with each other, much less the descendants of Isaac. I honestly don't see the point in even getting involved with any of it anymore. Let them tear each other apart. There are no good answers for us in this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 170185)
And then blatantly obstructs justice by conveniently "losing" e-mails where somehow everyone who was involved has their hard drive crash. Give me a break. That stuff is on a server that is backed up if there's any remotely competent IT involved. I don't care too much about the partisan bickering, but this "dog ate my homework" excuse to avoid inquiry is pitiful and disturbing.

Yeah, claiming incompetence is never a compelling argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 170211)
It's illegal for a political group to be a 501c3 non profit. The fact that the government went after these political groups was not a mistake and those who engage in political activities should have their request to be a nonprofit denied. The question is whether tea party groups were targeted MORE than liberal groups. That has already been answered - NO. A higher percentage of liberal groups were denied 501c3 status than conservative groups. Both groups were targeted when the IRS became aware of them. The difference and the only difference is that there were tons of tea party groups established after Obama was elected so numerically more tea party groups were reviewed.

Once again, let's ignore the fact that conservative political organizations were illegally registering as 501c3 organizations and go after the IRS who was just doing their job.

This gets missed in a lot of the bluster. Great point, Donnie. EVEN IF Republican organizations were targeted over Democratic ones, they were still trying to skirt (or break) the law. Just because the other side is also wrong doesn't make yours right.

pete 06-24-2014 10:05 PM

I have a simple solution: abolish private money in the political process altogether.

WaiverWire 06-24-2014 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 170222)
I have a simple solution: abolish private money in the political process altogether.

Yup, something that you and I have said several times.

All 501(c) have to be changed. 501(c)(5) allows the labor unions to conduct business as they do and 501(c)(6) allows trade associations, like the United States Chamber of Commerce, to do the same thing.

The IRS was their own worst enemy when they changed the rules for the 501(c) making it much easier to hide the money. Then the SCOTUS followed up with their ruling.

WaiverWire 06-24-2014 10:26 PM

And now we have Senator Coburn saying that as many as 1,000 vets may have died over the past decade while waiting for treatment. They are also saying that the wait lists had over 120,000 names on them.

Quote:

"Over the past decade, more than 1,000 veterans may have died as a result of VA malfeasance," said Coburn, a three-time cancer survivor who says the government should offer veterans access to private hospitals.

"Poor management is costing the department billions of dollars more and compromising veterans' access to medical care," he said.
This is an absolute disgrace to those that have served and protected us over the years. All politicians should be blamed and held accountable if any of this is true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/sen...html?hpt=hp_t2

Then there is the whistleblower who has come forward.

Quote:

Records of dead veterans were changed or physically altered, some even in recent weeks, to hide how many people died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA hospital, a whistle-blower told CNN in stunning revelations that point to a new coverup in the ongoing VA scandal.

"Deceased" notes on files were removed to make statistics look better, so veterans would not be counted as having died while waiting for care, Pauline DeWenter said.
This is just so sick and wrong.

Quote:

It was one of DeWenter's roles to call veterans when appointments became available to schedule them to get a consultation. Sometimes when she made those calls, she'd find that the veteran had died, so she would enter that on their records.

But at least seven times since last October, records that showed that veterans died while waiting for care -- records which DeWenter personally handled and had entered in details of veterans' deaths -- were physically altered, or written over, by someone else, DeWenter said in an exclusive interview with CNN. The changes, or re-writes, listed the veterans as living, not deceased, essentially hiding their deaths.

The alterations had even occurred in recent weeks, she said, in a deliberate attempt to try to hide just how many veterans died while waiting for care, by trying to pretend dead veterans remain alive.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/us/pho...ons/index.html

the_narrow_way 06-25-2014 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 170219)
What's the saying? Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice? Won't get fooled again.

:D That's quite a mash-up ya got there. Been listening to The Who lately?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 170222)
I have a simple solution: abolish private money in the political process altogether.

/signed

BurnTHalO 06-25-2014 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170227)
And now we have Senator Coburn saying that as many as 1,000 vets may have died over the past decade while waiting for treatment. They are also saying that the wait lists had over 120,000 names on them.



This is an absolute disgrace to those that have served and protected us over the years. All politicians should be blamed and held accountable if any of this is true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/sen...html?hpt=hp_t2

Then there is the whistleblower who has come forward.



This is just so sick and wrong.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/us/pho...ons/index.html

but but but, we have the best health care system in the world. And people are on waiting lists and die in Cananda where they have Universal care, this doesn't happen in the US. Were these guys in Canada? (not at you WW, I know you are for Universal Health Care).

Flycoon 06-25-2014 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170180)
Who gives a rats behind what groups are targeted. The fact is this should not be happening at all with an agency that is suppose to be "neutral" when it comes to politics.

This IS the IRS' job. They can't just give tax exempt status to anyone claiming to be a "social welfare" based group. How in the world can ANY political action committee or other party based group have "social welfare" in mind?

NAMBLA, white supremacy groups, Black Panthers (all 5 of them) would all say they have "social welfare" in mind.

So everyone who wants tax exempt status gets it? Stoopid.

Flycoon 06-25-2014 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170224)
Yup, something that you and I have said several times.

All 501(c) have to be changed. 501(c)(5) allows the labor unions to conduct business as they do and 501(c)(6) allows trade associations, like the United States Chamber of Commerce, to do the same thing.

The IRS was their own worst enemy when they changed the rules for the 501(c) making it much easier to hide the money. Then the SCOTUS followed up with their ruling.

So now you believe that the IRS created the 501c organizations?

Jeezuz, man, get a grip. All of your bitching about the IRS started on K Streeet and went through the Congress.

Flycoon 06-25-2014 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 170242)
but but but, we have the best health care system in the world. And people are on waiting lists and die in Cananda where they have Universal care, this doesn't happen in the US. Were these guys in Canada? (not at you WW, I know you are for Universal Health Care).

We can always afford to finance a war, but we never have the resources to take care of the consequences. If only there was a way for the military industrial complex to make big $ from veterans health care.

dannybolt 06-25-2014 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 170238)
:D That's quite a mash-up ya got there. Been listening to The Who lately?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
/signed

Yeah, I know how it goes. I was paraphrasing GWB's famous mangling of the quote in my critique of Iraq.http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/g...10bushisms.htm
:p

WaiverWire 06-25-2014 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 170248)
So now you believe that the IRS created the 501c organizations?

Jeezuz, man, get a grip. All of your bitching about the IRS started on K Streeet and went through the Congress.

Please show where I claimed they created the 501(c)? They did not, but they did change the rules several years after they were created.

WaiverWire 06-25-2014 09:41 AM

SCOTUS is handing down a few cases today.

The first one is a major blow to Aereo. In a 6-3 vote they ruled that Aereo can not stream television over the net without approval as the broadcasts have copyrights.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/medi...html?hpt=hp_t2

The second case today was a no brainer. The court ruled when arrested law enforcement must have a search warrant to retrieve information from your phone. Can't find the ruling yet but I would think that this ruling would be inline with how computers are treated.

Update*******

Ruling was 9-0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rest/10025923/

Flycoon 06-25-2014 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170284)
Please show where I claimed they created the 501(c)? They did not, but they did change the rules several years after they were created.

What laws/statutes did the IRS change independent of Congress?

WaiverWire 06-25-2014 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 170328)
What laws/statutes did the IRS change independent of Congress?

Below is from the link I posted on page 26. This is very well known fact and can be found with a Google search.

The IRS is one of those agencies that has rule making authority along with the ability to "interpret" the laws they are to enforce.


Quote:

United States federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from having to pay federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements".[13] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.[14]
It was the IRS, who years ago, applied a more "relax" standard.

And look at this issue;

http://www.bna.com/irs-look-political-n17179869834/

WaiverWire 06-25-2014 05:08 PM

And now an email has surfaced that Lerner tried to get Sen. Charles Grassley audited.

dannybolt 06-26-2014 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170344)
And now an email has surfaced that Lerner tried to get Sen. Charles Grassley audited.

Not everything that Matt Drudge thinks is a scandal, is a scandal.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/retir...say-1403729355
Nothing in this article comes remotely close to saying she did anything different than what she should have done as an IRS agent. She suggested an audit because she got an email offering what would amount to equivalent compensation to a US Senator. As income of this type is often not reported, it would make sense to kick the idea of an audit around, which is all she did. Oh yeah, the article states that in the email chain she asked about investigating the organization, not Grassley.

The Congressman from Ways and Means that is quoted as saying it is "unbelievable" is either a bloviating idiot or just playing for political points. My guess is both.

To put it in law enforcement terms: You are a beat cop and you walk by a parked car that is fogged up and you can smell weed from the outside, and you aren't in Washington or Colorado. Do you stop and tap on the window, maybe see what's going on inside? Unless the Wall Street Journal got it wrong, that's what she did.

WaiverWire 06-26-2014 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 170449)
To put it in law enforcement terms: You are a beat cop and you walk by a parked car that is fogged up and you can smell weed from the outside, and you aren't in Washington or Colorado. Do you stop and tap on the window, maybe see what's going on inside? Unless the Wall Street Journal got it wrong, that's what she did.


what??? First you have the smell.

With Lerner there was not even that. With Lerner she didn't even wait for the smell. Instead her first response was "lets do an exam". If she had waited she would have learner that the Senator did not even attend this function. And from the articles that I have read it was not wrong for the Senator to except the offer as long as he claimed it, but it as illegal for the non-profit group to offer the compensation to the Senator's wife.

Lerner did not ask to look at the 501(c) of the non-profit but she choose to go the political route and attempted to start an exam on the Senator. That is what is so upsetting. The IRS is suppose to be neutral and non political. Cleary she went the political route.

In a poll that was released this week 76% of those polled believe that the IRS destroyed the emails. The break down is 90% republican, 74% independent and 63% democrat. What is scary is the 74% and 63% and especially the later.

And just today the President blew this all off and still calls this, and other possible scandals, as phony.

And then today you have Harry Reid and the WH blow off the SCOTUS by saying they got a 9-0 decision wrong. WHAT even the most liberal judges on the court told the President that he has over stepped the boundaries of our Constitution.


*********Note********Dannybolt, I do not have a subscription to the WSJ and therefor could not read the article.

dannybolt 06-27-2014 01:16 AM

I dunno, WW. I googled Grassley audit, it was the first link, and it opened for me. Here's the relevant quote (hope I'm not breaking MB rules):
"Looked like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife. Perhaps we should refer to Exam?" says the email from Ms. Lerner, referring to the IRS office that conducts audits.

Another IRS official on the email chain says in response: "Not sure we should send to exam. I think the offer to pay for Grassley's wife is income to Grassley, and not prohibited on its face" because Mr. Grassley wasn't an officer or director of the organization. The Ways and Means release doesn't identify the group in question because of taxpayer confidentiality rules.

The other official goes on to say that the IRS would need to wait to see whether Mr. Grassley attended, and how he handled the payment. Mr. Grassley didn't attend the event, an aide said.

A lawyer for Ms. Lerner said she had been focused on the organization's actions. "She raised a question whether the organization was complying with the tax laws," said William Taylor III. "She didn't refer Grassley, she referred the organization…That's it."

So, a couple things: Grassley wasn't audited. Lerner brought it up for discussion, but it apparently wasn't pursued further. She also contends that she was asking about the possibility of the auditing the organization, not Grassley (I mistakenly had it stated by the article in my last post).

I haven't had time to look into the 501C thing, but the supposed audit piqued my interest because I'm in the process of completing the CPA, and I saw the headline on Drudge. Flycoon's explanation makes sense, but like I said, I haven't really read up on the issue much.

If you have links, please post them. I can't comment on the Reid thing or the survey as I don't know where that information came from and I don't know what the Reid statement is referring to.

If Lerner forced an audit of Grassley with no evidence or reasoning, that would be a problem. That didn't happen, though.

All federally elected representatives probably should be audited yearly, we audit publicly traded companies after all. Congress writes the tax laws though, so I'm not holding my breath on that one.

WaiverWire 06-27-2014 08:31 AM

Dannybolt, here is the link to the emails that we are talking about. The second one is the response from the IRS worker, Matthew Giuliano, to Lerner. Never in the response did they ever mention an exam on the group, but what was needed to do an exam on the Senator. The third email is the original one that Lerner was asking for an exam. From this email it was clear to Giuliano, based on his response, who Lerner wanted the exam for.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/upload...s_grassley.pdf

WaiverWire 06-27-2014 01:38 PM

@Dannybolt, and lets not forget that the IRS has admitted to leaking tax returns, and a group's donor list, to a liberal group. These are returns that are "confidential" and are supposed to remain secret.

dannybolt 06-27-2014 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170463)
Dannybolt, here is the link to the emails that we are talking about. The second one is the response from the IRS worker, Matthew Giuliano, to Lerner. Never in the response did they ever mention an exam on the group, but what was needed to do an exam on the Senator. The third email is the original one that Lerner was asking for an exam. From this email it was clear to Giuliano, based on his response, who Lerner wanted the exam for.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/upload...s_grassley.pdf

Ok, those are pretty much quoted in the WSJ article. Your mind is made up, I'm unlikely to change it; but nothing in those emails is untoward. If you think raising the idea of an audit after receiving evidence that would raise flags for an auditor, and then NOT AUDITING after consulting with others in the IRS constitutes some kind of moral hazard or partisan activity, I really don't know what to tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170498)
@Dannybolt, and lets not forget that the IRS has admitted to leaking tax returns, and a group's donor list, to a liberal group. These are returns that are "confidential" and are supposed to remain secret.

I've not read about that either and can't comment. Links or it didn't happen.

WaiverWire 06-27-2014 07:46 PM

Don't be lazy. Google it. The IRS agreed to pay a $50,000 which is slap on the wrist.

dannybolt 06-27-2014 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170598)
Don't be lazy. Google it. The IRS agreed to pay a $50,000 which is slap on the wrist.

If you don't wanna substantiate what you are talking about (and I'm not the first person to request you do this), you will find fewer people taking your opinions seriously. That isn't my responsibility, it's yours.

WaiverWire 06-27-2014 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 170600)
If you don't wanna substantiate what you are talking about (and I'm not the first person to request you do this), you will find fewer people taking your opinions seriously. That isn't my responsibility, it's yours.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-th...rticle/2550126

Sotnos 06-28-2014 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 170211)
It's illegal for a political group to be a 501c3 non profit. The fact that the government went after these political groups was not a mistake and those who engage in political activities should have their request to be a nonprofit denied. The question is whether tea party groups were targeted MORE than liberal groups. That has already been answered - NO. A higher percentage of liberal groups were denied 501c3 status than conservative groups. Both groups were targeted when the IRS became aware of them. The difference and the only difference is that there were tons of tea party groups established after Obama was elected so numerically more tea party groups were reviewed.

Once again, let's ignore the fact that conservative political organizations were illegally registering as 501c3 organizations and go after the IRS who was just doing their job.

This is all that needs to be said on this topic, really. The IRS doing their job is not a scandal.

WaiverWire 06-28-2014 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 170668)
This is all that needs to be said on this topic, really. The IRS doing their job is not a scandal.

Oh please. Years ago the IRS relaxed the rules for 501(c). I created 3 of them during my time for various law enforcement groups. At one point we were told that we could not be politically active. We were only allowed to testify before the Florida Legislators if we were invited by the committee.

Then all of a sudden the rules changed. The IRS informed us that we could be involved in politics only if we limited that to 20% of what we do. Later they told us we could be politically active if that was not our main purpose.

And now, without warning, they target groups. Have you seen some of the ridicules questions they asked? One group was even asked if they knew someone from another group that was in Ohio.

A normal 501(c) filing takes about 3-4 months if you do the paperwork correctly. Some of these groups had experts do their paperwork and after 3 years some are still waiting and the IRS won't tell them why they have not been granted this status.

Come on, the IRS went overboard. The thing that they should had done was admit they were wrong, who was at fault within the IRS and tell us it won't happen again. Instead we got one denial after another and to this day they still are denying and playing word games.

Bolthed 06-28-2014 05:18 PM

It's really smart to focus so much energy on fabricated scandals, perceived scandals, minor scandals and the like. Shame no one on your side has any desire to be a national party or join the 21st century. We could really use a second party in this F'd up country of ours.

Flycoon 06-28-2014 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 170699)
It's really smart to focus so much energy on fabricated scandals, perceived scandals, minor scandals and the like. Shame no one on your side has any desire to be a national party or join the 21st century. We could really use a second party in this F'd up country of ours.

Truer words never spoken.

We are doomed unless we realize that our commonalities outweigh the minutiae that divides us.

Flycoon 06-28-2014 06:47 PM

BP has become a much quicker read since I blocked Top Shelf. His unwillingness to engage in this thread but insistence of posting political diatribes in his sig line finished me.

WaiverWire 06-28-2014 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 170704)
BP has become a much quicker read since I blocked Top Shelf. His unwillingness to engage in this thread but insistence of posting political diatribes in his sig line finished me.

Man you are never to old to learn something new Flycoon. I never noticed that about Top Shelf, but then I never read the signature lines. I went back and saw his last post and there it was :ohmy::noidea:

Flycoon 06-29-2014 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 170709)
Man you are never to old to learn something new Flycoon. I never noticed that about Top Shelf, but then I never read the signature lines. I went back and saw his last post and there it was :ohmy::noidea:

He has been doing that for a loooong time.

Maverick9911 06-29-2014 12:08 PM

The signature lines weren't what annoyed the hell out of me - those I was able to tune out really fast because I knew where he'd put them. It's when he sneaks in completely random and inappropriate political references in hockey threads/posts that drives me nuts. "Bishop was having trouble with his glove last night (not surprising because it's nothing but trouble when you go LEFT :) :ohmy::coolwink:!!!) but thankfully our defense was there to bail him out, not to be confused with Maobama's penchant for bailing out the welfare queens, amirite??? :happydance:"

Sotnos 06-29-2014 03:56 PM

Glad some folks are seeing the value of the ignore list & glad to see this feedback, makes me feel validated. :nod:

Hoek 06-29-2014 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 170736)
The signature lines weren't what annoyed the hell out of me - those I was able to tune out really fast because I knew where he'd put them. It's when he sneaks in completely random and inappropriate political references in hockey threads/posts that drives me nuts. "Bishop was having trouble with his glove last night (not surprising because it's nothing but trouble when you go LEFT :) :ohmy::coolwink:!!!) but thankfully our defense was there to bail him out, not to be confused with Maobama's penchant for bailing out the welfare queens, amirite??? :happydance:"

LOL.. funny example. :thumb:

WaiverWire 06-29-2014 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 170749)
LOL.. funny example. :thumb:

I thought the same thing.

I would be interested when he wrote that as I don't remember seeing it.

WaiverWire 06-29-2014 06:08 PM

For those interested Megyn Kelly is going to interview Bill Ayers Monday night at 9 on Fox News.

I saw snippets of the interview and it looks pretty good.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 10:31 AM

And Hobby Lobby wins their ruling that they are allowed to prescribe medicine for all of their employees. What is by far most disturbing from this is that the ruling essentially states that your belief trumps what the scientific evidence states, in effect saying that you can ignore science and evidence in the court system because of your "belief."

Sotnos 06-30-2014 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 170972)
And Hobby Lobby wins their ruling that they are allowed to prescribe medicine for all of their employees. What is by far most disturbing from this is that the ruling essentially states that your belief trumps what the scientific evidence states, in effect saying that you can ignore science and evidence in the court system because of your "belief."

Wow, what a disaster this Court is. Expect a flurry of employers proclaiming they're Christian Scientists now.

the_narrow_way 06-30-2014 11:32 AM

Total BS. Shameful. Another win for the corporatocracy.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 12:00 PM

I like this ruling. It follows our Constitution.

This is not that big of an issue to women or the government as contraception is readily available for the asking. Why would you want to offend someone with something that goes against their religious values.

Hoek 06-30-2014 12:02 PM

Just another reason to separate health insurance from employment.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 171001)
Just another reason to separate health insurance from employment.

I don't think that will ever happen, at least in my lifetime, with the way the ACA rolled out and with we are now finding out about the VA.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171000)
I like this ruling. It follows our Constitution.

This is not that big of an issue to women or the government as contraception is readily available for the asking. Why would you want to offend someone with something that goes against their religious values.

Where are you drawing the line as to what someone is allowed to do on grounds of "religious freedom?" Apparently health care and the ADA are not at that line, so what is? If a company starts requiring all women to wear turbins, what would you think? If a company stated that they believe in the strict interpretation of the bible and therefore they are allowed to plunder and destroy the environment with no consequence, is that ok?

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171004)
Where are you drawing the line as to what someone is allowed to do on grounds of "religious freedom?" Apparently health care and the ADA are not at that line, so what is? If a company starts requiring all women to wear turbins, what would you think? If a company stated that they believe in the strict interpretation of the bible and therefore they are allowed to plunder and destroy the environment with no consequence, is that ok?

Now you are getting just silly.

The courts would rule for the individual, just like they did in this case. Individual rights trump the rights of a corporation. I the Hobby Lobby case, yea they were a corporation, but one held by an individual. Neither you nor I have the right to own stock in that company. If for some reason someday we can then this ruling will not apply to them.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171007)
Now you are getting just silly.

The courts would rule for the individual, just like they did in this case. Individual rights trump the rights of a corporation. I the Hobby Lobby case, yea they were a corporation, but one held by an individual. Neither you nor I have the right to own stock in that company. If for some reason someday we can then this ruling will not apply to them.

Requiring to wear a turbin because a CEO's religion states that all women should wear them, how is that different? Same with the Environmental question. If this is what the presidents of the company "believe" in, how would that be different? Impeding on the rights of a woman employee to get the legal health care they desire (which was done by stating that your religious beliefs trump scientific evidence, which is horrifically frightening and should be the main talking point in all of this) is somehow different from destroying the environment men and women share? Or requiring them to wear a uniform that has religious implications?

Sotnos 06-30-2014 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171000)
I like this ruling. It follows our Constitution.

This is not that big of an issue to women or the government as contraception is readily available for the asking. Why would you want to offend someone with something that goes against their religious values.

:banghead: An employer being involved in their employees health care follows the constitution? God help me, nonsense on every point. I used to work for a Jewish organization, wouldn't have wanted them dictating what they would/would not cover as I don't share their faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171006)
Most outrageous decision since Plessy v Ferguson. Basically limited corporations can exempt themselves from the law. Don't like gays? You can now decide you don't want to hire them. Mixed race marriages against you religion? You are exempt from the fair housing law. If this doesn't wake up America, I don't know what will.

Outrageous is the word for it, and no end in sight with this horrible court.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171006)
Most outrageous decision since Plessy v Ferguson. Basically limited corporations can exempt themselves from the law. Don't like gays? You can now decide you don't want to hire them. Mixed race marriages against you religion? You are exempt from the fair housing law. If this doesn't wake up America, I don't know what will.

You have higher hopes than I. This has happened for years now (I will never forget when they said that a Lutheran school does not have to follow the ADA), and I'm not sure this will wake anyone up (nor what they could do anyways). What the first amendment says vs. what it is used to justify now has just gone beyond crazy.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171008)
Requiring to wear a turbin because a CEO's religion states that all women should wear them, how is that different? Same with the Environmental question. If this is what the presidents of the company "believe" in, how would that be different? Impeding on the rights of a woman employee to get the legal health care they desire (which was done by stating that your religious beliefs trump scientific evidence, which is horrifically frightening and should be the main talking point in all of this) is somehow different from destroying the environment men and women share? Or requiring them to wear a uniform that has religious implications?

Those that follow the Constitution know that one can not force you to wear a "turbin" in a place of business say if you are Jewish. You would be violating individual rights. Think about what you are asking and then look at this ruling and then think again.

This country was formed on individual rights. That is why I find the right to marry who you want outrages by the "old standards". As an individual you do have that right and that is the way it should be.

If someone, or a private school, does not want to teach the proper science that is their right as wrong as they maybe.

The bottom line with this ruling is that you have not deprived women of anything, if you had that would be another issue. Women, all women, still to this day have the right to seek and use contraception. That has not stopped. What has change is that a select group of people do not have to pay for it.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 171009)
:banghead: An employer being involved in their employees health care follows the constitution? God help me, nonsense on every point. I used to work for a Jewish organization, wouldn't have wanted them dictating what they would/would not cover as I don't share their faith.


Outrageous is the word for it, and no end in sight with this horrible court.

Not so Sotnos. This case was about an individual and a "thing" (contraception). And if I remember I think they were only arguing about 4 medications on the list that would cause an abortion.

Both your examples are individual vs individual.

The problem with the ACA, as one justice wrote, the Secretary went too far and did the work of Congress when she wrote the rules and basically rewrote the law. She can not do that. But then we have seen this from the executive branch of the government for sometime now with the resent rulings of the SCOTUS.

As for Dnnies gay example. We have passed laws and the courts have rule in the individuals favor time after time.

Stop and think about this ruling. It is vey limited in scope and only applies to those that solely hold a corporation.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171013)
Maybe if those 5 males were required to meet a mohel for a brit milah ceremony as a condition of employment, they might have arrived at a different decision.

How has this ruling stopped a female from getting contraception's?


I would think the other ruling would have those on the left more in an uproar.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171012)
Not so Sotnos. This case was about an individual and a "thing" (contraception). And if I remember I think they were only arguing about 4 medications on the list that would cause an abortion.

NO NO NO NO. Yes, 4 medications. Yes, they SAID they would cause an abortion. All science says that IS NOT THE CASE. And the Court ruled that Science be damned, those beliefs trump this. That is the scariest part of the ruling.

And I'm still not following indvidual vs thing here. Is this not an individual (or coporation, but whatever)'s right to say they don't want the health care they are providing to pay for something they SAY is against their religion vs. an individual's right to have what the law mandates as a requirement?

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171015)
NO NO NO NO. Yes, 4 medications. Yes, they SAID they would cause an abortion. All science says that IS NOT THE CASE. And the Court ruled that Science be damned, those beliefs trump this. That is the scariest part of the ruling.

And I'm still not following indvidual vs thing here. Is this not an individual (or coporation, but whatever)'s right to say they don't want the health care they are providing to pay for something they SAY is against their religion vs. an individual's right to have what the law mandates as a requirement?

The only reason this was forced upon a business was because the Federal Government could by law not say they would pay for it because of these 4 medications. Federal money can not be used on something for something that causes an abortion.

Really, most companies already pay of this covered. This is for only a select few.

This ruling did not stop a female from getting this coverage. This ruling just says that you can not force someone else, due to religious reasons, to pay for it.

There are far many more places a female can turn to for contraception coverage that is free. You just have to be resourceful. I bet if you ask someone that works for Hobby Lobby they can tell you were to find free conception.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171016)
The only reason this was forced upon a business was because the Federal Government could by law not say they would pay for it because of these 4 medications. Federal money can not be used on something for something that causes an abortion.

Outstanding. And ALL scientific evidence says this DOES NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION, that what these chemicals do are not abortions (go look it up, plenty of scientific studies). Hobby Lobby said something along the lines of "We believe it is an abortion despite what science and evidence states," from which the Supreme Court ruled that it does not matter what the science says, because Hobby Lobby believes it is an abortion, that counts. That is beyond frightening to me.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 01:25 PM

Here is the law which was upheld today by the SCOTUS. It is called "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act". It became law in 1993 and was signed by President Clinton.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/06/13391/

If you read this act today's ruling makes more sense.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171018)
Outstanding. And ALL scientific evidence says this DOES NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION, that what these chemicals do are not abortions (go look it up, plenty of scientific studies). Hobby Lobby said something along the lines of "We believe it is an abortion despite what science and evidence states," from which the Supreme Court ruled that it does not matter what the science says, because Hobby Lobby believes it is an abortion, that counts. That is beyond frightening to me.

possible not all true. I am only asking because I do not know what the 4 pills were. Is Ella one? if so I just read an article that says that test still is not complete on this drug.

But like I have said, has this ruling stopped a female from getting contraception? No. Can they turn elsewhere for help in paying or obtain it free? Yes.

Maverick9911 06-30-2014 01:56 PM

This is no big deal for women, say the privileged white men (and Clarence). Experts, the lot of them.

The Establishment Clause weeps today.

Actually no it doesn't...we all know there's only one real religion capable of being offended and honored.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 171024)
This is no big deal for women, say the privileged white men (and Clarence). Experts, the lot of them.

The Establishment Clause weeps today.

Actually no it doesn't...we all know there's only one real religion capable of being offended and honored.

They upheld a law signed by a democrat.:D

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171019)
Here is the law which was upheld today by the SCOTUS. It is called "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act". It became law in 1993 and was signed by President Clinton.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/06/13391/

If you read this act today's ruling makes more sense.

No, it doesn't at all. As I stated before, first and foremost, we have ruled that a belief is more important than scientific evidence (which you seem to want to ignore).

Maybe go read the dissenting view for why people are upset about this? It has been established that this law can not infringe on the interests of a third party. There has never been a ruling for RFRA that allows this exemption where it would harm others.

Actually, she brings up another question I could have used. What if an employer's belief is against vaccinations, or minimum wage?

On my own, it is beyond deplorable to see people rich beyond rich abusing a law set up to help those who needed it to screw over their employees. And don't for one second sit there and pretend that there is any sort of a real moral objection on this and that is anything more than "we want an out so we don't have to help our employees and pay more."

Maverick9911 06-30-2014 02:04 PM

Quote:

Maybe if those 5 males were required to meet a mohel for a brit milah ceremony as a condition of employment, they might have arrived at a different decision.
My religious beliefs go against the use of Viagra or having a vasectomy. I'm going to be protected just as vigorously, right? :thumb:

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171027)
No, it doesn't at all. As I stated before, first and foremost, we have ruled that a belief is more important than scientific evidence (which you seem to want to ignore).

Maybe go read the dissenting view for why people are upset about this? It has been established that this law can not infringe on the interests of a third party. There has never been a ruling for RFRA that allows this exemption where it would harm others.

Actually, she brings up another question I could have used. What if an employer's belief is against vaccinations, or minimum wage?

On my own, it is beyond deplorable to see people rich beyond rich abusing a law set up to help those who needed it to screw over their employees. And don't for one second sit there and pretend that there is any sort of a real moral objection on this and that is anything more than "we want an out so we don't have to help our employees and pay more."


You still not have answered my question. Can a female still obtain contraception?


Admit it, you just hate religion and it gulls you that a religious right was upheld.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171021)
possible not all true. I am only asking because I do not know what the 4 pills were. Is Ella one? if so I just read an article that says that test still is not complete on this drug.

But like I have said, has this ruling stopped a female from getting contraception? No. Can they turn elsewhere for help in paying or obtain it free? Yes.

It does, and it is still not an abortion. Well, of course, it's not if you listen to scientists and studies. I guess if you want to listen to the Christian Medical and Dental Association, it is.

As for your statement, what a nice, friendly reminder on the standing. "Oh, you are a girl. No worries, you can have health care, but anything you need that a guy doesn't, make sure you have saved up for out-of-pocket payments. By the way, we will probably pay you less than the men as well."

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171031)
It does, and it is still not an abortion. Well, of course, it's not if you listen to scientists and studies. I guess if you want to listen to the Christian Medical and Dental Association, it is.

As for your statement, what a nice, friendly reminder on the standing. "Oh, you are a girl. No worries, you can have health care, but anything you need that a guy doesn't, make sure you have saved up for out-of-pocket payments. By the way, we will probably pay you less than the men as well."

You still have not answered the questions I asked.

Until then I'm done.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171029)
You still not have answered my question. Can a female still obtain contraception?


Admit it, you just hate religion and it gulls you that a religious right was upheld.

I'll do no such thing, I am religious despite what you believe, however I don't believe in a lot of the hate spewed by the far right. I find it laughable that people claim to follow Jesus while trying to screw everyone they can over in his name.

You want an answer, sure, technically you can get it if you are lucky enough to have the spending money to do so. Same could be said about minorities voting before the Voting Rights Act. The issue is not if you can still get it (which many can not by the way).

But the fact you think this has anything to do with Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" is so ridiculous.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171033)
I'll do no such thing, I am religious despite what you believe, however I don't believe in a lot of the hate spewed by the far right. I find it laughable that people claim to follow Jesus while trying to screw everyone they can over in his name.

You want an answer, sure, technically you can get it if you are lucky enough to have the spending money to do so. That is not the issue in this however, which you just seem to want to ignore.

The fact you think this has anything to do with Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" is so ridiculous.

There are also ways to get it free and you know it.

Bottom line, if the workers hate it and want to force a change to Hobby Lobby and those like them don't fill their jobs. Force them to give you what you want. If you are not willing to do that then just leave the company when you can and find some other company that will pay for what you want. It is that simple. If someone else takes your place at Hobby Lobby it is their choice knowing going in that this part of your healthcare is not available to you under this employer.

it is just that simple.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171035)
There are also ways to get it free and you know it.

Bottom line, if the workers hate it and want to force a change to Hobby Lobby and those like them don't fill their jobs. Force them to give you what you want. If you are not willing to do that then just leave the company when you can and find some other company that will pay for what you want. It is that simple. If someone else takes your place at Hobby Lobby it is their choice knowing going in that this part of your healthcare is not available to you under this employer.

it is just that simple.

So create jobs more attractive to men than women, got it. By the way, if I remember the studies cited, something like 45% of women would switch their contraceptive if money was no issue, so getting the most effective, best method is a big issue out of it.

So, are you going to acknowledge this has nothing to do with religion now?

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171036)
So create jobs more attractive to men than women, got it. By the way, if I remember the studies cited, something like 45% of women would switch their contraceptive if money was no issue, so getting the most effective, best method is a big issue out of it.

So, are you going to acknowledge this has nothing to do with religion now?

Not unless you can show me something that the Green family was lying.

Neither you nor I know what they are thinking. If you can then you could make a ton of money as a walking lie detector. Until then I will go with what the family claims.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:45 PM

Look, the court today cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I think this is the guiding force in this decision. Until that Act is overturned. You really do need to read this Act to understand this ruling. This Act is why the Greens felt so confident going into the court.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171038)
Not unless you can show me something that the Green family was lying.

Neither you nor I know what they are thinking. If you can then you could make a ton of money as a walking lie detector. Until then I will go with what the family claims.

So the fact of all the business they do in China, the fact that they covered these drugs under their health care plan until their suit with the ACA, that they have investments with these companies, they are trying to create bible-based curiculums in school systems, etc. Apparently profiting from contraception (or as they believe despite facts against it, abortions) is perfectly in line with their religious beliefs.

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171040)
Look, the court today cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I think this is the guiding force in this decision. Until that Act is overturned. You really do need to read this Act to understand this ruling. This Act is why the Greens felt so confident going into the court.

I give up. I know the act, I've read their reasoning as well as the dissension. Essentially the court went against previous rulings to make this one. Others can jump in here if they want. You win, science is a bunch of hocus pocus crap, my life is a failure, all contraception is abortion, whatever other satirical garbage people would put in here that I can't think of.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171042)
So the fact of all the business they do in China, the fact that they covered these drugs under their health care plan until their suit with the ACA, that they have investments with these companies, they are trying to create bible-based curiculums in school systems, etc. Apparently profiting from contraception (or as they believe despite facts against it, abortions) is perfectly in line with their religious beliefs.

Don't blame the court. You can blame those that passed the law without the language in it. Blame Secretary Sebelius for over stepping her authority and rewriting a law, that if this issue was included in the law would never had passed congress as some democrats would had voted "no".

Sotnos 06-30-2014 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171015)
NO NO NO NO. Yes, 4 medications. Yes, they SAID they would cause an abortion. All science says that IS NOT THE CASE. And the Court ruled that Science be damned, those beliefs trump this. That is the scariest part of the ruling.

Yep. Not only can they dictate things, they don't have to base it on ANYTHING but their own beliefs.

I believe Bubba Joe in my organization should get off the couch, I don't think I should have to pay for his heart meds. JimBob doesn't "need" viagra, why am I paying for that?

Quote:

And I'm still not following indvidual vs thing here. Is this not an individual (or coporation, but whatever)'s right to say they don't want the health care they are providing to pay for something they SAY is against their religion vs. an individual's right to have what the law mandates as a requirement?
They're placing the corporations' rights above the individuals, and this is OK with some people for some reason. :rolleyes:
Quote:

I give up.
You & me both :D

BurnTHalO 06-30-2014 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171044)
Don't blame the court. You can blame those that passed the law without the language in it. Blame Secretary Sebelius for over stepping her authority and rewriting a law, that if this issue was included in the law would never had passed congress as some democrats would had voted "no".

Wait, what does that have to do with what I was saying? You asked for examples of why this has nothing to do with religion from the Hobby Lobby side, and I posted a host of things where they seemingly don't care at all about their "religious beliefs" when it is profiting them.

Sotnos 06-30-2014 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 171024)
This is no big deal for women, say the privileged white men (and Clarence). Experts, the lot of them.

:clap:

Quote:

The Establishment Clause weeps today.

Actually no it doesn't...we all know there's only one real religion capable of being offended and honored.
You know it!

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171042)
So the fact of all the business they do in China, that they have investments with these companies, they are trying to create bible-based curiculums in school systems, etc. Apparently profiting from contraception (or as they believe despite facts against it, abortions) is perfectly in line with their religious beliefs.

Quote:

the fact of all the business they do in China
....so what. How is this religious?

Quote:

the fact that they covered these drugs under their health care plan until their suit with the ACA
......and Mr. Green said he did not know they were covered and when he found out he contacted the insurance company and put a stop to it. Hobby Lobby is large. I am sure Mr. Green was not involved with the bidding of the insurance. If you know otherwise please post the link.

Quote:

that they have investments with these companies
.....these companies also have other products that one may like. It the company only had this one product then I say you have a very good point.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 171050)
:clap:


You know it!

Typical left talk.........I want it now and I want it free :D

Maybe if the democrats had written the bill right and not taken the "pass it to see what's in it" attitude the ruling would had been different.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 03:43 PM

I like the choice for the VA. Now it is up to Congress to give him the tools he needs to get the job done.

the_narrow_way 06-30-2014 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171000)
This is not that big of an issue to women or the government as contraception is readily available for the asking.

Only certain ones and they're not free. With full health care coverage you and your doctor get to decide which medication is right for you, not your employer. Not all medication is taken for contraceptive purposes.

This ruling is total bullshit. Some in this country just can't get old and die off fast enough so we can move forward and out of the Stone Age. All day long they are screaming 'freedom' and 'individual rights' from the rooftops and meanwhile they're succeeding in eliminating your freedom and rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171011)
The bottom line with this ruling is that you have not deprived women of anything, if you had that would be another issue. Women, all women, still to this day have the right to seek and use contraception. That has not stopped. What has change is that a select group of people do not have to pay for it.

Are you going to help pay for the cost? Do you have any idea how expensive those medications are if you don't hav insurance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171014)
How has this ruling stopped a female from getting contraception's?

$$$

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171029)
Admit it, you just hate religion and it gulls you that a religious right was upheld.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171052)
Typical left talk.........I want it now and I want it free

Except that they aren't. They want it covered equally as other medications are. People pay the crooked insurance industry big bucks and still have to pay a lot for many medications. The insurance industry as a whole is the dirtiest, most vile facet of modern life there is. There's a legal term for it, racketeering.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171079)
Only certain ones and they're not free. With full health care coverage you and your doctor get to decide which medication is right for you, not your employer. Not all medication is taken for contraceptive purposes.

This ruling is total bullshit. Some in this country just can't get old and die off fast enough so we can move forward and out of the Stone Age. All day long they are screaming 'freedom' and 'individual rights' from the rooftops and meanwhile they're succeeding in eliminating your freedom and rights.


Are you going to help pay for the cost? Do you have any idea how expensive those medications are if you don't hav insurance?

I would have no problem paying a few extra dollars so they could have this coverage. If everyone chipped in, with as many policies that are out there, the extra amount would only be a few dollars a year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171079)
$$$

Se above




Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171079)
Except that they aren't. They want it covered equally as other medications are. People pay the crooked insurance industry big bucks and still have to pay a lot for many medications. The insurance industry as a whole is the dirtiest, most vile facet of modern life there is. There's a legal term for it, racketeering.

And what is your option? Single payer? Have you seen the VA? Let's see first if they can turn the VA around before we go down that road.

Flycoon 06-30-2014 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171000)
I like this ruling. It follows our Constitution.

This is not that big of an issue to women or the government as contraception is readily available for the asking. Why would you want to offend someone with something that goes against their religious values.

Corporations are people, my friend. Especially in Mussolini style Fascist governments.

Flycoon 06-30-2014 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 171001)
Just another reason to separate health insurance from employment.

Exactly. Medicare for all.

Flycoon 06-30-2014 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171007)
Now you are getting just silly.

The courts would rule for the individual, just like they did in this case. Individual rights trump the rights of a corporation. I the Hobby Lobby case, yea they were a corporation, but one held by an individual. Neither you nor I have the right to own stock in that company. If for some reason someday we can then this ruling will not apply to them.

If they want the protections of a corporation, they should play by all of the rules, no exceptions. This ruling is a baby step towards theocracy.

Flycoon 06-30-2014 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171051)
....so what. How is this religious?

......and Mr. Green said he did not know they were covered and when he found out he contacted the insurance company and put a stop to it. Hobby Lobby is large. I am sure Mr. Green was not involved with the bidding of the insurance. If you know otherwise please post the link.

.....these companies also have other products that one may like. It the company only had this one product then I say you have a very good point.

Hobby Lobby does business with China, land of two children per couple, mandatory abortion, and acceptance of "disposing" of female babies. Guess that I a okay. Thay are only sorta, kinda facilitating these actions with their $.

Maybe a proud crusading Republican like Louis Gohmert or Michele Bachmann should sponsor a bill banning exports from countries that mandate birth control and abortion.

dannybolt 06-30-2014 08:58 PM

If Corporations are people, it is shameful that we still allow people to own other people. I thought that went away with the Emancipation Proclamation. Nice try, Abe.
We have institutionalized the buying and selling of people, chopping them up into parts and selling them off for profits.

WaiverWire 06-30-2014 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 171101)
Hobby Lobby does business with China, land of two children per couple, mandatory abortion, and acceptance of "disposing" of female babies. Guess that I a okay. Thay are only sorta, kinda facilitating these actions with their $.

Maybe a proud crusading Republican like Louis Gohmert or Michele Bachmann should sponsor a bill banning exports from countries that mandate birth control and abortion.

If this was the case then they would be out of business as we here also provide abortions to those that want one. That reason is absurd.

You need to read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is still the law of the land today. This is what this case was based on.

And for those that do not know, this law was written by democrats, in a congress controlled by democrats, and signed into law by a democrat in 1993.

If you want to change the minds of this SCOTUS you must first change or repeal this law. Change the law and I think you would see a different outcome.

the_narrow_way 06-30-2014 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171090)
And what is your option? Single payer? Have you seen the VA? Let's see first if they can turn the VA around before we go down that road.

C'mon, can we keep the Fox talking point du jour out of this? Single-payer systems are proven effective world-wide. Are they perfect? No, of course not. Does everybody get covered, yes.

the_narrow_way 06-30-2014 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171108)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"in a decision of startling breadth," this decision would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]"

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

This. 100%.

Flycoon 07-01-2014 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171116)
If this was the case then they would be out of business as we here also provide abortions to those that want one. That reason is absurd.

You need to read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is still the law of the land today. This is what this case was based on.

And for those that do not know, this law was written by democrats, in a congress controlled by democrats, and signed into law by a democrat in 1993.

If you want to change the minds of this SCOTUS you must first change or repeal this law. Change the law and I think you would see a different outcome.

Why do you keep hammering on the D vs R here? I admit, "you people" have the most batshit crazy religious nuts, but show me an atheist or freethinker on either side and you have found the real minority party.

If a candidate refuses to believe in magic, superstition, traditions like stoning, and a pilgrimage on a somewhat regular basis to worship these ideals, he/she isn't getting elected.

Religion has NO place in government or the administration of law whether it be the 10 commandments in an Alabama courthouse or Sharia law in whatever city Obama settles in after he is out of office.

BurnTHalO 07-01-2014 07:20 AM

So now that every ruling from the Courts are affirming that coroporations are people, when can we start throwing them in jail for tax fraud, manslaughter, etc.?

WaiverWire 07-01-2014 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 171140)
Why do you keep hammering on the D vs R here? I admit, "you people" have the most batshit crazy religious nuts, but show me an atheist or freethinker on either side and you have found the real minority party.

If a candidate refuses to believe in magic, superstition, traditions like stoning, and a pilgrimage on a somewhat regular basis to worship these ideals, he/she isn't getting elected.

Religion has NO place in government or the administration of law whether it be the 10 commandments in an Alabama courthouse or Sharia law in whatever city Obama settles in after he is out of office.

I only stated a truth about Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Have you even read it? If not here it is. It is very short.

http://prop1.org/legal/rfra.htm

In 1997 the SCOTUS struck down part of the law, the part that included that the states must abide by this act.

Then in 2006 the SCOTUS upheld the remainder of the law.

With the SCOTUS upholding this law, and as it is written, there was no way in hell the SCOTUS would uphold the Sebelius regulation. This is why the justices that affirmed wrote that the legislators can apply a fix. They can re-write RFRA or remove the Act from the books.

It is very interesting as to why we even have RFRA. In 19990 2 Native Americans were fired from their jobs in Oregon for a positive drug test. They tested positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony and the 2 claimed they had taken part in a native ritual with their tribe. They sued in Employment Division v. Smith.

In 1996 the RFRA was introduced by 2 democrats. The Act passed both chambers with no opposition in the House and very little in the Senate.

The ruling yesterday was very narrow in scope. Those that affirmed the decision stated in their decision that this ruling only applied to privately held corporations. I am sure that this court would turn away any other suits that were anything other than privately held corps.

Will we see challenges from the corporations. Sure we will as they have to make money.

Will the far right try again, yes they will as anytime they can chip away at the ACA it is a win, in their minds, for them.

Why even have the RFRA? Could you imaging what would happen if you had an Amish child in a public school and that school said that you had to take drivers training in order to graduate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171143)
So now that every ruling from the Courts are affirming that coroporations are people, when can we start throwing them in jail for tax fraud, manslaughter, etc.?

They never said that. In fact, like I said above, they stated in the ruling that this ruling was very narrow in scope and only applied to a "closely held" private corporation.

the_narrow_way 07-01-2014 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171157)
In fact, like I said above, they stated in the ruling that this ruling was very narrow in scope and only applied to a "closely held" private corporation.

Who defines 'closely held'? I think a lot more companies than we realize are 'closely held'. Regardless, the ruling is still discriminatory. Even if it applied to only one company, it would, by definition, be discriminatory.

WaiverWire 07-01-2014 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171161)
Who defines 'closely held'? I think a lot more companies than we realize are 'closely held'. Regardless, the ruling is still discriminatory. Even if it applied to only one company, it would, by definition, be discriminatory.

Read the RFRA. After I read it they had no choice. You can not just turn your back on a law that is already on the books and was upheld by the SCOTUS. Sorry, I know that the 4 other justices were thinking with their hearts, but that is not their rule.

BurnTHalO 07-01-2014 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171157)
They never said that. In fact, like I said above, they stated in the ruling that this ruling was very narrow in scope and only applied to a "closely held" private corporation.


For as much as you scream and scream that people need to read RFRA (I have by the way, and also realize that while it applies to all religions, once again, disgusting to see the manipulation), I find it funny that you have obviously NOT read the ruling from the Supreme Court. Let me quote directly from the ruling:

Quote:

Nothing in RFRA suggests a congressional intent to depart from the Dictionary Act definition of "person" which "include[s] corporation...as well as individuals." The court has entertained RFRA and free=exercise claims by nonprofit corporations....And HHS's concession that a nonprofit corporation can be a "person" under RFRA effectibely dispatches any arguement that the term does not reach for-profit companies.
The other quote, this "Believe life begins at contraception" is the part I keep harping on that you don't want to hear in that their belief now trumps experts and science.

What Alito writes, I find so ridiculous and deplorable at a lot of points. One being that the fact Hobby Lobby offered health insurance before ACA shows their Christian morals. Yeah, very narrow. I also didn't see anything addressed as to what the limit is. He says this is very narrow, but what Ginsburg wrote is never mentioned about how it could easily apply in other areas.

On a personal level, I find it so sad that what is getting lost is how a lot of contraceptives are used to help women who have debilitating periods. Women who without them, would miss 2-3 days of work PER MONTH. Yet because of a quasi-religious argument (which magically disappears when their profits are involved), these women are forced to pay A LOT (don't give me this free stuff, go look up what most of these cost. Oh and keep in mind that some may not do what is needed for these women) just to stay employed (on top of those who want it to provide pregnancies for whatever reason).

I have one more thing before I let those here much smarter than I take up the cause:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171161)
Who defines 'closely held'? I think a lot more companies than we realize are 'closely held'. Regardless, the ruling is still discriminatory. Even if it applied to only one company, it would, by definition, be discriminatory.

Very narrow..

Quote:

Roughly 90% of all companies in the U.S. are closely held, according to a 2000 study by the Copenhagen Business School.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby...ean-1404154577

BurnTHalO 07-01-2014 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171163)
Read the RFRA. After I read it they had no choice. You can not just turn your back on a law that is already on the books and was upheld by the SCOTUS. Sorry, I know that the 4 other justices were thinking with their hearts, but that is not their rule.

You are having a tough time interpreting that Act if you have read it, the clause of least restrictive can easily apply here as the dissents stated.

Maverick9911 07-01-2014 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171161)
Who defines 'closely held'? I think a lot more companies than we realize are 'closely held'. Regardless, the ruling is still discriminatory. Even if it applied to only one company, it would, by definition, be discriminatory.

"Closely held corporations, which are defined as companies with limited numbers of shareholders, comprise more than 90 percent of the organizations in the United States and are responsible for about 52 percent of all private employment. For instance, Koch Industries and Walmart Inc. are both closely held because they’re controlled by families."

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...r-health-care/

Narrow lol

ZeykShade 07-01-2014 11:45 AM

I want a line item veto on my taxes so I can not fund highways and bridges being built on The Sabbath.

Sotnos 07-01-2014 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171213)
WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah.

Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.

The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote: while it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires

A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”

Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”

I laughed entirely too hard at that. The Onion?

BurnTHalO 07-02-2014 11:47 AM

So, I reread everything, and have been thinking harder about this. First off, this idea that this was a ruling specifically for the owners, and not for that the corporation is a person with religious freedoms under RFRA is completely false. It is stated many times in the judgement that this IS the case, that they are extending this Act to include corporations as people. Read all the talking points you want, but you can not possibly go read the 6 page ruling and come to any other conclusion.

Second, this decision is NOT narrow-scoped. Sure, Alito claims that in his opinion, but if you read the decision, there is no mention of this only applying to just closely held companies. In fact, it goes out of it's way to mention for-profit companies in general. Further, it states it does not NECESSARILY fall in with vaccinations or other insurance-coverage mandates, meaning it very well could be ruled that same way.

It is hilarious that republicans are loving that the Supreme Court just mandated that the government should pay for these drugs. Once again, it is not narrow scoped, this can now be applied to every RFRA case.

I guess my question for everyone is does anyone believe this idea that corporations are people, just people with better tax codes, and virtually no justice served against them is a good thing? And what can be done about it? I know this is getting argued to death here, but honestly, I'm still venting on this the more I read, and I think this is a major blow to our country.

the_narrow_way 07-02-2014 01:35 PM

It sucks, plain and simple. Hobby Lobby's owners have some 'splainin' to do about their company buying from China and especially their 401k investment plans' having stock in the medical companies that produce the very drugs they're saying they are against. To me there is no other explanation other than the greedy fucks just want show up the Obama administration. There's nothing about their 'morals' involved. Another company hi-jacking religious fervor for their own greedy benefit.

WaiverWire 07-02-2014 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171553)
It sucks, plain and simple. Hobby Lobby's owners have some 'splainin' to do about their company buying from China and especially their 401k investment plans' having stock in the medical companies that produce the very drugs they're saying they are against. To me there is no other explanation other than the greedy fucks just want show up the Obama administration. There's nothing about their 'morals' involved. Another company hi-jacking religious fervor for their own greedy benefit.

Oh please. Why would they have to explain anything? Almost any company today has to do business with China. This is a company that was already providing 16 of the items on a 20 items list for contraception, and they plan to continue to do so. It was the other 4 they did not like.

And yes, scientific studies have shown that these 4 items, 2 plan B, Ella, and IUD's do not cause abortion. But their religious beliefs trump that according to the RFRA and they were fairly confident going into the SCOTUS that they would prevail on this issue.

Why treat these businesses like people? Because in 2010 the courts gave corporations the same rights as people. It was a terrible ruling, but like it or not that is now the law of the land.

This ruling is small in nature. Yes the courts sent back cases to the lower level courts on Tuesday for a review due to the ruling Monday. But that does not mean the courts have to change their rulings.

The one area that I found interesting that was not challenged was if this provision in the ACA was even Constitutional as this provision was never passed or authorized by Congress.

The real test is coming later in 2014 or in 2015. This is the suit were the right is claiming that states that refused to set up exchanges, which were then set up by the feds, did not qualify for subsidies. This provision of the law was put into place by the WH after the law was written and passed Congress.

If this provision is found to be a reach by the WH and unconstitutional the ACA may very well implode.

With the resent rulings by this court I do think they will rule that the WH over step their authority by attempting to legislate.

the_narrow_way 07-02-2014 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171556)
Oh please. Why would they have to explain anything? Almost any company today has to do business with China.

China performs more abortions than any other country. If HL's owners are so against it, they should put their money where their mouth is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171556)
And yes, scientific studies have shown that these 4 items, 2 plan B, Ella, and IUD's do not cause abortion. But their religious beliefs trump that according to the RFRA and they were fairly confident going into the SCOTUS that they would prevail on this issue.

And my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands that I don't hire or otherwise support ex-military or ex-law enforcement individuals. If I owned a company then under this ruling I could get to discriminate against them, right, since it's my religious belief?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171556)
Why treat these businesses like people? Because in 2010 the courts gave corporations the same rights as people. It was a terrible ruling, but like it or not that is now the law of the land.

Bad laws should be campaigned against and changed, not supported just because.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171556)
This ruling is small in nature.

90% of corporations is small in nature?

Maverick9911 07-02-2014 04:12 PM

Quote:

I guess my question for everyone is does anyone believe this idea that corporations are people, just people with better tax codes, and virtually no justice served against them is a good thing?
Because corporations are people, my friend. When it comes to this particular ruling we need to abide by the law, respect it, and show deference to corporate personhood.

Now, when these corporations decide to pay nothing in taxes and exploit the system, unlike real people, we should just stay silent. Corporations, like Soylent Green = people!!

Funny how when SCOTUS rules for this, it's "Like it or leave it, it's the law, respect it" but for everything else the Neocons loathe, it's suddenly a hot cocktail of fire, brimstone, and judicial activism.

Maverick9911 07-02-2014 04:18 PM

You know what's really narrow? A crowbar. You use it to pry shit apart by force.

And here it begins...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-obama/373853/

WaiverWire 07-02-2014 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 171570)
You know what's really narrow? A crowbar. You use it to pry shit apart by force.

And here it begins...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-obama/373853/

Let me be up front about something. I have never said one way or another if I was for or against Hobby Lobby. It was my job for 31 1/2 years to interrupt the law and enforce it. Did I enforce laws I did not like? Yes, because I took an oath that I would.

Congress passes crap laws all the time. As soon as I heard we had to "pass the bill to see what is in it" I knew the ACA would be in and out of court for years.

And it is not a take it or left it most of the time when the SCOTUS rules. We have a choice and that choice is to push our elected leaders to change laws we do not like or we remove them, no matter what party they represent. I will admit though that with the corporations now involved in politics the only thing the elected officials want from us is our vote.

As for your like Maverick9911, I doubt that would work as the #1 right is the freedom of all. They may want to try and side track the marriage movement but even though the right of religious beliefs is up there, our individual rights can not be topped.

the_narrow_way 07-02-2014 04:57 PM

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/s...gious-beliefs/

Sotnos 07-02-2014 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171578)

Many (most?) of the arguments for segregation were Bible based. Funny, the SC of that time shot that down unanimously.

I swear if we're going anywhere in this country, it's backwards. smh

the_narrow_way 07-02-2014 05:33 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-obama/373853/

WaiverWire 07-02-2014 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171584)

that was already posted

the_narrow_way 07-02-2014 07:08 PM

Missed it. Sorry for the repost.

BurnTHalO 07-03-2014 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171575)
Let me be up front about something. I have never said one way or another if I was for or against Hobby Lobby. It was my job for 31 1/2 years to interrupt the law and enforce it. Did I enforce laws I did not like? Yes, because I took an oath that I would.

Congress passes crap laws all the time. As soon as I heard we had to "pass the bill to see what is in it" I knew the ACA would be in and out of court for years.

And it is not a take it or left it most of the time when the SCOTUS rules. We have a choice and that choice is to push our elected leaders to change laws we do not like or we remove them, no matter what party they represent. I will admit though that with the corporations now involved in politics the only thing the elected officials want from us is our vote.

As for your like Maverick9911, I doubt that would work as the #1 right is the freedom of all. They may want to try and side track the marriage movement but even though the right of religious beliefs is up there, our individual rights can not be topped.

Except you can point to dozens of rulings this flies in the face of. Sorry, said I was staying out, but once again, go read the dissent vs. the opinion, then read the actual ruling, and see just how narrow that ruling is, and try to figure out how Alita was justifying vs. what Gingsburg wrote. I honestly think if you bothered to read the things, your opinion would change. I noticed you have completely left your stance that this was not a ruling that corporations have religious rights, which is a start, but go find me where this is narrowed down as much as you say it is.

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171624)
Except you can point to dozens of rulings this flies in the face of. Sorry, said I was staying out, but once again, go read the dissent vs. the opinion, then read the actual ruling, and see just how narrow that ruling is, and try to figure out how Alita was justifying vs. what Gingsburg wrote. I honestly think if you bothered to read the things, your opinion would change. I noticed you have completely left your stance that this was not a ruling that corporations have religious rights, which is a start, but go find me where this is narrowed down as much as you say it is.

I have read the rules. I'm retired with nothing better to do.

No, I have not left that belief about the corporations. I never believed that a corporation had the right to be treated as a person. But if you own a company you must declare the structure of that company to the IRS. If you are owned by, say two people, and you want to be a partnership the State of Florida and the IRS declare that you are a corporation.

In the case of the Greens, even though they are a corporation, they are held "close" and only a few people, or just one person, has total control. That is far different then a publicly held corporation.

I really do hope that you do not think that everything I type is what I believe. Many times I will just show how the others came to the conclusion that they did in a hope that everyone can better understand the other person or their view.

Flycoon 07-03-2014 08:06 AM

We seem to be headed down the path of "if you can't beat the, join them". Unfortunately, "them" are the radical religious groups worldwide who want theocracy.

Religion is a personal choice. Keep it personal and out of the public domain.

Maybe there will be a backlash and all closet atheists, agnostics, and deists will come out of the (church) closet and disavow any allegiance to these proponents of mystical thought and all subsequent bull shit it brings with it. But, politics and prejudices being what they are, this is impossible. Public affirmation of atheism by a politician is akin to wearing a a NAMBLA t shirt.

Flycoon 07-03-2014 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171627)
I have read the rules. I'm retired with nothing better to do.

No, I have not left that belief about the corporations. I never believed that a corporation had the right to be treated as a person. But if you own a company you must declare the structure of that company to the IRS. If you are owned by, say two people, and you want to be a partnership the State of Florida and the IRS declare that you are a corporation.

In the case of the Greens, even though they are a corporation, they are held "close" and only a few people, or just one person, has total control. That is far different then a publicly held corporation.

I really do hope that you do not think that everything I type is what I believe. Many times I will just show how the others came to the conclusion that they did in a hope that everyone can better understand the other person or their view.

The letter of the law is corporations are "artificial persons" as opposed to "natural born person". This allows taxation, regulation, ability to bring suit against them, etc.

The lines have become blurred, thanks to our increasing move to classic fascism and plutocracy.

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 171628)
We seem to be headed down the path of "if you can't beat the, join them". Unfortunately, "them" are the radical religious groups worldwide who want theocracy.

Religion is a personal choice. Keep it personal and out of the public domain.

Maybe there will be a backlash and all closet atheists, agnostics, and deists will come out of the (church) closet and disavow any allegiance to these proponents of mystical thought and all subsequent bull shit it brings with it. But, politics and prejudices being what they are, this is impossible. Public affirmation of atheism by a politician is akin to wearing a a NAMBLA t shirt.

But the RFRA gave these same rights to those that are non believers.

pete 07-03-2014 09:24 AM

All the more reason to decouple health care from employment and have universal coverage through a single-payer system. Then Hobby Lobby can stop worrying about their employees, gasp, having sex and get back to the important things in life like hawking calligraphy sets to crazy cat ladies.

Flycoon 07-03-2014 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171634)
Not possible. My religious beliefs establish my business values, my personal values and how I believe the government should operate. You can't turn off values like that.

Of course you can't. BUT, corporations are not natural born persons and have no moral compulsion or values. No religion for them.

As for you personally, I would assume that your religious beliefs do not dictate who you hire/fire/promote/demote. At least I assume you haven't fired everyone named Mohammed....

My previous post should have been "narrow". Church doctrine and mandates have no place in public policy or the political arena.

Flycoon 07-03-2014 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 171636)
All the more reason to decouple health care from employment and have universal coverage through a single-payer system. Then Hobby Lobby can stop worrying about their employees, gasp, having sex and get back to the important things in life like hawking calligraphy sets to crazy cat ladies.

Agreed.

Avery86 07-03-2014 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171627)

I really do hope that you do not think that everything I type is what I believe. Many times I will just show how the others came to the conclusion that they did in a hope that everyone can better understand the other person or their view.

:rolleyes:

ZeykShade 07-03-2014 03:37 PM

What's so wrong about Imaginary People having Imaginary Friends?

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 171636)
All the more reason to decouple health care from employment and have universal coverage through a single-payer system. Then Hobby Lobby can stop worrying about their employees, gasp, having sex and get back to the important things in life like hawking calligraphy sets to crazy cat ladies.

Will not happen for a long long time. There seems to have been very little thought placed into the ACA, other than to get it passed. They had to do it the way they did or not all of the democrats would had been on board.

The ACA is still a mess as is the VA. Many will never let the government take it over 100%.

pete 07-03-2014 06:12 PM

Quote:

There seems to have been very little thought placed into the ACA
Actually, ACA is working, and something like 80% of new enrollees to ACA are people who previously did not have insurance and not people who had their old, non-compliant policies cancelled, which was the death knell for the last major conservative doomsaying myth about the law (that all the new enrollees got kicked out of their old policies and no new people are getting covered). I'd also note that the numbers show a very high percentage of young enrollees is being achieved, which undercuts the other conservative doomsaying myth about the law.

The latest version of the economic figures showed health care costs, amazingly, have actually gone down slightly versus the modest escalation that was originally calculated. It's certainly a far cry from the skyrocketing escalation that was expected if the Republicans had gotten their way and repealed ACA to keep the status quo.

I'd also point out that unemployment fell to 6.1% today, the economy created 200,000+ jobs for the fifth straight month, and the Dow Jones topped 17,000 for the first time in history. Sooooo... if ACA was Obama's evil plan socialist plan to enact a job killing, economy gutting attack on the fundamentals of capitalism and libertah(!), because he hates America (per Fox News), it was a poor plan because the opposite is occurring.

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 06:38 PM

And today we still have a huge number that just stopped looking for work.

I haven't taken the time to look at the jobs numbers today, but if they are like the past they are mostly the low wage paying jobs.

pete 07-03-2014 06:59 PM

Yep, and the Dow hitting 17,000 must be bad news too, right?

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 171709)
Yep, and the Dow hitting 17,000 must be bad news too, right?

That is good news. But we all know that it is way overpriced and there is going to be a correction.

the_narrow_way 07-03-2014 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171705)
I haven't taken the time to look at the jobs numbers today, but if they are like the past they are mostly the low wage paying jobs.

And who is usually at the top of that food chain, deciding how much (little) to pay the employees while also maximizing their profits?

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 171712)
And who is usually at the top of that food chain, deciding how much (little) to pay the employees while also maximizing their profits?

But one can also say that when these companies opened their stores the job openings were expected to be filled by those just entering the work force. You know high school students and kids working there way through college.

Ask these kids today, many can't find a job. Why? Because they have been squeezed out by those that do not have the skills for a better job, or they took the job because the economy still sucks and the jobs that they once filled are no longer hiring.

ZeykShade 07-03-2014 08:03 PM

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/wi...-lobby-ruling/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us...lege.html?_r=0

ZeykShade 07-03-2014 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171714)
But one can also say that when these companies opened their stores the job openings were expected to be filled by those just entering the work force. You know high school students and kids working there way through college.

Ask these kids today, many can't find a job. Why? Because they have been squeezed out by those that do not have the skills for a better job, or they took the job because the economy still sucks and the jobs that they once filled are no longer hiring.

Or those people who were supposed to be retiring no longer can so they aren't retiring to clear up openings.

Or there simply isn't enough demand for goods and services to justify creating more job openings. If only there were a way to get more disposable income into the hands of those who would almost instantly spend it back into the economy.

pete 07-03-2014 08:35 PM

Did I mention there was also a study released recently that indicates a higher proportion of the recent job growth has occurred in states that have adopted a higher minimum wage?

WaiverWire 07-03-2014 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171730)
How come when low paying jobs are created in Florida it is proof to the right that Rick Scott is a job creating machine, but when it happens nationally is is proof that Obama is a failure?

1st not all right, Rick Scott never brought the high paying jobs he promised. Period, end of point.

2nd, Florida's #1 industry is tourism. Most of the jobs created were in the hospitality industry which always pay low wages.

The area of the country that is really doing quit well is Montana and North Dakota. They have some excellent paying jobs do to their oil boom. The also have true unemployment below 1%.

ChaseSpace 07-04-2014 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171736)

The area of the country that is really doing quit well is Montana and North Dakota. They have some excellent paying jobs do to their oil boom. The also have true unemployment below 1%.

What worries me is this part. Politicians will see it as "proof" that oil creates job but the only way to get oil in Florida is offshore rigs, which aren't guaranteed to hire from the local workforce.

WaiverWire 07-04-2014 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 171751)
What worries me is this part. Politicians will see it as "proof" that oil creates job but the only way to get oil in Florida is offshore rigs, which aren't guaranteed to hire from the local workforce.

No, they need to keep away from our shorelines and for that matter all shorelines. There is plenty of oil elsewhere in this country.

BurnTHalO 07-04-2014 06:20 PM

So zeke posted it and I haven't read anything yet, but I heard sotimayor stated something that SCOTUS just basically went against their hobby lobby decision. Is that true?

WaiverWire 07-04-2014 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 171796)
So zeke posted it and I haven't read anything yet, but I heard sotimayor stated something that SCOTUS just basically went against their hobby lobby decision. Is that true?



They were very interesting.

I know that of the 3 cases sent back to the lower courts for review, this is almost automatic in cases like this. They were over turned by the SCOTUS on the way the lower court judges were thinking, but they get sent back to see if there is another avenue to go in order to make sure all possible angles are looked at before reaching another decision.

Bolthed 07-05-2014 01:03 AM

Republicans finally admit why they hate Obamacare

Quote:

Because just within the last month, numerous predictions of Obamacare skeptics have suffered ignominious deaths.
So there's only one reason left, and I'll give you a hint as to what it is the GOP still objects to: It's the usual battle between rich vs. poor, and we all know who are the lackeys, I mean, champions of corporations.

Flycoon 07-05-2014 07:32 AM

[quote=Bolthed;171816]Republicans finally admit why they hate Obamacare



So there's only one reason left, and I'll give you a hint as to what it is the GOP still objects to: It's the usual battle between rich vs. poor, and we all know who are the lackeys, I mean, champions of corporations.[/]

And regardless of this fact, just try convincing poor whites in the southern poverty belt that voting Publican isn't in their own best interest.

These folks are just plain stupid.

RSchmitz 07-05-2014 11:22 AM

Creeepy

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/in...60.h373.2x.jpg

the_narrow_way 07-05-2014 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz (Post 171830)
Creeepy

Old news.

BurnTHalO 07-05-2014 07:03 PM

So has Israel stepped in it? They have been killing tons of civilians for years, but on top of burning a teen to death, They now have beaten the hell out of an innocent American. When is enough enough?

the_narrow_way 07-06-2014 12:16 AM

That land needs to have the artificial borders wiped from the map and the original borders be redrawn.

pete 07-06-2014 10:10 PM

Here's a link to an article about the study that showed greater job growth in states that raised the minimum wage. Evidently the recent study confirms the results done by Goldman Sachs last year which drew the same conclusions.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...se-employment/

They note that the study doesn't necessarily establish causality, but it at the very least debunks the notion that raising the minimum wage destroys job growth and hurts the economy... much in the same way the recent acceleration in job growth nationwide and the stock market hitting 17,000 for the first time pretty much debunks the notion that the ACA destroys job growth and hurts the economy.

Seems to me even watered down progressive policies, and that's what these are... TREMENDOUSLY watered down... are not the horrible economic anchors that conservatives make them out to be. Quite the opposite, in fact.

pete 07-06-2014 10:20 PM

Quote:

That land needs to have the artificial borders wiped from the map and the original borders be redrawn.
What do you do with land in a city like Jerusalem that several religions hold sacred? The fact of the matter is that nothing as simplistic as redrawing maps is going to resolve the issues in the Middle East.

Ultimately, the issue is that the inherent socioeconomic inequalities that exist in the Middle East prevent the rise of a moderate, modern middle class in the region capable of accepting secular government rule, democracy, and tolerance for other religions. The Palestinians are a special case because their impoverishment is partially by design due to Israeli policies. Elsewhere, it's because you have a ruling class flush with petro-dollars that see no reason to share that prosperity with anybody outside the ruling class and would rather import what they need from other nations than invest in the institutions they need at home to become self-sufficient.

How you fix that? No clue. Not sure you can, in fact.

BurnTHalO 07-07-2014 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 171880)
What do you do with land in a city like Jerusalem that several religions hold sacred? The fact of the matter is that nothing as simplistic as redrawing maps is going to resolve the issues in the Middle East.

Ultimately, the issue is that the inherent socioeconomic inequalities that exist in the Middle East prevent the rise of a moderate, modern middle class in the region capable of accepting secular government rule, democracy, and tolerance for other religions. The Palestinians are a special case because their impoverishment is partially by design due to Israeli policies. Elsewhere, it's because you have a ruling class flush with petro-dollars that see no reason to share that prosperity with anybody outside the ruling class and would rather import what they need from other nations than invest in the institutions they need at home to become self-sufficient.

How you fix that? No clue. Not sure you can, in fact.

Boy that all sounds insanely familiar.

I've always wondered if the best solution is a neutral party (i.e. a UN deligate) controling and taking care of Jerusalem. But the fact that the Israel miltary is just beating and lighting teenagers on fire was enough for me with all the civilian deaths they cause. Last straw for me, and the fact an American was attacked by the Israel military and our politicians are too afraid of Israel to say something really bothers me (hell, same with the media for that matter).

WaiverWire 07-07-2014 06:12 PM

Yup, it has been confirmed :noidea:............I used to work with idiots. :doh:

http://tbo.com/news/politics/on-duty...vent-20140707/

Flycoon 07-08-2014 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171896)
Yup, it has been confirmed :noidea:............I used to work with idiots. :doh:

http://tbo.com/news/politics/on-duty...vent-20140707/

Was there ever any doubt?

Nobody pays attention.

WaiverWire 07-08-2014 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 171900)
Was there ever any doubt?

Nobody pays attention.

I know I never did this nor did those that I worked with. It was something that would get you fired.

BurnTHalO 07-08-2014 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171901)
I know I never did this nor did those that I worked with. It was something that would get you fired.

Which to me is further evidence that the officers are probably telling the truth that they were told to come to the event for security and then used by Scott. No way this could really happen, right?

WaiverWire 07-08-2014 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171905)
The folks I know in law enforcement were big Scott supporters last time , but Scott cut their pay (by making them pay for a portion of their pension contribution) and I don't believe he will have that same level of support this time.

Did they get used? Probably. You are at an event providing security, told to stand somewhere and probably didn't realize what was happening before it's too late. Then you don't want to make a scene.

Really shows the slime of the guy to put all of these officers careers at risk for his stunt.

Most law enforcements agencies, such as Hillsborough S.O., gave their employees, sworn and civilian the 3% to off set the pension contribution the day it went into effect. Those that were employed at the time the new pension rules went into effect were grandfathered and kept their plans. The pension reform act only effected new hires after a certain date.

Most Leo's despise Charlie Crist more than Rick Scott. This is a real hard one for many, including me. I didn't vote for Scott the first time, but I can not see me voting for Crist either. I guess I will see how they handle a "no vote" when they scan my ballot.

WaiverWire 07-08-2014 04:14 PM

FDOT released their study on the future of the cruise ship industry for the Port of Tampa. It does not appear good.


From TBO:

Quote:

The study considered three options:



♦ Do nothing and let the cruise ship industry at Port Tampa Bay shrink as ship sizes increase and they are no longer able to get under the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. The FDOT did not give a precise economic impact to go with this option, but said it would mean “a significant loss” in economic impact and jobs over the long-term.



♦ Build a new cruise ship port seaward of the Skyway bridge. This option comes with a price tag of anywhere between $632 million to $647 million. It would likely include construction of a 50-acre, four-berth facility with a 100,000 square-foot port terminal facility, including a lobby, security, check-in areas, baggage areas and customs office. This facility could include a marina for mega-yacht docking, a boutique hotel, restaurants and shops. It would also require some 9,000 parking spaces.



♦ Consider alternatives to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, including building a new one at a cost of about $2 billion, altering the existing bridge by lifting the impacted section, at a cost of about $1.5 billion or demolishing the impacted section and building a new, higher section, which would also cost about $1.5 billion, but take about three years to complete.
http://tbo.com/news/business/fdot-la...stry-20140708/

Option #2 is the most cost effective if you want to keep the terminal within Hillsborough County. It also allows for St. Pete to be more involved..........if they allow the Rays to move to Tampa.

Option #3 only works of the State will pay a major potion of the cost.

WaiverWire 07-08-2014 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171929)
I believe you are wrong. The 3% increase went into effect and impacted all workers - not just future hires.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/1...t-upholds.html

Either you read wrong or I stated wrong. I was referring to the 3% that employees must contribute. Most agencies off set this with a 3% raise the day it went into effect.

If you were in the special "high risk class" you stayed at the 3% rate that counts towards retirement. You also only had to stay for 25 years for full retirement (75%) which is calculated on your 5 years of your highest pay.

Those hired on after the law went into effect now have to stay for 30 years at a rate of 2% per year, or 60% of you last 5 years of pay.

And yes, the Miami paper is correct. The State can force you to pay thee percent. And my response was that the agencies off set this payment with an increase in pay even though budgets had been set. Thus you lost very little take home pay.

And remember this was only for those employees on the State Pension system. Cities have their own pension law. They have the ability to set up their plans with any company or run it themselves like Tampa does for the police and fire. So city workers were not effected by this change to the State run plan.

I know that Tampa changes their contribution rate yearly. Some years it is as low as 4%. Others it has been as high as 20% when times are bad. 3% to me, and many others, is no big deal.

Tampa also does not contribute to social security, thus you can not collect.

Flycoon 07-09-2014 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171911)
Most Leo's despise Charlie Crist more than Rick Scott.

Why?

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 171965)
Why?

OMG he is the biggest flip flopper ever. Many feel that he will push the Obama agenda very hard and turn Tallahassee into a dysfunctional political nightmare like Washington.

And many that I have talked to think he will only be a mouth piece for John Morgan.

Sorry, but even though he has a great chance to win as almost anyone could beat Scott, Crist is the worst pick democrats could had put up.

Sotnos 07-09-2014 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171930)
And yes, the Miami paper is correct. The State can force you to pay thee percent. And my response was that the agencies off set this payment with an increase in pay even though budgets had been set. Thus you lost very little take home pay.

They did? Not the cities/counties I know of. 3% off the top, too bad for you.

My employer has most on a 401k plan, but those who chose to stay in FRS lost 3%. Someday it'll be successfully overturned & they'll get that money back plus interest, imo. It's not being put in a retirement fund, it's funding the State's general fund.

ZeykShade 07-09-2014 10:54 AM

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/08/329884...ling-is-a-boon

For some more lols(because you have to laugh to avoid crying):

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014...rt-filing-read

BurnTHalO 07-09-2014 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 171973)

I've got to be honest, I have no idea if the Mother Jones article is satirical or real. Reading the case they outlined, I have no idea how the lose that case (and Republicans should be cheering for it).

BurnTHalO 07-09-2014 11:24 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...ushpmg00000063


Nothing like Senator "facts."

Quote:

"As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I won’t get into the debate about climate change but I’ll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars that I’m aware of."

According to NASA, the average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit -- 138 degrees above Mars' average of -81 degrees.

Hoek 07-09-2014 11:30 AM

:doh:

pete 07-09-2014 11:59 AM

From Kentucky. 'Nuff said.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 171969)
They did? Not the cities/counties I know of. 3% off the top, too bad for you.

My employer has most on a 401k plan, but those who chose to stay in FRS lost 3%. Someday it'll be successfully overturned & they'll get that money back plus interest, imo. It's not being put in a retirement fund, it's funding the State's general fund.

Cities can not participate in the State FRS, only counties. Cities have their own law covering retirement. Most cities use investment firms for their funding. That was not touched by the legislators as the legislators only cared about the State's funding in the State's FRS. The State does not put one penny into the cities retirement system. The only reason the counties were dragged into this is because they were in the State's system.

Flycoon 07-09-2014 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171967)
OMG he is the biggest flip flopper ever. Many feel that he will push the Obama agenda very hard and turn Tallahassee into a dysfunctional political nightmare like Washington.

And many that I have talked to think he will only be a mouth piece for John Morgan.

Sorry, but even though he has a great chance to win as almost anyone could beat Scott, Crist is the worst pick democrats could had put up.

No reason to be sorry. Just curious as to whether there was a track record of him being anti law enforcement/incarceration. My guess he is just as on board with for profit corrections and privitization of as much law enforcement as possible.

ZeykShade 07-09-2014 03:12 PM

Minimum Wage Jobs are Starter Jobs done by Kids!
 
...or not really.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-reality-...ll-shock-you-5

From the original BLS data the more discouraging thing is 56% of Min. Wage workers work full-time(>35hours / wk) and over half of those working for Min. Wage earn the majority of their household income.

I'm pretty sure it's fucked up that you can have people working full time and still be below the Poverty Line. Absurd.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 171987)
...or not really.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-reality-...ll-shock-you-5

From the original BLS data the more discouraging thing is 56% of Min. Wage workers work full-time(>35hours / wk) and over half of those working for Min. Wage earn the majority of their household income.

I'm pretty sure it's fucked up that you can have people working full time and still be below the Poverty Line. Absurd.

What is interesting about the link you provided, if you look at the second pie chart they show that 41% have some college with 7% of that 41% having a 4 year degree. What this tells me is that higher paying jobs that were once there prior to the collapse have been replaced with much lower paying jobs, yet some still claim the economy is getting much better :doh:

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171988)
Another one of those questions I can't figure out.

Reagan goes from being a Roosevelt New Deal backer and is hailed as a saint by the right wing.

Crist leaves the Republican Party and is a flip flopper.

Don't worry, there won't be a disfunctional system. First of all he is friends with most of the moderate republicans in Tallahassee. Second, he's still a moderate. Oh, and he's white.

The Miami Herald put a few of his flip flops together in one article that came out.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/2...biography.html

Here is more documentations of his flipping.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...lip-flopped-on

We all lose because they are both jerks.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171992)
You can call it flip flopping if you like - I wouldn't. I've changed my position on many issues over time. If a person isn't smart enough to learn, grow and evolve, then I think that person has a real problem.

Civil rights wouldn't have happened without a bunch of bigots seeing the error of their ways.

He changed his position on abortion? So has much of America.

He changed his position on gay marriage? So did America.

He changed his position on gun control? After watching the number of school shootings, so have many others.

He changed his position on whether pot should be allowed for medical purposes? So did America.

He changed his position on Obamacare? After seeing that it worked, he should admit that he was wrong.

But you still haven't explained why Reagan isn't considered a flip flopper.:noidea:

Hahahahahaha, you right. It should be called flip flopping when someone chances their mind. Anyone and everyone has the right to change their mind. So if that is the case lets see how many times some here, and if political ads, will call a candidate on the right flip and flopping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171988)

Reagan goes from being a Roosevelt New Deal backer and is hailed as a saint by the right wing.

See, you did it above. Like I said anybody can change their mind. If they didn't we would all still be saying the world is flat.

Flycoon 07-09-2014 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 171992)
But you still haven't explained why Reagan isn't considered a flip flopper.:noidea:

Deification by the GOP. He lived in the distant past and much of what he said and did has been scrubbed from history. There was no internet, it was easier to clean up.

Sotnos 07-09-2014 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171979)
Cities can not participate in the State FRS, only counties.

This was incorrect 15 or so years ago, and people who were already in FRS could stay if they wanted to. I am not making this up, one of my employees loses 3% a paycheck as she was the only one who stayed in FRS when they were offered the chance to get out.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 172001)
This was incorrect 15 or so years ago, and people who were already in FRS could stay if they wanted to. I am not making this up, one of my employees loses 3% a paycheck as she was the only one who stayed in FRS when they were offered the chance to get out.


My bad. We were having a discussion about police and fire and why they would be for Scott when he took away 3% from them. Yes, a few cities, still are in FRS. But many left FRS when they could as they felt they could get a better return.

The law change was in 1975 and took effect right after I had started with a city department, see FSC 185.http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statute...tle12/#Title12

My city switched to the new state law and went to a private companying for their pension fund for all city employees. So did many other through out the State.

If your city had the option to change 15 years ago and did so, they were one of a very few that stayed in FRS after 1975.

Your city would also be one of a few that did not give a 3% raise to off-set their contribution to FRS.

Constitutional county officers around the state gave their employees the 3% raise to off-set this change to FRS. They could do this as once they get their funds from the county commission they can do with it what they want salary wise. Their actions forced county commissions around the state to cough up the added funding in order to keep the non constitutional county employees happy.

Many state law enforcement officers applied to city and county agencies after Scott signed the bill.

My wife, who polygraphs applicants for several cities and counties, saw a huge increase in applicants, post Scott's signing, from State agencies like FHP Game and Fish and DOT.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 08:07 PM

OMG, half of the population of Israel are sleeping in bomb shelters tonight do to the constant rocket attacks on their cities.

Reports are that Israel is about to launch a ground attack of 40,000 troops.

Other reports have ISIS bombing and bulldozing churches and mosques in Iraq.

Intelligence has ISIS marching on to the historic city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia to do the same to their religious buildings.

I do not feel good about any of this.

the_narrow_way 07-09-2014 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 171987)
I'm pretty sure it's fucked up that you can have people working full time and still be below the Poverty Line. Absurd.

Totally agreed. I mentioned it before, but, how can working full-time at minimum wage still leave you under the poverty line? What a sad state of affairs we're in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171997)
Hahahahahaha, you right. It should be called flip flopping when someone chances their mind. Anyone and everyone has the right to change their mind. So if that is the case lets see how many times some here, and if political ads, will call a candidate on the right flip and flopping.

The point was that changing your mind over time as new information comes to light and general public acceptance changes is not flip-flopping. Changing your mind because of a short-term political happenstance can still be flip-flopping.

ZeykShade 07-09-2014 09:07 PM

Bee Tee Dubz, if wages had kept up with productivity and inflation, Min. Wage would be just over $21/hr.

WaiverWire 07-09-2014 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172008)
Totally agreed. I mentioned it before, but, how can working full-time at minimum wage still leave you under the poverty line? What a sad state of affairs we're in.


The point was that changing your mind over time as new information comes to light and general public acceptance changes is not flip-flopping. Changing your mind because of a short-term political happenstance can still be flip-flopping.

And I was saying I agreed :doh:

Bolthed 07-10-2014 12:32 AM

You can agree after Donnie debunked a bunch of those claims, but your first Oh-Em-Gee reaction is far more telling in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171967)
OMG he is the biggest flip flopper ever. Many feel that he will push the Obama agenda very hard and turn Tallahassee into a dysfunctional political nightmare like Washington.

These are the kinds of surface-level political thoughts I would expect from children, which is exactly what so many blind-faith right wing supporters are. Never let facts get in the way of a good catchphrase or sound byte!

Flycoon 07-10-2014 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172003)

Intelligence has ISIS marching on to the historic city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia to do the same to their religious buildings.

This would be surprising as ISIS has been heavily funded by Saudis. It's Sunni thing.

And everyone's favorite hawk, John McCain, and his significant other, Lindsay Graham, were very involved in this. They urged Prince "Bandar Bush" to rally cash to support what they (hopefully) believed were rebels in Syria. Stupid. Much like funding Bin Laden in the 1980s.

BurnTHalO 07-10-2014 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 171989)
What is interesting about the link you provided, if you look at the second pie chart they show that 41% have some college with 7% of that 41% having a 4 year degree. What this tells me is that higher paying jobs that were once there prior to the collapse have been replaced with much lower paying jobs, yet some still claim the economy is getting much better :doh:

See this (and the flip-flop things) is what really gets me mad. That is a bold statement. Since nobody can make the statement that this single graph TELLS you that,I'm assuming you have facts as to how many college grads before the collapse worked minimum wage jobs? And of course you have access to some high level stats that compare the numbers of college grads today to % of college grads relative to the rest of the population, which you then compared to before the collapse. And I'm sure you have a high-level breakdown of the schools these minimum wage workers come from, degrees they obtained, and how this compares to before.

WaiverWire 07-10-2014 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172023)
See this (and the flip-flop things) is what really gets me mad. That is a bold statement. Since nobody can make the statement that this single graph TELLS you that,I'm assuming you have facts as to how many college grads before the collapse worked minimum wage jobs? And of course you have access to some high level stats that compare the numbers of college grads today to % of college grads relative to the rest of the population, which you then compared to before the collapse. And I'm sure you have a high-level breakdown of the schools these minimum wage workers come from, degrees they obtained, and how this compares to before.

Ah no, no reports and no stats or graphs and charts. Just sitting around and flipping channels and hearing the news reports time after time that say that yes, we are recovering and creating jobs, but no these jobs pay nothing like they did in the past. Even here, on this board, some have said that is because the good paying jobs went overseas.

Who cares where they went as they are no longer here. What do we have to do as a country to bring them back?

Flycoon 07-10-2014 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172029)
Who cares where they went as they are no longer here. What do we have to do as a country to bring them back?

Tariffs.

WaiverWire 07-10-2014 02:13 PM

Did the IRS lost emails just get ratcheted up?

Quote:

A federal judge ordered the IRS Thursday to explain under oath how it lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency's tea party controversy.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan gave the tax agency a month to submit the explanation in writing. Sullivan said he is also appointing a federal magistrate to see if lost emails can be obtained from other sources.

Sullivan issued the order as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group. He said the IRS declaration must be signed, under oath, by the appropriate IRS official.

"I'm going to hold tight to that Aug. 10 declaration," Sullivan said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...mails-24507462

WaiverWire 07-10-2014 02:22 PM

This does not look good. ISIS now has 88 pounds of low grade uranium which could be used for dirty bombs.

Quote:

Iraq sent an urgent letter to the United Nations appealing for help to “stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or abroad.”


Quote:

“Terrorist groups have seized control of nuclear material at the sites that came out of the control of the state,” Mohamed Ali Alhakim wrote, adding that such materials “can be used in manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.”

Quote:

A US government source familiar with the matter said the materials were not believed to be enriched uranium and therefore would be difficult to manufacture into a weapon. A UN atomic agency said Thursday it believed the material seized was “low grade” and did not pose a significant security threat.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/09/isis-fi...tombs-in-iraq/

ZeykShade 07-10-2014 02:26 PM

Thing I love most about that is that the Iraqis are basically thinking, "Well, bullshit claims about WMD got them here in the first place, maybe they'll fall for it again and come help us."

WaiverWire 07-10-2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172043)
Thing I love most about that is that the Iraqis are basically thinking, "Well, bullshit claims about WMD got them here in the first place, maybe they'll fall for it again and come help us."

Never thought of that. So true.:rofl:

WaiverWire 07-10-2014 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172061)

Think no one should be surprised by this.

BurnTHalO 07-11-2014 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172061)

It's so out of control. My former home has one of the most obsurd out there as well (I know there are tons of examples). Go look at the lovely Ohio district map, and notice the lovely strip of land running right along Lake Erie (so thin the number doesn't even fit in it to identify the district number). What is funny about that? It connects from Toledo to Cleveland, and eliminated a democratic seat from Cleveland. Want to know why this country is in trouble? Look at this garbage that has been done.

ZeykShade 07-11-2014 08:11 AM

Gerrymandering has been around since before the US Constitution was the Law of the Land. It wasn't called Gerrymandering until later though.

Gerrymandering is another branch, the root of the problem still lies at the feet of corporations and plutocrats buying state houses with very little money. Campaign Finance Reform or 28th Amendment please. Citizens United v FEC all the way back to Dodge Brothers v Ford Motor Company in 1919. All bricks in the wall separating The People from their "representatives" in our "Republic".

ZeykShade 07-11-2014 11:41 AM

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...e-success.html

They protest so much because they knew that once people had it, they'd like it. Had to try to head it off at the pass before it actually started to get implemented.

It's not perfect, but it's better than what we had.

ZeykShade 07-12-2014 11:28 PM

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/ar...w-test/374274/

File this under "No shit".

WaiverWire 07-15-2014 12:37 PM

This is from something that just got posted at TBO.com

They are not painting a rosy picture for Crist.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-mackinno...rist-20140714/

ChaseSpace 07-15-2014 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172261)
This is from something that just got posted at TBO.com

They are not painting a rosy picture for Crist.

http://tbo.com/list/columns-mackinno...rist-20140714/

Not like Crist gives them any good material to work with. I don't have a real problem with Crist changing his position on subjects, everyone does it as they grow and change, but he comes off as too much of a politician when he does it for my tastes.

That being said, I'll take him over Scott.

the_narrow_way 07-15-2014 09:30 PM

Medical marijuana is going to drive some voters to the polls.

WaiverWire 07-16-2014 11:59 AM

The link below is not something I read very often. In fact almost never.
This is a leaked report that is shocking, if true.

The leaked intel report from the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) from July 7, 2014 claims the reason there is an influx of crossings at our southern boarders is because those crossing believe that they can now stay, and that they are not fleeing their countries due to the violence, which the report says all though high it is declining.


Quote:

(U//LES) In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs traveling with minors. Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.


(U//LES) U//LES) In late May, the U.S. Border Patrol interviewed unaccompanied children (UAC) and migrant families apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley. Of the 230 total migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC and adult female OTMs traveling with minors. Migrants indicated that knowledge of permisos was widespread across Central America due to word of mouth, local, and international media messaging—prompting many to depart for the United States within 30 days of becoming aware of these perceived benefits, according to the same reporting.

A majority of migrants interviewed also noted that they had encountered family units, consisting of a mother and child under the age of 18 during their journey to the United States and that the families had indicated they planned to surrender to U.S. authorities because they were informed that they would likely be released.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...-Border-Crisis

the_narrow_way 07-16-2014 12:21 PM

Why is it shocking? The belief that once you make it to US soil that you have a good chance of being able to stay is an old one, and has been true to varying degrees since before we were the USA.

WaiverWire 07-16-2014 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172304)
Why is it shocking?

Why? Because all the news reports were that these people were fleeing due to the high violent crime rate and that most would die if they stayed in their homeland. Our government says that many should be treated as "refugees". This leaked reported, from several government agencies says that just is not so.

And to top it off the "main stream media" says nothing about this report.

Hoek 07-16-2014 01:21 PM

I'm pretty sure its a combination of both. There's no disputing the level of violence down there, and nobody would pay thousands of dollars to be smuggled if they thought they would be sent back to the violence immediately (hence why the smugglers lie about it to drive up business). It doesn't mean it's sunshine and rainbows in El Salvador and that they're only here for the welfare benefits.

BurnTHalO 07-16-2014 02:13 PM

Ah, Breitbart, the pillar of journalism. Good God I can't even keep straight what is destroying America at this point. I don't know, I don't know the answer to immigration. I know this idea of taking children who have been through hell and shipping them right back to it (after the hell they traveled through as well) doesn't seem right to me. Don't know, maybe I'm just not Christian enough. I do laugh that this is supposed to be fixed without money (don't want to fund the money Obama wants to use to address this). But I guess I'm not horribly concerned over immigration at this point, there are way more important things to me.

ZeykShade 07-16-2014 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172307)
Ah, Breitbart, the pillar of journalism. Good God I can't even keep straight what is destroying America at this point. I don't know, I don't know the answer to immigration. I know this idea of taking children who have been through hell and shipping them right back to it (after the hell they traveled through as well) doesn't seem right to me. Don't know, maybe I'm just not Christian enough. I do laugh that this is supposed to be fixed without money (don't want to fund the money Obama wants to use to address this). But I guess I'm not horribly concerned over immigration at this point, there are way more important things to me.

In the steaming semi-runny pile of shit that is journalism today, Breitbart is a whole other league of fetid.

Bolthed 07-16-2014 05:16 PM

Breitbart, another truly awful source of WW's right-wing talking points. Good god, man, read something unbiased. No one is pushing you to read left-wing churn like MotherJones, but Breitbart is on par with Drudge Report, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Sheesh.

WaiverWire 07-16-2014 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172310)
Come on WW. If it was all sunshine and lollypops down there, they wouldn't be spitting up their families and sending their children away.

If I hear that some other country will accept my kids, it doesn't mean that I would send them there..... Well, most days at least.

I'm not the one say it is all sunshine and lollypops. If fact I even said this:

Quote:

which the report says all though high it is declining.
If you had taken the time to even read the link, which I think most here would not based on the site that posted the story, you would see charts, charts that still have the violent crime in Central America very high.

But even with these reports they site a report from El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) dated July 7, 2014 that claims the violence was not the #1 reason these kids fled their country. This report was drafted by Homeland Security and several other agencies. They, the report from EPIC claim they are crossing the border because they feel that our government will allow them to stay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 172312)
Breitbart, another truly awful source of WW's right-wing talking points. Good god, man, read something unbiased. No one is pushing you to read left-wing churn like MotherJones, but Breitbart is on par with Drudge Report, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Sheesh.


Hey Bolthed, I even said this at the begining of the post:

Quote:

The link below is not something I read very often. In fact almost never.
Man can't you read? I never go to that site, as I stated. But noooooo, you took it upon yourself to take a shot. Real big of you.

You see, like I have always said I will read anything from both sides. If you choose to read only one view point you will not know the rest of the story.

Do I believe Breitbart story? About 90% because they name agencies and even dated the reported. So do I think someone leaked it? Yup, just like workers in the facilities housing these families and kids continue to leak photos and talk to some news agencies even after being warned to stop.

So yes, I feel this report is 90% credible until someone can prove it is not.

In the end, I posted that story as it was something different than what we have been hearing from the media and our leaders.

WaiverWire 07-16-2014 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172317)
And once again, that is absurd. I don't care if we will let them stay. They aren't going to break up their family without a reason to leave.

So this report, which was done by EPIC along with the DEA, Homeland Security with input from the United Nations, is bogus?

Some here crack me up. They claim the IRS is a bogus scandal also. Even the President said there "wasn't a smidgen of evidence" there was any wrong doing on the part of the IRS. Please believe me says the President.

We get told that the emails are gone, vanished and the hard drives are recycled, which by the way was illegal, but we are sorry please believe us.

Then just last week 2 federal judges issue an order to the IRS to get sworn affidavits from those that handled the hard drives and destroyed them. And what happens next..........opppsssss, the DOJ know says they will open a criminal investigation into this matter.

Something reeks, and is only getting stronger.

ChaseSpace 07-16-2014 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172318)

Something reeks, and is only getting stronger.

The pile of shit you smell has been there far longer than this administration has.

WaiverWire 07-16-2014 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172319)
The pile of shit you smell has been there far longer than this administration has.

So right you are. But that doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to it and allow who ever occupies our White House to get away with it.

And now we have a cabinet member gone for a violation of the Hatch Act.

ChaseSpace 07-17-2014 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172320)
So right you are. But that doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to it and allow who ever occupies our White House to get away with it.

No, we shouldn't. But to lump all of the blame unilateral on the person in office when the smell becomes too bad is the wrong thing to do. People need to step back and look at the entire political structure and disorganization that allowed these kinds of messes to survive and thrive as opposed to blaming whom they please when they please for political reasons.

WaiverWire 07-17-2014 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172323)
No, we shouldn't. But to lump all of the blame unilateral on the person in office when the smell becomes too bad is the wrong thing to do. People need to step back and look at the entire political structure and disorganization that allowed these kinds of messes to survive and thrive as opposed to blaming whom they please when they please for political reasons.

True, but when someone says "there is not a smidgen of evidence of wrong doing", but yet the DOJ who said they were conducting an investigation, still after a year, had not talked to any of the parties involved......say what??? How the hell can he say that if the DOJ still didn't do their job.

And now you have the destruction of emails and the failure of the IRS to comply with the law regarding the preservation of emails....well I just don't buy it and polls show something like 78% of the public does not buy it. Thank God for the 2 judges and their court orders. Maybe now we can find out if any thing did or did not happen as out of the clear blue we find out the DOJ is looking into this issue once these judges had issued their orders.

But this was political, just like when Sebelius committed the Hatch Act violation. She got a slap on the wrist and paid for her own expenses while giving a campaign speech.

And now we have Secretary Solis resigning as she was also caught red handed committing a Hatch Act violation.

The common theme here is "Politics" and it stinks big time.

the_narrow_way 07-17-2014 12:54 PM

Passenger plane either shot down or blown-up by an onboard explosive over the Ukraine.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ma...kraine-n158416

WaiverWire 07-17-2014 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172328)
Passenger plane either shot down or blown-up by an onboard explosive over the Ukraine.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ma...kraine-n158416

OMG now Russia is saying that Putin's plane was in the area and they are claiming that the Ukraine's had targeted Putin and instead got the passenger jet.

Hey but wait, wasn't Obama on the phone with this creep when the jet went down.

Doesn't matter that the leader of the pro-Russian group had claimed they had shot down a Ukraine military cargo plane on a Russian facebook page. Then removed that post after about 30 minutes and said it was the Ukraine's. How stupid do they think we are.

WaiverWire 07-22-2014 12:07 PM

Looks like the SCOTUS will get another case involving the ACA after today's ruling in the Federal system.

This one will be about the legality of the Federal Government giving subsidies to those that signed up on the Federal ran website, which many claim the ACA only provided language for the State run sites to do so.

Quote:

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that the IRS had incorrectly allowed people to get subsidized through the federal exchange It did not order the subsidies or tax credits stopped immediately, as the legal battle will continue.


Quote:

The plaintiffs argued that the Affordable Care Act allows the subsidies to be awarded only through insurance marketplaces run by states, while the administration argued that they can flow through any exchange regardless of who runs it.


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...223.html?hp=t1

pete 07-23-2014 08:36 AM

As a point of order, the problem with the article WaiverWire posted is that it's one man's opinion, which is not buttressed by any facts/polling data. It's also not counterbalanced by the fact that even if people like Charlie Crist less the more they get to know him, it's likely the exact same is true for a Governor with a chequered legal past like Scott.

An incumbent under 50% is a sign of weakness. An incumbent losing by 5% at this juncture of the race means Scott is likely still the significant underdog.

That the race is tightening is probably inevitable. The article WaiverWire cited is likely correct in one sense: in purple states most voters are hardened in their political affiliation before the advertising even starts. They've been through the barrage of ads in past elections and they've chosen sides, so if you put two candidates against each other with relatively even war chests and the glow of incumbency isn't there (and clearly it isn't for Scott), even if one or both has massive warts, you're going to get a close election. It's not as bad as North Carolina, which may be doomed to face nothing but close 51/49 elections for the next decade or two, but it's the nature of the beast in Florida right now.

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172386)
As a point of order, the problem with the article WaiverWire posted is that it's one man's opinion, which is not buttressed by any facts/polling data. It's also not counterbalanced by the fact that even if people like Charlie Crist less the more they get to know him, it's likely the exact same is true for a Governor with a chequered legal past like Scott.

An incumbent under 50% is a sign of weakness. An incumbent losing by 5% at this juncture of the race means Scott is likely still the significant underdog.

That the race is tightening is probably inevitable. The article WaiverWire cited is likely correct in one sense: in purple states most voters are hardened in their political affiliation before the advertising even starts. They've been through the barrage of ads in past elections and they've chosen sides, so if you put two candidates against each other with relatively even war chests and the glow of incumbency isn't there (and clearly it isn't for Scott), even if one or both has massive warts, you're going to get a close election. It's not as bad as North Carolina, which may be doomed to face nothing but close 51/49 elections for the next decade or two, but it's the nature of the beast in Florida right now.

At this point it really doesn't matter who wins the governor's mansion. If it is Crist he will have to fight a GOP controlled legislative body. This could be a very good thing as it will real in some of the things that they want to do.

As I have said before I can't stand either in this race.

The real change needs to be made in the Attorney General's Office. Pam Bondi needs to be sent packing.

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172388)
Not to repeat myself, but it's all about turnout. Dems don't vote in off year elections at the same rate as reps. That's another reason why Crist selected a Hispanic from Dade County as his lt gov. To try and boost turnout in SE Florida.

And you do you think Morgan and Morgan pushed the marijuana issue for this election?

He is counting on a higher turn out to get his friend, and employee, elected.

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 11:45 AM

And the trail looking for the IRS back up tapes just got interesting. Here that say they, the IRS, may have them so the trail may not be cold.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...up-109182.html

And now Fox News is reporting, that according to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen,that the IRS has indeed found the back up tapes and they are being reviewed by the investigators for the IG's office are going to see if there is anything on them.

This news came to light in a hearing in which the IRS Commissioner John Koskinen was testifying.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...pes-in-lerner/

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172391)
And high turnout in a democracy is bad?

Absolutely not. But for years the voter turnout has been in a decline in the off year elections.

John Morgan knows this and he had to do something in order to get people to the polls in order to give Crist a good chance at winning.

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 03:40 PM

The Government Accountability Office released a report today on an undercover investigation they did with 12 investigators looking into fraud when filing for ACA coverage.

The results are an eye opener.

Quote:

For 12 applicant scenarios, GAO tested “front-end” controls for verifying an applicant’s identity or citizenship/immigration status. Marketplace applications require attestations that information provided is neither false nor untrue. In its applications, GAO also stated income at a level to qualify for income-based subsidies to offset premium costs and reduce cost sharing. For 11 of these 12 applications, which were made by phone and online using fictitious identities, GAO obtained subsidized coverage. For one application, the marketplace denied coverage because GAO’s fictitious applicant did not provide a Social Security number as part of the test.
Full report is here.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/upload...eport_7_22.pdf

ZeykShade 07-23-2014 04:19 PM

And the plan is coming together.

Eventually the ACA is going to make Medicare for All look like an absolute diamond. Woot!

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172395)
And the plan is coming together.

Eventually the ACA is going to make Medicare for All look like an absolute diamond. Woot!

And who pays for Medicare? It isn't free and when you add in a supplemental policy to cover what they do not cover it is not as cheap as many think. In fact with my monthly Medicare payment and my Humana supplemental I'm almost paying what I would with the coverage I had with my former employer.

And if you just think you can get by with Medicare and no supplemental you may be in for a huge surprise if you ever end up in the hospital.

Sotnos 07-23-2014 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172395)
And the plan is coming together.

Eventually the ACA is going to make Medicare for All look like an absolute diamond. Woot!

What do you mean?

Sent from my YP-GS1 using Tapatalk 2

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172386)
As a point of order, the problem with the article WaiverWire posted is that it's one man's opinion, which is not buttressed by any facts/polling data. It's also not counterbalanced by the fact that even if people like Charlie Crist less the more they get to know him, it's likely the exact same is true for a Governor with a chequered legal past like Scott.

An incumbent under 50% is a sign of weakness. An incumbent losing by 5% at this juncture of the race means Scott is likely still the significant underdog.

That the race is tightening is probably inevitable. The article WaiverWire cited is likely correct in one sense: in purple states most voters are hardened in their political affiliation before the advertising even starts. They've been through the barrage of ads in past elections and they've chosen sides, so if you put two candidates against each other with relatively even war chests and the glow of incumbency isn't there (and clearly it isn't for Scott), even if one or both has massive warts, you're going to get a close election. It's not as bad as North Carolina, which may be doomed to face nothing but close 51/49 elections for the next decade or two, but it's the nature of the beast in Florida right now.

I think that at this point they are both the underdog :D

Here is the latest poll that came out today of the Florida race. It is very interesting.

Quote:

Both candidates get low grades for character:
Voters say 51 - 40 percent that Scott is not honest and trustworthy, and say 48 - 39 percent that Crist is not honest and trustworthy;
Scott doesn't care about their needs and problems, voters say 52 - 41 percent, and Crist doesn't care, voters say by a slim 47 - 44 percent;
Scott has strong leadership qualities, voters say 54 - 38 percent, compared to 49 - 43 percent for Crist.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2062

Flycoon 07-23-2014 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172395)
And the plan is coming together.

Eventually the ACA is going to make Medicare for All look like an absolute diamond. Woot!

Agreed. The ACA is the painful baby step to single payer. Can't go back to the "free market" of excluding those with pre-existing conditions, lifetime limits, and crap discount cards masquerading as insurance.

Single payer will be a boon to all businesses. Can't understand why the Chamber of Commerce isn't on the band wagon yet. The only loser with single payer will be big for profit health insurance. Oh.........

Flycoon 07-23-2014 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172397)
And who pays for Medicare? It isn't free and when you add in a supplemental policy to cover what they do not cover it is not as cheap as many think. In fact with my monthly Medicare payment and my Humana supplemental I'm almost paying what I would with the coverage I had with my former employer.

And if you just think you can get by with Medicare and no supplemental you may be in for a huge surprise if you ever end up in the hospital.

You were being subsidized as a retiree. You would have paid BIG $ had you paid the entire premium out of pocket and not been part of a long standing group.

Flycoon 07-23-2014 08:09 PM

Despicable.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ch...wship-portland

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172409)
You were being subsidized as a retiree.

Want to explain who is subsidizing me with the big dollars. For $107 a month you have to pay 20% of your doctor/hospital visits and no medicines are covered.

I have to pay right at $400 to a private healthcare company to cover the 20% of what Medicare will not cover and they cover 100% minus a co-pay for medicines.

For $500 one can find a very good policy on the open market.

ChaseSpace 07-23-2014 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172414)
Want to explain who is subsidizing me with the big dollars. For $107 a month you have to pay 20% of your doctor/hospital visits and no medicines are covered.

I have to pay right at $400 to a private healthcare company to cover the 20% of what Medicare will not cover and they cover 100% minus a co-pay for medicines.

For $500 one can find a very good policy on the open market.

$500 a month?

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172415)
$500 a month?

Yup, for one person.

Many of your single employer provided policies are around this rate. To come up with that rate you have to add what you pay and what your employer pays.

ChaseSpace 07-23-2014 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172416)
Yup, for one person.

Many of your single employer provided policies are around this rate. To come up with that rate you have to add what you pay and what your employer pays.

Maybe it's because I'm still relatively young but that seems like an astronomical amount for the average person to be paying a month in health insurance.

WaiverWire 07-23-2014 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172417)
Maybe it's because I'm still relatively young but that seems like an astronomical amount for the average person to be paying a month in health insurance.

It is when you consider that I paid $1,190 a month for a family of 4 when I retired. And I get off cheap. The $400 is what I pay as a difference on my wife's policy at the same employer, as she is retired also.

If I was to have single coverage as an individual with our employer my costs would be $107 for Medicare, and $679 for the top plan, $508 for the middle or $439 for a high deductible health plan.

the_narrow_way 07-23-2014 11:21 PM

Those rates are completely un-doable for many people.

Flycoon 07-24-2014 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172414)
Want to explain who is subsidizing me with the big dollars. For $107 a month you have to pay 20% of your doctor/hospital visits and no medicines are covered.

I have to pay right at $400 to a private healthcare company to cover the 20% of what Medicare will not cover and they cover 100% minus a co-pay for medicines.

For $500 one can find a very good policy on the open market.

Sorry, no. You can find "a" policy on the open market, but for $500 you get a very narrow range of providers/physicians who accept the policy and provide services. Try finding a policy that grants open access to the number of providers you currently have for that amount and does not charge 80/20 as Medicare does.

Our total policy costs (we are in my wifes group) $13,977 with United Health Care. Group rate, not individual for the two of us and the company negotiates hard. Family deductible was $5K, tiered prescription copays of 10/30/75. Primary care visits $25, specialist $50. Not to mentioned all of the many non-covered costs that do not apply to the deductible.

You were subsidized when you had what you admitted was a Cadillac policy from your previous employer and paid a below market rate (when compared to the open, individual market). No longer.

Flycoon 07-24-2014 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172417)
Maybe it's because I'm still relatively young but that seems like an astronomical amount for the average person to be paying a month in health insurance.

The prices WW has quoted are full ticket prices.

If you make less than 400% of the poverty level (around 90K for a family of 4), you receive a subsidy from the evil government. If you make around 24K as an individual, your actual out of pocket expenses for a single policy will be in the $50-175 per month range.

We are seeing some insurers go out of business due to the ACA. Being forced to take all comers (can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions), not having "lifetime limits" on payments (many with long term chronic illnesses exceed the lifetime max before thay are 35), and the threat of being held accountable for actually providing what they sel have sent some of the rats scurrying. Not to mention that they are now required to spend a minimum of 85% of premiums on direct patient and any lesser amount is refunded to the policy holders. It will be heartbreaking when the legions of UHC executives currently being paid in excess of $1M take a hit and have to struggle by on $500K a year.

There is absolutely NO REASON to defend the for profit model of health insurance. They add NOTHING to the product other than draining fees and commissions. Unless, of course, you are a stockholder or a highly compensated employee of one.

Flycoon 07-24-2014 06:17 AM

The Wal Mart/fast food business model.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/news...aid/index.html

Pay them low so they qualify for food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance. Talk about corporate welfare.

In the next few months, United Airlines will be firing their gate attendants (unionized workers making around $45K) and replacing them with a contractor who will pay the new employees $9-12/hr and will fit the Wal Mart/fast food model.

This also drives the fight against the increase in minimum wage. $10.10 would disqualify many from their government funded benefit packages.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172423)
.

You were subsidized when you had what you admitted was a Cadillac policy from your previous employer and paid a below market rate (when compared to the open, individual market). No longer.

In the latest paperwork for renewing our policy through HCSO we were told that they are looking at ways to change our coverage so we would not be taxed for a "Cadillac Plan".


Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172423)
Sorry, no. You can find "a" policy on the open market, but for $500 you get a very narrow range of providers/physicians who accept the policy and provide services. Try finding a policy that grants open access to the number of providers you currently have for that amount and does not charge 80/20 as Medicare does.

Have you seen these very narrow policies? Have you seen how narrow and confined these networks are? No, thank you. I will pay extra. With my policy I can travel were ever I want and can go to any doctor with the Humana Network and still be an in network patient.

But then even the policies provided to the exchange in the Tampa area by Humana are a joke. A resent article in the Times claims the Humana Network needs 100 additional doctors to serve what patients they already have. Currently most doctors in the Humana Network are refusing new patients. Many are finding out that even though they choose Humana in the exchange they are finding out they can not find a primary care doctor.

I do not believe this is what the ACA was created for. I thought the ACA would bring policies like mine to all. The benefit of the ACA was to poll all individuals into one poll so we could get better rates and much greater care. It didn't happen.

If I can figure out how to post the sheet that shows the break down for out 3 plans at HCSO I will. I do not even think you can find a plan like this one on the exchange when these are the only type of plans we should all have.....the best care available.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 09:24 AM

Latest Fox Poll on how the President is doing. I found this very interest and even some areas/results surprising.

I found this one question interesting, question #33:

Quote:

Do you think President Obama exceeded his authority under the Constitution when he changed the health care law on his own by executive order?

Yes No (Don’t know) 20-22 Jul 14

58% 37% 5%



And then there is question #34:

Quote:

Do you favor or oppose impeaching President Obama for exceeding his authority under

the Constitution by failing to enforce some laws and changing other laws on his own -- or

for any other reason?

20-22 Jul 14


Favor Oppose (Don’t know)


36% 61% 3%









I guess the 61% don't want Joe Biden :D


Full poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...bama-exceeded/

the_narrow_way 07-24-2014 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172431)
I do not believe this is what the ACA was created for. I thought the ACA would bring policies like mine to all. The benefit of the ACA was to poll all individuals into one poll so we could get better rates and much greater care. It didn't happen.

So you see that all of the corporate and Republican foot-stomping and obstructionism to the ACA have resulted in less than stellar results? All of the bullshit leaves the ACA neutered and not as effective as it could have been.

BurnTHalO 07-24-2014 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172434)
Latest Fox Poll on how the President is doing. I found this very interest and even some areas/results surprising.

I found this one question interesting, question #33:



Full poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...bama-exceeded/

That's really a stupid question. Wonder how many of those have backgrounds in Constitutional Law, and have studied all of the case rulings related to this.

BurnTHalO 07-24-2014 09:31 AM

Israel just bombed a UN school that was being used for displaced civilians, and one place I read stated something like the people in charge were begging to be allowed to get the civilians out and Israel would not authorize it. They are also attacking the ambulances. This is beyond crazy.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172435)
So you see that all of the corporate and Republican foot-stomping and obstructionism to the ACA have resulted in less than stellar results? All of the bullshit leaves the ACA neutered and not as effective as it could have been.

Could be or could not be.

We will not know what the ACA could have been if it wasn't rammed down our throats........"you have to pass the bill to see what is in it".

From the poll I posted 58% believe that the President over stepped his authority when enacting parts of this law.

I do not know how you can blame one side when we have no idea what the insurance companies were told when they meet with the White House. We don't know what they promised.

If a republican sheriff can negotiated a plan such as ours, why can not this same plan be an option for any other person through the exchange? Wasn't that the purpose of the ACA? To give the same healthcare to all, not narrow network plans with high out of pocket expenses.

I just do not see how "Medicare for all" is a solution. Yes it is cheap, but how many can afford to pay 20% out of pocket expenses?

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172436)
That's really a stupid question. Wonder how many of those have backgrounds in Constitutional Law, and have studied all of the case rulings related to this.

Not really, one does not have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" as you would suggest. It is the perception. Remember the SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that he over stepped when making "recess appointments".

BurnTHalO 07-24-2014 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172439)
Not really, one does not have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" as you would suggest. It is the perception. Remember the SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that he over stepped when making "recess appointments".

Well then the question is just basically an incitement on the arrogance and stupidity of American people who think they know one way or the other without knowing all of the case laws and the history associated with the Constitution.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172441)
Well then the question is just basically an incitement on the arrogance and stupidity of American people who think they know one way or the other without knowing all of the case laws and the history associated with the Constitution.

No the arrogance and stupidity is someone claiming the American people do not have a brain or should not have an opinion if someone else does not like their opinion.

I do think that many know that the Executive Branch can not legislate. And in a 9-0 ruling the courts have said they did just that. So it is not an stretch to think there are those out there that see the way the implementation of the ACA was handled and think the same way, just like many think the good out ways the law as written.

BurnTHalO 07-24-2014 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172443)
No the arrogance and stupidity is someone claiming the American people do not have a brain or should not have an opinion if someone else does not like their opinion.

I do think that many know that the Executive Branch can not legislate. And in a 9-0 ruling the courts have said they did just that. So it is not an stretch to think there are those out there that see the way the implementation of the ACA was handled and think the same way, just like many think the good out ways the law as written.

Yeah yeah, the same argument I see with Climate change all the time. Throw "What do you think" on it and all of a sudden a discussion based on facts and merits degrades to a debate on my belief vs. your belief without any evidence. If you feel he overstepped, you need some case laws to backup what you are saying. If you don't, you better have the same. But I will say, you want to throw me in a camp that says the general American public does not have a brain, you know what, sign me up. How many people believed the swiftboat adds against John Kerry? Something like 25% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Hell, go look at the worldwide tests

You know, the more I think about it, I'm not sure the question is what I have a problem with. My problem is that I bet most of the people who answered could not cite more than 2 cases (probably 2 they heard in a 5 minute segment on their selected news station) to back up their "opinion." Hence I really hate all these polls on crap like this. Who cares what some person with limited-no knowledge on the subject thinks, lets here what people who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject believe. Like I said above, hits a bit close to home for me on something I understand a great deal about and yet people who know nothing and are against all of the facts based on their belief and therefore are supposed to get equal time.

the_narrow_way 07-24-2014 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172438)
I just do not see how "Medicare for all" is a solution. Yes it is cheap, but how many can afford to pay 20% out of pocket expenses?

20% out of pocket if and when they used health services would still be a lot cheaper than what most people are paying for their healthcare.

Sotnos 07-24-2014 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172437)
Israel just bombed a UN school that was being used for displaced civilians, and one place I read stated something like the people in charge were begging to be allowed to get the civilians out and Israel would not authorize it. They are also attacking the ambulances. This is beyond crazy.

Yet they keep blaming the Palestinians for all of it. The only Israelis that have died have been soldiers, no one dies from the "rockets" they complain about. :doh: It's all insane.

Avery86 07-24-2014 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172438)
I just do not see how "Medicare for all" is a solution. Yes it is cheap, but how many can afford to pay 20% out of pocket expenses?

The current system is unaffordable and unsustainable. Something has to give; single payer is arguably the most tenable solution because it removes the middle man responsible for jacking prices up for decreases levels of services.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172448)
Not really. If Obama claimed that the world was round, in a few minutes Rush, Beck and Faux News would come out with a statement that it is flat and the tea party members would believe it.

And that is your slanted view which you have a right to.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172444)
Yeah yeah, the same argument I see with Climate change all the time. Throw "What do you think" on it and all of a sudden a discussion based on facts and merits degrades to a debate on my belief vs. your belief without any evidence. If you feel he overstepped, you need some case laws to backup what you are saying. If you don't, you better have the same. But I will say, you want to throw me in a camp that says the general American public does not have a brain, you know what, sign me up. How many people believed the swiftboat adds against John Kerry? Something like 25% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Hell, go look at the worldwide tests

You know, the more I think about it, I'm not sure the question is what I have a problem with. My problem is that I bet most of the people who answered could not cite more than 2 cases (probably 2 they heard in a 5 minute segment on their selected news station) to back up their "opinion." Hence I really hate all these polls on crap like this. Who cares what some person with limited-no knowledge on the subject thinks, lets here what people who have dedicated their lives to studying a subject believe. Like I said above, hits a bit close to home for me on something I understand a great deal about and yet people who know nothing and are against all of the facts based on their belief and therefore are supposed to get equal time.

Now lets see. For some time now our 5 Territories have asked out of the ACA. The response they got from the HHS was this:

Quote:

As recently as last year, HHS instructed the territories that they "have enjoyed the benefits of the applicable consumer protections" and HHS "has no legal authority to exclude the territories" from ObamaCare. HHS said the law adopted an explicit definition of "state" that includes the territories for the purpose of the mandates and the public-health programs, and another explicit definition that excludes the territories for the purpose of the subsidies. Thus there is "no statutory authority . . . to selectively exempt the territories from certain provisions, unless specified by law."
But yet within a week the White House lets them out of the ACA. Why? If the HHS says they had to remain under the language of the law, why the about face?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/terri...are-1405896906

BurnTHalO 07-24-2014 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos (Post 172452)
Yet they keep blaming the Palestinians for all of it. The only Israelis that have died have been soldiers, no one dies from the "rockets" they complain about. :doh: It's all insane.

Israel is now reviewing and is stating they don't think it was their attack. On top of that, it is like the 4th UN building hit. Seriously, what is our media doing where this is not reported? The lack of journalism nowadays just blows my mind..

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos View Post
Yet they keep blaming the Palestinians for all of it. The only Israelis that have died have been soldiers, no one dies from the "rockets" they complain about. It's all insane.
You mean like Hamas hiding weapons in homes, schools and hospitals? You mean like when they use children as protection thinking they would not be attacked? Come on now. Israel sees this as a war and this is just a causality of war. It is like us dropping the bomb on Japan trying to get the war over.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172456)
Israel is now reviewing and is stating they don't think it was their attack. On top of that, it is like the 4th UN building hit. Seriously, what is our media doing where this is not reported? The lack of journalism nowadays just blows my mind..

You mean like the IRS saying they now think they have the tapes that have Lerner's email and they were given to the IG weeks ago but did not tell congress? You will find that story only on 1 web site and it is one that many here laugh at.

the_narrow_way 07-24-2014 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172457)
You mean like Hamas hiding weapons in homes, schools and hospitals? You mean like when they use children as protection thinking they would not be attacked? Come on now. Israel sees this as a war and this is just a causality of war. It is like us dropping the bomb on Japan trying to get the war over.

You're not supporting dropping bombs on non-military targets are you?

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172458)
You're not supporting dropping bombs on non-military targets are you?

No I am not. But in a real war, a World War, do you really think that Hamas, ISIS or even Russia would not given the opportunity? Do you not remember the Trade Towers???

You try to target the militaries and their factories. But not always does things go as planned.

ZeykShade 07-24-2014 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172459)
No I am not. But in a real war, a World War, do you really think that Hamas, ISIS or even Russia would not given the opportunity? Do you not remember the Trade Towers???

You try to target the militaries and their factories. But not always does things go as planned.

Oh, cool. So because terrorist organizations are despicable, Israel and the US can be too.

It's hard for the US to tell them to stop doing it because Israel knows they have us wrapped around their finger and the US doesn't have the moral high ground thanks to decades of Wars of Corporate Aggression, waged to serve stockholder profit.

Can't really tell Israel to tone it down when we went to war with a country on absolutely false pretenses and directly led to the deaths of(conservative numbers here) over 150,000 civilians. When you factor in the secret prisons and the Extreme Rendition of whoever the fuck we want, how could we suggest to Israel or Russia how to behave with regards to Gaza or Ukraine. They must laugh their asses off whenever Kerry or Obama even flirts with admonishing them. I know I would. Reminds me of the Say No To Drugs Commerical..."I learned it by watching you DAD!"

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172460)
Oh, cool. So because terrorist organizations are despicable, Israel and the US can be too.

It's hard for the US to tell them to stop doing it because Israel knows they have us wrapped around their finger and the US doesn't have the moral high ground thanks to decades of Wars of Corporate Aggression, waged to serve stockholder profit.

Can't really tell Israel to tone it down when we went to war with a country on absolutely false pretenses and directly led to the deaths of(conservative numbers here) over 150,000 civilians. When you factor in the secret prisons and the Extreme Rendition of whoever the fuck we want, how could we suggest to Israel or Russia how to behave with regards to Gaza or Ukraine. They must laugh their asses off whenever Kerry or Obama even flirts with admonishing them. I know I would. Reminds me of the Say No To Drugs Commerical..."I learned it by watching you DAD!"

So it is ok for Hamas to loop in missiles when every they want?

ZeykShade 07-24-2014 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172461)
So it is ok for Hamas to loop in missiles when every they want?

You can't occupy a people, embargo them since 2007 and essentially treat them like rodents, then get pissed off when they fight back with whatever means they have at hand. Asymmetric warfare is the only hope of the oppressed.

Does Hamas do the people of Palestine a disservice? Yep. No doubt. Is the policy of "Drive all Jews into the sea" an awful one? Yes.

There was a chance for a two state solution, it's gone now.

If you want to know how the latest peace deal in Israel/Palestine died, here's an excellent essay on it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...eace-deal-died

You have the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset advocating, get this, a final solution of "Elimination" for the people of Gaza. This guy must be their Louis Gohmert, let's hope so.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07...a-elimination/

ZeykShade 07-24-2014 04:27 PM

Another absolutely stellar essay.

http://nplusonemag.com/issue-13/poli...he-crime-rate/

Hoek 07-24-2014 04:48 PM

I can't really sympathize with either side. I've tried, but they're both so ridiculous in the end. I will say though that Hamas' actions are utterly pointless and counterproductive. What is the point of lobbing dinky little rockets that kill maybe one or two Israelis while you get slaughtered by much more effective bombs in return, thanks to the license you gave them to retaliate? It's a bit much to ask of Israel on the other hand to just turn the other cheek when they're getting attacked like that. Surely the U.S. would not stand for it if Mexicans or Canadians just starting firing stuff at us across the border. Still their response is indeed disproportionate (but then, Gaza is so densely populated that A) Hamas can't help but store the weapons near civilians and B) Israel can't help but hit some of them). If the Palestinians stuck to peaceful means of revolt, there would be a LOT more pressure on Israel to end the occupation and draconian sanctions, however. Until some kind of Gandhi/Mandela/etc. emerges from there (or worse, Israel's gloves come off) they're doomed to a horrible status quo, IMO.

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172463)

Ok , so what is your point in all this?

WaiverWire 07-24-2014 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172467)
40% of Americans are not convinced that Obama is an American.

Yeah, I guess I imagined that whole birther movement that was pushed by Faux News.

Isn't this a great place to live Donnie? and most of these people think that Obama is a Muslim and he is trying to destroy us.

Hey, that is what they think and they do have that right. They only step over the line if they infringe on someone else's right or they hurt someone.

We all will never agree on everything. That is what makes us so great. But we should respect the other person to have that right to think as they may, even if they are wrong in our eyes.

pete 07-24-2014 09:57 PM

Quote:

Isn't this a great place to live Donnie?
I don't find people's ignorance to be an affirmation of our freedoms, but rather a sad statement about the state of our education system, our journalistic institutions, and how easy it is to manipulate huge swaths of the population these days. Ultimately, those things are mortal dangers to our freedoms, in fact.

the_narrow_way 07-24-2014 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172459)
You try to target the militaries and their factories. But not always does things go as planned.

Except here the bombing of shelters, ambulances, and schools IS planned, and it's f'ing sick.

RSchmitz 07-25-2014 04:57 AM

You can throw msnbc in there too unfortunately. They aren't as blatant about it as Fox, but they have a few guys on there who it seems have a single purpose, to get viewers.

Flycoon 07-25-2014 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172473)
Isn't this a great place to live Donnie? and most of these people think that Obama is a Muslim and he is trying to destroy us.

Hey, that is what they think and they do have that right. They only step over the line if they infringe on someone else's right or they hurt someone.

We all will never agree on everything. That is what makes us so great. But we should respect the other person to have that right to think as they may, even if they are wrong in our eyes.

The right to be stunningly stupid is as American as Apple pie.

Hooray for morons! We need more in office! Louis Gohmert, Steve King, and Michele Bachmann need more like "thinkers".

ZeykShade 07-25-2014 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172473)
Isn't this a great place to live Donnie? and most of these people think that Obama is a Muslim and he is trying to destroy us.

Hey, that is what they think and they do have that right. They only step over the line if they infringe on someone else's right or they hurt someone.

We all will never agree on everything. That is what makes us so great. But we should respect the other person to have that right to think as they may, even if they are wrong in our eyes.

You just advocated for celebrating the ignorance of people. Ignorance shouldn't be celebrated and written off as "they have the right to believe what they want". They have a the right to be stupid. What we should do is ridicule them and never give them equal status of the non-Stupid. As Pete said, when you do that, you condone conditions which curtail or end freedom. An ignorant people can easily be controlled.

Ignorance, particularly willful ignorance, should be laughed at and shouldn't even be countenanced on our TV stations. You've basically supported the conditions which allow for there to still be a debate about climate change. There is no debate. You're supporting the conditions which allow people to say, "Let's teach the controversy in our classrooms" with regard to Evolution and Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design. Those positions are absolutely equal to supporting Geocentrism or a Flat Earth, that's how preposterous they are.

Regarding my linking of the Essay on the Prison system and the shifting of crime, that was just another link for people to read. Had nothing to do with anything other than linking another interesting read.

Flycoon 07-25-2014 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSchmitz (Post 172477)
You can throw msnbc in there too unfortunately. They aren't as blatant about it as Fox, but they have a few guys on there who it seems have a single purpose, to get viewers.

This is a function of changes to broadcast laws a few decades back ( thanks St. Reagan!) that precluded partisan crapola and turned news broadcasts into infotainment. Prior to this legislation, news divisions were all loss leaders at the networks as they could not market particular positions and could not be lobbied with advertising dollars.

I wish news was required to be news again and all of this other sludge was required to state openly and honestly that they are much closer to TMZ than news.

ZeykShade 07-25-2014 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172481)
This is a function of changes to broadcast laws a few decades back ( thanks St. Reagan!) that precluded partisan crapola and turned news broadcasts into infotainment. Prior to this legislation, news divisions were all loss leaders at the networks as they could not market particular positions and could not be lobbied with advertising dollars.

I wish news was required to be news again and all of this other sludge was required to state openly and honestly that they are much closer to TMZ than news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172480)
You just advocated for celebrating the ignorance of people. Ignorance shouldn't be celebrated and written off as "they have the right to believe what they want". They have a the right to be stupid. What we should do is ridicule them and never give them equal status of the non-Stupid. As Pete said, when you do that, you condone conditions which curtail or end freedom. An ignorant people can easily be controlled.

Ignorance, particularly willful ignorance, should be laughed at and shouldn't even be countenanced on our TV stations. You've basically supported the conditions which allow for there to still be a debate about climate change. There is no debate. You're supporting the conditions which allow people to say, "Let's teach the controversy in our classrooms" with regard to Evolution and Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design. Those positions are absolutely equal to supporting Geocentrism or a Flat Earth, that's how preposterous they are.

Regarding my linking of the Essay on the Prison system and the shifting of crime, that was just another link for people to read. Had nothing to do with anything other than linking another interesting read.

Just because you are ignorant on 1 or 2 issues doesn't make you ignorant 100% of the time. But there are some here that believe if you are ignorant on 1 issue you must be ignorant on all issues.


Quote:

You don't get to have it both ways.

And that is your opinion, which you have a right to.

Just like some think that cops target certain groups thus that is why the prison population has grown so much. Got news for you, and I can speak for all cops, but the ones I worked with only arrested the ones that we had evidence that they were in fact guilty. It is kind of hard to dispute physical evidence like fingerprints at a crime scene or someone selling your property within hours after it was stolen.

Flycoon 07-25-2014 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172483)
Just because you are ignorant on 1 or 2 issues doesn't make you ignorant 100% of the time. But there are some here that believe if you are ignorant on 1 issue you must be ignorant on all issues.

Come on now. There are certain "beliefs" that preclude credibility for in-duh-viduals. Like:

Non-whites are inherently inferior to whites
Women should not have the same rights as men
Blacks are all lazy, shiftless, and live in a culture that encourages not working
Latins are all border jumpers looking for a free hand out and a place to birth their legions of kids to suck off the gubmint teat
Obama is a Kenyan Muslim
A novel by a Russian atheist is a good basis for economic theory and practice
The "framers" intended that we be a Christian nation

As has been stated many times, everyone is entitled to their opinion. BUT, they are not entitled to their own facts.

ZeykShade 07-25-2014 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172483)
Just because you are ignorant on 1 or 2 issues doesn't make you ignorant 100% of the time. But there are some here that believe if you are ignorant on 1 issue you must be ignorant on all issues.

So we're in agreement. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant on issues. The problem with the right in America is, they intentionally stay ignorant because their team is their team and they've been scared into voting against their best interests. What's wrong with not knowing or having an opinion until you've studied the issue at least more than flipping on your favorite shit-licking Fox News Talking Head for 10minutes?

Pretty laughable that you'd pick "1 or 2" as your numbers to use in an example when an entire swath of the country is ignorant on hundreds if not thousands of issues because they live in the Conservative Echo Chamber and are Terry Schiavo'd the Right Wing Ignorance on a daily basis.

They'd rather be 100% wrong and be made to feel better than others than admit they don't know. Their Representatives have to be strong-willed (willfully ignorant) and play to the lizard brain of their constituents. If they don't, they get primaried into retirement from the even further bat-shit right.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172484)
Come on now. There are certain "beliefs" that preclude credibility for in-duh-viduals. Like:

Non-whites are inherently inferior to whites
Women should not have the same rights as men
Blacks are all lazy, shiftless, and live in a culture that encourages not working
Latins are all border jumpers looking for a free hand out and a place to birth their legions of kids to suck off the gubmint teat
Obama is a Kenyan Muslim
A novel by a Russian atheist is a good basis for economic theory and practice
The "framers" intended that we be a Christian nation

As has been stated many times, everyone is entitled to their opinion. BUT, they are not entitled to their own facts.

But you know what Flycoon, if they belief their facts who are we to dish them? We do not have to accept their facts as the truth just like we don't have to pay them any attention.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172485)
So we're in agreement. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant on issues. The problem with the right in America is, they intentionally stay ignorant because their team is their team and they've been scared into voting against their best interests. What's wrong with not knowing or having an opinion until you've studied the issue at least more than flipping on your favorite shit-licking Fox News Talking Head for 10minutes?

Pretty laughable that you'd pick "1 or 2" as your numbers to use in an example when an entire swath of the country is ignorant on hundreds if not thousands of issues because they live in the Conservative Echo Chamber and are Terry Schiavo'd the Right Wing Ignorance on a daily basis.

They'd rather be 100% wrong and be made to feel better than others than admit they don't know. Their Representatives have to be strong-willed (willfully ignorant) and play to the lizard brain of their constituents. If they don't, they get primaried into retirement from the even further bat-shit right.


Now IMHO you are being petty. Numbers??? So I used the numbers 1 & 2. Maybe I just didn't want to type a whole lot of numbers. But NOOOOOOO, you try to make a dig. Petty petty petty.

No I am not in agreement with you. You think if your are ignorant on 1 issue you are ignorant on all.

Everyone is ignorant on something. Some may think they are not, but they are.

ZeykShade 07-25-2014 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172488)
Now IMHO you are being petty. Numbers??? So I used the numbers 1 & 2. Maybe I just didn't want to type a whole lot of numbers. But NOOOOOOO, you try to make a dig. Petty petty petty.

No I am not in agreement with you. You think if your are ignorant on 1 issue you are ignorant on all.

Everyone is ignorant on something. Some may think they are not, but they are.

Wrong.

I've never stated anything like that. Now, if a person continues to be willfully ignorant when presented with facts that completely destroy their position, it's a whole other ballgame. The Tea Partiers and Libertarians and Right Wingers aren't ignorant on 1-2 things. They're ignorant on a great many.

A few have been listed here already. It's a fucking disease at this point. It isn't just them holding their outdated and medieval opinions to themselves anymore. It's them standing in the way of almost every bit of progress because they can't get past the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt they're force-fed daily.

ZeykShade 07-25-2014 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172489)
I think you have an interesting list, but even within those I find room to debate. For example, I think it was clear that the country was established as a non denomination country, but it was set up with strong Christan values. Jefferson talked about a creator and there was a whole lot of prayer meetings among the group that wrote the declaration.

Quote:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Flycoon 07-25-2014 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172486)
But you know what Flycoon, if they belief their facts who are we to dish them? We do not have to accept their facts as the truth just like we don't have to pay them any attention.

Disagree. You can not enable these types by ignoring them. That empowers them.

Look at how well ignoring such people/governments has worked out. Hitler and Mussolini were treated as crankpots when they first appeared and we know how that worked out.

Flycoon 07-25-2014 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172489)
I think you have an interesting list, but even within those I find room to debate. For example, I think it was clear that the country was established as a non denomination country, but it was set up with strong Christan values. Jefferson talked about a creator and there was a whole lot of prayer meetings among the group that wrote the declaration.

Christian values and talk of a creator are not equivalent to being a "Christian Nation".

Freedom form religion as well as freedom of religion was the intent as I see it.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172491)
Wrong.

I've never stated anything like that. Now, if a person continues to be willfully ignorant when presented with facts that completely destroy their position, it's a whole other ballgame. The Tea Partiers and Libertarians and Right Wingers aren't ignorant on 1-2 things. They're ignorant on a great many.

A few have been listed here already. It's a fucking disease at this point. It isn't just them holding their outdated and medieval opinions to themselves anymore. It's them standing in the way of almost every bit of progress because they can't get past the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt they're force-fed daily.

So basically what you are saying is that all republicans, weather right, center or leaning to the left, all tea party members and anyone else that do not share your views are ignorant and wrong? Because it sure sounds that way.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172496)
And while I agree that America is not a Christian country, the elements of many Christian ideals were incorporated. However at the same time any country which allows human slavery fo more that 70 years lacks, in my humble opinion, the most basic of Christian values.

So true Donnie. I grew up in Michigan and I still remember going to several old buildings along the St. Clair River, which borders the US and Canada, on school outings. These places were where the underground railroad assisted the slaves with escaping into Canada. I could never figure out how man could treat someone this way, and still do not understand the mistreatment of others.

pete 07-25-2014 04:32 PM

Quote:

But there are some here that believe if you are ignorant on 1 issue you must be ignorant on all issues.
If you allow yourself to be misled on one issue by certain interests (such as those that control various RW media outlets) there's a high likelihood you're going to be misled on all the issues those certain interests attempt to manipulate the public about.

There's volumes of research that indicate people's political beliefs aren't shaped by reason. They typically form unstated core beliefs (which are really more feelings than well-developed positions on issues) and choose a side early in life, and in today's polarized environment where information is marketed as a commodity they seek out those information outlets that cater toward those core beliefs/feelings. And because the choir is already extremely receptive to an information outlet (having already sought them out to begin with) that information outlet can get away with A LOT of outright fabrications without getting called on it, because it "feels right" to their consumer's core beliefs.

So you get people parroting RW information outlets who say some pretty outright insane things, like Obama's secretly operating FEMA death camps, death panels are going to decide if your grandparents live or die if ACA passes, etc, etc, each of which in isolation seem absolutely insane and yet I've heard otherwise intelligent, educated, wonderful people repeat with 100% belief. And it's not just Obama (although it's gotten exponentially more worse/crazy these days), but you can go back through the "John Kerry shot himself deliberately to get out of Vietnam" to "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" all the way back to "Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed," NONE OF WHICH has an iota of truth to it, and yet to this day many people still believe because it "feels right" to people's core beliefs/emotions.

And, none of that gives me warm and fuzzies. I doubt like hell the framers thought, freedom of blissful, self-selected stupidity/insanity/ignorance, was a freedom that belonged in the same basket as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, I feel pretty safe in saying Thomas Jefferson, founder of a prestigious education institution like UVA which was founded on the bedrock of classical rationalism, would be revolted at the way things have devolved in the country these days.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172500)

So you get people parroting RW information outlets who say some pretty outright insane things, like Obama's secretly operating FEMA death camps, death panels are going to decide if your grandparents live or die if ACA passes, etc, etc, each of which in isolation seem absolutely insane and yet I've heard otherwise intelligent, educated, wonderful people repeat with 100% belief. And it's not just Obama (although it's gotten exponentially more worse/crazy these days), but you can go back through the "John Kerry shot himself deliberately to get out of Vietnam" to "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" all the way back to "Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed," NONE OF WHICH has an iota of truth to it, and yet to this day many people still believe because it "feels right" to people's core beliefs/emotions.

Just got to love you pete. I find it funny when you only bring up stuff on the right. Like I have always said both sides are to blame. Look no further when Paul Ryan came out with a plan to privatize Medicare. The left ran the below ad in an attempt to scare the seniors.

Throw Granny form the Cliff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

pete 07-25-2014 07:37 PM

Quote:

Just got to love you pete. I find it funny when you only bring up stuff on the right. Like I have always said both sides are to blame.
When you find me a legitimate equivalent on the left to "death panels", "FEMA death camps", or "where's the birth certificate", then you might have a point.

There isn't, though, and therefore you do not.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172502)
when you find me a legitimate equivalent on the left to "death panels", "fema death camps", or "where's the birth certificate", then you might have a point.

There isn't, though, and therefore you do not.

IYMHO

Then how about "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".

Or the IRS saying "it was rouge agents in Cincinnati".

I like the one that the IRS said Lerner's hard drive was destroyed do to unknown reasons. But soon after 2 Federal judges told the IRS IT section they want sworn affidavits as to exactly what happened to the hard drives and who handled them we now hear that the drivers were "only scratched". And now we hear that those emails that were lost and unrecoverable may in fact have been there all along.

Or when the White House claimed recently they were surprised by the rise of the ISSI. But know we know that they had a full report as far back as last August when Irag was asking for help to fend of ISSI.

The one thing I hate more than a thief, it's a liar.

And there is this one. MSNBC saying if Romney wins more people will die.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/1933...ople-will-die/

Or how about Harry Reid taking to the Senate floor and accusing Romney of tax fraud, knowing full well that he would be immune from his statements because he was on the floor and then the returns showed everything he did was legal under our tax code.

pete 07-25-2014 09:58 PM

You honestly believe that the termination of junk policies that didn't meet the minimum requirements of ACA is on the same level of sensationalism as, "The government is establishing death panels in ACA to decide whether your grandparents live or die?"

There's no equivalence. Zero. One is in the gray area of policy nuance. The other is a flat out, bombastic, ridiculous lie that you even had Senators like Chuck Grassley peddling at town hall meetings in the run up to the ACA votes.

Quote:

The one thing I hate more than a thief, it's a liar.
How do you reconcile that with the fact that the party you support is filled with both?

Quote:

Or how about Harry Reid taking to the Senate floor and accusing Romney of tax fraud
He didn't accuse him of tax fraud. He said he didn't pay anything in taxes for 10 years.

We went through this back in 2012 WaiverWire: while everything Romney did may have been technically legal, that doesn't mean that hiding assets in offshore tax havens is right in the eyes of most Americans.

WaiverWire 07-25-2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172504)
You honestly believe that the termination of junk policies that didn't meet the minimum requirements of ACA is on the same level of sensationalism as, "The government is establishing death panels in ACA to decide whether your grandparents live or die?"

There's no equivalence. Zero. One is in the gray area of policy nuance. The other is a flat out, bombastic, ridiculous lie that you even had Senators like Chuck Grassley peddling at town hall meetings in the run up to the ACA votes.

A lie is a lie, or do you believe in little white lies? Holy cow man, these are our leaders lying to us. It may not bother you, but it sure bothers me.



Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172504)
How do you reconcile that with the fact that the party you support is filled with both?

And here we go again. pete, get real. How many times do you have to be told that I vote both parties? Christ, just last week I bashed Pam Bondi here and said how I could never support her. Someone even asked my why and I said I would not say any thing other than I do not like her. I even admitted that I did not vote for Scott and won't this year either. But then I also said I would not vote for Crist either. Never liked the man.

But here you are trying to paint me as some right wing tea partier while you still refuse to admit your party has dirt bags also.



Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172504)
He didn't accuse him of tax fraud. He said he didn't pay anything in taxes for 10 years.

We went through this back in 2012 WaiverWire: while everything Romney did may have been technically legal, that doesn't mean that hiding assets in offshore tax havens is right in the eyes of most Americans.

And what laws did he break by having an offshore account or investments?

Lets face it then and now you are just trying to make him out to be some big tax evader.

At least he was not like John Kerry who purchase his yacht in one state and then failed to declare it in his home state as he didn't want to pay his fair share of the tax on it and docked it on the opposite side of the river so it would not be in his home state. It wasn't until he got caught did he register the yacht in his home state and agreed to pay the tax.

Yes pete, both parties have their dirt bags but for some reason you fail to admit it.

Flycoon 07-26-2014 07:22 AM

WW, it is true that both parties are guilty of lying which is and always been part of politics.

I know you know that a traffic citation and a felony are different in scope and gravity and continue to be amazed that you will not admit that you see no such difference on the political stage.

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172507)
WW,
Quote:

it is true that both parties are guilty of lying
which is and always been part of politics.

I know you know that a traffic citation and a felony are different in scope and gravity and continue to be amazed that you will not admit that you see no such difference on the political stage.

When I left there was no such thing as ""discretion". You wrote everything.

But a lie is a lie isn't it Why do we allow politicians to be any different. Maybe if those that lied were voted out of office then they would not lie.

I just find it funny how some here will not say what you said Flycoon.

Quote:

it is true that both parties are guilty of lying
Seems they don't like to admit there party is just as bad.

An example is this response by pete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete View Post
He didn't accuse him of tax fraud. He said he didn't pay anything in taxes for 10 years.

We went through this back in 2012 WaiverWire: while everything Romney did may have been technically legal, that doesn't mean that hiding assets in offshore tax havens is right in the eyes of most Americans.
The leader of the U.S. Senate accused someone running for the highest office we have of not paying any taxes and he conveniently said this on the Senate floor where he could not be held accountable do to our rules. But many people took him for his word. In time, the taxes were released by Romney and we found that he had in fact paid taxes thus Harry Reid was wrong.

And then we have John Kerry who committed a felony and was about to be investigated for tax fraud by the State of Massachusetts. You see he had purchased a $7,000,000 yacht and left it in Rhode Island. Why Rhode Island? Because if he had taken it to his home State the State was going to charge him $500,000 in a luxury tax. In order to stop the investigation he agreed to pay the tax so that the State he was representing would not arrest him.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-luxury-yacht/

I found this part of the article vey interesting as pete wrote this about Romney:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete View Post

We went through this back in 2012 WaiverWire: while everything Romney did may have been technically legal, that doesn't mean that hiding assets in offshore tax havens is right in the eyes of most Americans

Look at the bold. Like pete said everything was "technically legal" What!!! No, it was legal, period. He broke no laws. None, zippo. What Kerry did was totally illegal. He got caught and paid his tax before the State could open an investigation. But what he did was illegal, period. It's called tax evasion.

This is from the link above:

Quote:

Rhode Island has been known as a tax-haven for boaters after the state repealed its sales and use tax on boats in the early 1990's. Kerry, who recently purchased the 76-foot yacht in Rhode Island, therefore avoided close to a half-million in taxes.

nutznboltz 07-26-2014 10:49 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2014/...orida-student/

Headline of the article basically sums it up. :duh:

pete 07-26-2014 11:35 AM

Quote:

And then we have John Kerry who committed a felony and was about to be investigated for tax fraud by the State of Massachusetts. You see he had purchased a $7,000,000 yacht and left it in Rhode Island. Why Rhode Island? Because if he had taken it to his home State the State was going to charge him $500,000 in a luxury tax. In order to stop the investigation he agreed to pay the tax so that the State he was representing would not arrest him.
Seems to me he agreed to pay in order to avoid the (rightful) social approbation of his constituents, which only serves to reinforce my point: while tax shelters may be technically legal, most Americans don't think they're right.

Why are these simple concepts so hard for you to grasp?

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 172509)
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2014/...orida-student/

Headline of the article basically sums it up. :duh:

Would not be my choice of movies, but you have to admit something is just not right.

I know many hate Fox. But they have this one reporter on O'Reilly, Jesse Watters, that goes out and ask college students questions about all most anything. I think many have got to be putting him on as they can not be that stupid.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/05/29...orial-day-quiz

I like the bikini :D

http://video.foxnews.com/v/368953574...#sp=show-clips


Not everything he does is for fun:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/04...ican-consulate

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172510)
Seems to me he agreed to pay in order to avoid the (rightful) social approbation of his constituents, which only serves to reinforce my point: while tax shelters may be technically legal, most Americans don't think they're right.

Why are these simple concepts so hard for you to grasp?

technically: From the Urban dictionary:

Quote:

When used at the beginning of a sentence, this word is a variety of the 'filler' word basically. Another direct replacement for technically is essentially. Maybe the speaker sees his or her own bad speech patterns and recycles these three words while speaking. Filler words add absolutely nothing to the sentence being spoken. Other filler words include like, just, and stuff and y'know, but they tend to be in the middle of or at the end of a sentence. Filler words are rarely used in writing and are part of acquired speech habits.

Technically, the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone.
Why not say... The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone.
So you think that Kerry did nothing wrong? Really?

Let's look at this. He purchased a yacht in Rhode Island. He left it in Rhode Island where many from Massachusetts hide their boats to avoid paying a tax, he then and only then pays the tax when it makes the news. Please tell me you are not that blind.

Now I do know pete that had that been Mitt Romney you would be calling for his immediate incarceration. But let's be truth here, Mitt Romney did not break any laws when it came to filling his tax returns.

pete 07-26-2014 11:56 AM

Quote:

I know you know that a traffic citation and a felony are different in scope and gravity and continue to be amazed that you will not admit that you see no such difference on the political stage.
You mean there's a difference between, "No honey, I don't think that dress makes you look fat," and, "No honey, I'm not sleeping with your sister?"

Quelle surprise!?!

pete 07-26-2014 11:58 AM

Quote:

So you think that Kerry did nothing wrong? Really?
I'm pretty sure that I said the exact opposite. Reading is fundamental, Waiver.

pete 07-26-2014 12:00 PM

Quote:

Now I do know pete that had that been Mitt Romney you would be calling for his immediate incarceration.
Nah, I wouldn't have stopped short of demanding a "death panel" convened.

I can see you need a couple of days to cool off, because you're way over into insane hyperbole happy town right now.

pete 07-26-2014 12:13 PM

But before I do let you go cool down, let me make one last point, because I can't help myself when you get wound up like this. What a ball of yarn is to a kitten, you are to me when I've got you this angry on the board here. I know, I need therapy.

The difference in Romney and Kerry's story illustrates a major difference between the two parties. When Kerry didn't pay taxes using a tax dodge, he faced shame/scorn. Good Democrats actually demand that of themselves and their elected officials. Republicans treat tax dodgers like Romney as freedom fighting capitalist warriors teaching a lesson to their evil government oppressors. And if you don't believe that, I encourage you to read the RW media lionizing that tax evading, racist rancher out in the desert in Nevada.

Big, big difference.

ChaseSpace 07-26-2014 01:28 PM

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/...60-8864152835-

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172516)
But before I do let you go cool down, let me make one last point, because I can't help myself when you get wound up like this. What a ball of yarn is to a kitten, you are to me when I've got you this angry on the board here. I know, I need therapy.

The difference in Romney and Kerry's story illustrates a major difference between the two parties. When Kerry didn't pay taxes using a tax dodge, he faced shame/scorn. Good Democrats actually demand that of themselves and their elected officials. Republicans treat tax dodgers like Ronney as freedom fighting capitalist warriors teaching a lesson to their evil government oppressors. And if you don't believe that, I encourage you to read the RW media lionizing that tax evading, racist rancher out in the desert in Nevada.

Big, big difference.

No need to cool down as I no hot. I'm laughing at you pete.


Once again you are making a fool of yourself on this Romney tax issue. What laws did he break??? Name one. And how in the world is he dodging his taxes if he takes every option offered to him by the IRS and our government. We even have a tax preparer on this site and I am sure he will tell you that if he didn't tell his clients about every legal option available to them on how to save some of your money he would be derelict in his duty.

Even our major corporations are taking legal advantage of our tax system by moving their corporate offices overseas. Why don't you call them out?


Gee, maybe you will make me so upset I will vote a straight party line ticket

BurnTHalO 07-26-2014 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172518)
No need to cool down as I no hot. I'm laughing at you pete.


Once again you are making a fool of yourself on this Romney tax issue. What laws did he break??? Name one. And how in the world is he dodging his taxes if he takes every option offered to him by the IRS and our government. We even have a tax preparer on this site and I am sure he will tell you that if he didn't tell his clients about every legal option available to them on how to save some of your money he would be derelict in his duty.

Even our major corporations are taking legal advantage of our tax system by moving their corporate offices overseas. Why don't you call them out?


Gee, maybe you will make me so upset I will vote a straight party line ticket

You've lost me. From what I have read, many people do this because the taxes dont occur in rhe island. Articles even call it a tax haven. So where did kerry break the law? It sounds like the exact same thing (both of which make me mad)

Flycoon 07-26-2014 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172518)
No need to cool down as I no hot. I'm laughing at you pete.


Once again you are making a fool of yourself on this Romney tax issue. What laws did he break??? Name one. And how in the world is he dodging his taxes if he takes every option offered to him by the IRS and our government. We even have a tax preparer on this site and I am sure he will tell you that if he didn't tell his clients about every legal option available to them on how to save some of your money he would be derelict in his duty.

Even our major corporations are taking legal advantage of our tax system by moving their corporate offices overseas. Why don't you call them out?


Gee, maybe you will make me so upset I will vote a straight party line ticket

Right you are WW. All of the tax avoidance ( not evasion) schemes for the Fortune 500 companies and individuals like Romney are perfectly legal and were bought within the framework of our lobbying laws. Special interest tax breaks are/were very expensive but the ROI has been exceptional.

The "carried interest" exemption that Romney, Buffet and others of their ilk is especially egregious. Legal, but only available to a very small but extremely group.

Corporations pay a lower % of total tax revenues than at any time since the 1920s but they still cry poor.

Sad. We the people are not represented, but we the corporations certainly are.

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172519)
You've lost me. From what I have read, many people do this because the taxes dont occur in rhe island. Articles even call it a tax haven. So where did kerry break the law? It sounds like the exact same thing (both of which make me mad)

They are not the same Donnie. Apples and oranges as many would say. Romney could not be arrested for what he did, Kerry could have been.

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172521)
There are the judicial courts and the courts of public opinion.

The combination of tax avoidance and the comments about those not wealthy enough to make a living wage cost him the election.

Yup just like some in the court of public opinion think I was a draft dodger because I was classified 1-H, which was automatic by the draft board, for my last 3 months of high school, even though my lottery number was so high I was able to remain 1-A after I graduated even though I was college bound.

Thank you Flycoon for your response. I for the live of me do not know why they refuse to redo the tax code, except many of our politicians would pay more.

Flycoon 07-26-2014 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172523)
Yup just like some in the court of public opinion think I was a draft dodger because I was classified 1-H, which was automatic by the draft board, for my last 3 months of high school, even though my lottery number was so high I was able to remain 1-A after I graduated even though I was college bound.

Thank you Flycoon for your response.

No problem, WW. The law, as crooked and perverse as I believe it to be, is still the law.

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172524)
No problem, WW. The law, as crooked and perverse as I believe it to be, is still the law.

So right you are. I wish we had a flat tax with no deductions, none.

Must be frustrating Flycoon when a client asks you how they can shield their money and pay less in tax with how you feel. That must be rough.

WaiverWire 07-26-2014 08:01 PM

Oh brother. I hate this decision.

A DC Federal Judge has found today gun restriction laws in DC unconstitutional.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...onstitutional/

Found this only on Fox which I find strange.

pete 07-26-2014 10:12 PM

Quote:

You've lost me. From what I have read, many people do this because the taxes dont occur in rhe island. Articles even call it a tax haven.
But, you know, Kerry has a D beside his name, so Waiver wants him locked up. Classic transference that he accused me of wanting that for Romney, if you ask me, even though I've noted all along (like, you know, since 2012) that it's technically legal to use tax shelters/havens.

It's hard to believe Kerry, who no doubt has a cadre of the best accountants in the country at his disposal, was in any legal jeopardy using a tax haven that many yachters use. But, like I said, Kerry eventually paid up when the issue came to light because his party demands better. On the other hand, Republicans make out tax evaders like Cliven Bundy to be freedom fighters. Therein lies the difference.

Quote:

There are the judicial courts and the courts of public opinion.
Hey, someone else gets it!

Bolthed 07-27-2014 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172525)
I wish we had a flat tax with no deductions, none.

Yeah! Let's punish the poor! Make them eat dirt!

Flat tax proponents make me sick. They either hate the poors or favor big-government subsidies and exemptions. Soooo, since we all know where the right-wing loonies stand on the latter, I think it's safe to say the former is why the flat tax is code for, "Hey let's just destroy poor people. That'll teach everyone."

Flycoon 07-27-2014 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 172529)
Yeah! Let's punish the poor! Make them eat dirt!

Flat tax proponents make me sick. They either hate the poors or favor big-government subsidies and exemptions. Soooo, since we all know where the right-wing loonies stand on the latter, I think it's safe to say the former is why the flat tax is code for, "Hey let's just destroy poor people. That'll teach everyone."

Correct. Flat tax would steamroll the poor and lower middle class. The privileged few would be the big winners.

Bolthed 07-27-2014 09:53 AM

Oh, it fucks the rest of the middle class good and hard, too. Who else do you think is capable of paying what the riches don't want to?

Absolutely befuddles me when folks like Waiver are in favor of bullshit like this that is totally against their own interests. But hey, go Red Team!

ZeykShade 07-27-2014 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bolthed (Post 172532)
Oh, it fucks the rest of the middle class good and hard, too. Who else do you think is capable of paying what the riches don't want to?

Absolutely befuddles me when folks like Waiver are in favor of bullshit like this that is totally against their own interests. But hey, go Red Team!

I believe I discussed Willful Ignorance with WW a few pages back. Flat taxes are absolutely horrible. You only need to see how sales tax and permit fees effect the poor as opposed to progressive taxation.

If you were to create a flat tax that would tax the well-to-do at a rate commensurate with what they get out of society, you'd starve 90% of the Population.

WaiverWire 07-27-2014 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172533)
I believe I discussed Willful Ignorance with WW a few pages back. Flat taxes are absolutely horrible. You only need to see how sales tax and permit fees effect the poor as opposed to progressive taxation.

If you were to create a flat tax that would tax the well-to-do at a rate commensurate with what they get out of society, you'd starve 90% of the Population.

Hey I just threw that out there as there has to be a better way to tax. It was only a start. I never claimed to be a tax expert.

Isn't there a way with a flat tax to shield those that have nothing or make very little? And doesn't the flat tax, with no deductions, actually hurt those with more as they can not shield their money?

pete 07-27-2014 05:38 PM

Waiver, flat taxes are consumption taxes on ongoing consumable (with modest exceptions) and durable goods. When you make less income, those purchases necessarily take up a greater percentage of your annual income, even with exemptions for items like food. Things like a car, fuel, rent, and diapers all will take up a higher proportion of your overall income relative to a wealthier person, who can squirrel away a lot of income in investments.

So, yes, if Bill Gates buys a yacht, he may pay more than a single mother trying to make ends meet does on her durable goods purchases, but that yacht likely takes up a far smaller percentage of his overall income. In that way, the proportion of tax burden is shifted unfairly and regressively onto the middle class and poor. We'd ultimately end up being taxed on a higher proportion of our total income which, pardon my French, is utter bullshit, because we don't benefit from the investments the government has made in research and infrastructure to the same degree as someone like Bill Gates has. He uses the fruits of those investments more, so he should kick in more.

WaiverWire 07-27-2014 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete (Post 172537)
Waiver, flat taxes are consumption taxes on ongoing consumable (with modest exceptions) and durable goods. When you make less income, those purchases necessarily take up a greater percentage of your annual income, even with exemptions for items like food. Things like a car, fuel, rent, and diapers all will take up a higher proportion of you overall income relative to a wealthier person, who can squirrel away a lot of income in investments.

So, yes, if Bill Gates buys a yacht, he may pay more than a single mother trying to make ends meet does on her durable goods purchases, but that yacht likely takes up a far smaller percentage of his overall income. In that way, the proportion of tax burden is shifted unfairly and regressively onto the middle class and poor. We'd ultimately end up being taxed on a higher proportion of our total income which, pardon my French, is utter bullshit, because we don't benefit from the investments the government has made in research and infrastructure to the same degree as someone like Bill Gates has. He uses the fruits of those investments more, so he should kick in more.


Thanks pete, good info.

But couldn't you make, and I'm just throwing out numbers, say a single person making $40,000 exempt or a family of 4 exempt if they make under $70,000 or $80,000

ChaseSpace 07-27-2014 06:34 PM

Abolishing the capital gains tax and forcing people to claim the income gained from that as part of their standard income would close a ton of loopholes and bring the yearly tax bill up.

Could also create a new "Tax Haven Tax" which is basically a penalty where your tax rate raises your tax rate by a TBD amount if you have accounts and/or holdings in known tax havens. If you freely declare the amounts you have stashed there then you won't be subject to the penalty but that money will be taxed under the standard US law at that point.

Flycoon 07-28-2014 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172540)
Abolishing the capital gains tax and forcing people to claim the income gained from that as part of their standard income would close a ton of loopholes and bring the yearly tax bill up.

Could also create a new "Tax Haven Tax" which is basically a penalty where your tax rate raises your tax rate by a TBD amount if you have accounts and/or holdings in known tax havens. If you freely declare the amounts you have stashed there then you won't be subject to the penalty but that money will be taxed under the standard US law at that point.

Lower tax rates for unearned income is a bedrock of both parties. Slim to no chance we go back to taxing all income equally. It would make more sense that earned income would be taxed at a lower rate; reward work more than investment. But both parties know who pays them.

These rates bottomed out in 2003 (surprise!) under GWB. They had dropped in 97 under Clinton as part of a deal that also boosted the earned income credit.

As for cash "sheltered" offshore, nobody with any clout in Congress has the stones to take up this battle. Certainly no one in the House.

WaiverWire 07-28-2014 10:29 AM

I would be all for our current system if you would do away with all deductions except for donations to charitable groups. With more income being taxed you could lower all the rates, including corporate rate. I think it is really dumb on our part not to have a corporate rate that would bring those dollars back to the US.

ChaseSpace 07-28-2014 10:37 AM

Doesn't the US already have one of the lower corporate tax rates?

sandalskate 07-28-2014 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172538)
Thanks pete, good info.

But couldn't you make, and I'm just throwing out numbers, say a single person making $40,000 exempt or a family of 4 exempt if they make under $70,000 or $80,000

Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine

Yeah, so- if you make 750,000 dollars a year- you should be happy to bear your fair share of the burden by pay more lump sum taxes than a family of four that pulls in 75,000. I think after all my deductions and such I ended up paying between 12-15% actual.... What if ALL citizens paid just that, no deductions, nothin'. Would that work? So if you make 750,000, and a flat RATE were say, 10%.... You pay 75,000, and keep the 675,000 to the good- you make 75,000, you pay 7,500 and keep the 67,500.... and so on- that way, everybody pays the same??? Sort of? Keep in mind 10% was just an arbitrary number to make the math easy....maybe 15 is better...? It always cracks me up when I hear folks making high six figures cry about how bad they have it cause they pay SO much in taxes... right before the family vacay to Maui....

dannybolt 07-28-2014 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172543)
Doesn't the US already have one of the lower corporate tax rates?

I think it depends on the type of income, but by and large: nope.
If we did, inversion wouldn't be a talking point right now.

WaiverWire 07-28-2014 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172543)
Doesn't the US already have one of the lower corporate tax rates?

If you go by rate alone, we have the second highest. But Congress has given many companies tax breaks or loop holes which should be closed. Then you lower their rate so to give them a competitive edge.

From Politco 2011

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ate-tax-rates/

and this

http://businessroundtable.org/media/...ng-the-highest

This is why such corporate giants like Apple have their headquarters elsewhere....................tax havens.

Flycoon 07-28-2014 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172543)
Doesn't the US already have one of the lower corporate tax rates?

Many have lower corporate rates. Our personal rates are much lower than most.

To further clarify, I am only speaking about developed nations.

BurnTHalO 07-28-2014 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172547)
Many have lower corporate rates. Our personal rates are much lower than most.

To further clarify, I am only speaking about developed nations.

Yeah, it's tough to say. Many of the largest have a 0% rate (didn't GE get a tax rebate, so we paid taxes to them?). I think studies have found the average is around 12.5%, which is still well into the lowest bracket.

BurnTHalO 07-29-2014 02:47 PM

The real victims of the Ukraine/Russia escalation. BP and their record quarterly profits (which saw a $1billion + increase from this quarter last time) might take a hit if any more sanctions are put on Russia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28539284

WaiverWire 08-03-2014 03:05 PM

Hope you don't mind that I moved this here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172635)
Dont waste your time, This will get tabled quickly in this section (as it should) and he won't go to the proper places to discuss/get crushed by, you know, facts and science and experts and that crazy thing called evidence.

The thing I find troubling is what we are doing with our dirty coal. If we won't use it because it ruins our atmosphere then why do we allow it to be shipped overseas? I am sure that many of the counties that we are shipping this stuff to do not do anything to stop the pollutants from reaching our air.

I know it would be expensive but why can't we keep the coal here and demand better scrubbers? At least the air would be cleaner for the whole world. If we can do that than we ban the overseas shipments.

Flycoon 08-03-2014 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172640)
Hope you don't mind that I moved this here.



The thing I find troubling is what we are doing with our dirty coal. If we won't use it because it ruins our atmosphere then why do we allow it to be shipped overseas? I am sure that many of the counties that we are shipping this stuff to do not do anything to stop the pollutants from reaching our air.

I know it would be expensive but why can't we keep the coal here and demand better scrubbers? At least the air would be cleaner for the whole world. If we can do that than we ban the overseas shipments.

We ship lots of stuff over seas that we will not allow here. Big Pharma is probably the most egregious sending out of date meds and old meds that have been pulled from the market due to ineffectiveness or bad side effects. Who know what we ship out of the country in the way of food that can't be consumed here.

WaiverWire 08-03-2014 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172643)
We ship lots of stuff over seas that we will not allow here. Big Pharma is probably the most egregious sending out of date meds and old meds that have been pulled from the market due to ineffectiveness or bad side effects. Who know what we ship out of the country in the way of food that can't be consumed here.

Yes, but when are trying to clean up the environment and instead of allowing dirty coal to be burned here with the right scrubbers or filters we send the stuff out for others to use.

So how does this help the environment or does it just make us all feel all fuzzy clean because we didn't burn the coal?

BurnTHalO 08-04-2014 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172644)
Yes, but when are trying to clean up the environment and instead of allowing dirty coal to be burned here with the right scrubbers or filters we send the stuff out for others to use.

So how does this help the environment or does it just make us all feel all fuzzy clean because we didn't burn the coal?

Who says we are trying to clean up the environment? People push for us to do so, but in order to really do something, the govt. needs to put up regulations. Good luck getting regulations through Congress and those lobbies. Look no further than the fact that a city of 400k + people currently has NO RUNNING WATER, with no idea when it will be back up. All this due to agriculture fertilizing practices. Wanna guess the chances those get changed?

WaiverWire 08-04-2014 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172648)
Who says we are trying to clean up the environment? People push for us to do so, but in order to really do something, the govt. needs to put up regulations. Good luck getting regulations through Congress and those lobbies. Look no further than the fact that a city of 400k + people currently has NO RUNNING WATER, with no idea when it will be back up. All this due to agriculture fertilizing practices. Wanna guess the chances those get changed?

I bet a whole lot better after the Toledo disaster.

But I was looking for an answer to my question about dirty coal. I was under the impression we were trying to clean it up but were sending the coal to other countries. Shipments of dirty coal are a record high. This makes no sense to me.


Quote:

Yet the estimated 228 800 tons of carbon dioxide contained in the coal aboard the Prime Lily equals the annual emissions of a small American power plant. It's leaving this nation's shores, but not the planet.

"This is the single biggest flaw in US climate policy," said Roger Martella, the former general counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W Bush. "Although the administration is moving forward with climate change regulations at home, we don't consider how policy decisions in the United States impact greenhouse gas emissions in other parts of the world."

http://www.news24.com/Green/News/NIM...broad-20140728

Flycoon 08-04-2014 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172644)
Yes, but when are trying to clean up the environment and instead of allowing dirty coal to be burned here with the right scrubbers or filters we send the stuff out for others to use.

So how does this help the environment or does it just make us all feel all fuzzy clean because we didn't burn the coal?

Not my point. The point was we not not burn the coal, but if we ship it abroad, what the fuck is the difference? That carbon goes into the atmosphere somewhere and as we know (those of us who aren't science deniers), there is only one atmosphere.

This is like the difference between climate and weather. The flat earthers just will not/cannot understand the difference.

Flycoon 08-04-2014 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172649)
But I was looking for an answer to my question about dirty coal. I was under the impression we were trying to clean it up but were sending the coal to other countries. Shipments of dirty coal are a record high. This makes no sense to me.

It's the free market. End of story.

WaiverWire 08-04-2014 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172653)
It's the free market. End of story.

Then we might as well burn it here as it is hit the atmosphere anyway.

Flycoon 08-04-2014 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172656)
Then we might as well burn it here as it is hit the atmosphere anyway.

Correct. Might as well burn it here unless we ban it's production and export.

This sort of issue requires real leadership and sacrifice by corporations as well as government. Won't happen so long as the bottom line is priority one.

The future means nothing to artificial persons. Only today.

ZeykShade 08-04-2014 08:13 PM

Well, the corporations have a legal obligation to care about the bottom line above all else. The bit about "making profit while serving the greater good" was taken into an alley and Mozambiqued in 1919 with Ford Motor Company v Dodge Brothers.

There are many issues facing this nation but there is only one "first" issue. Campaign finance reform. Looking for those profiting from serving the wealthy to bite the hand that feeds them will prove to be a very long wait.

WaiverWire 08-04-2014 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172659)

There are many issues facing this nation but there is only one "first" issue. Campaign finance reform. Looking for those profiting from serving the wealthy to bite the hand that feeds them will prove to be a very long wait.

You got that right.

Congress is now controlled by the Super Pacs, and not everyone can have one. If you do not do what your party wants their leaders will tell you that they will find someone to run against you and they will support them with PAC money. This is one reason we are seeing all of these party line votes. The leaders now have a big club to swing and it's called "pac money".

BurnTHalO 08-05-2014 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172649)
I bet a whole lot better after the Toledo disaster.

But I was looking for an answer to my question about dirty coal. I was under the impression we were trying to clean it up but were sending the coal to other countries. Shipments of dirty coal are a record high. This makes no sense to me.





http://www.news24.com/Green/News/NIM...broad-20140728


Haha, I'll take that bet in a heartbeat. Thanks to gerrymandering, the city of Toledo and supberbs have less representation than the farmers of the Maumee River basin, not to mention lovely lobby groups. Agg lobbies are crazy. Not to mention, the bloom this year is comparatively mild to previous years thanks to the crazy cold spring. This is nothing new, neither are people losing their water supplies from it. You watch the spin now that they have declared the water supply is safe.

the_narrow_way 08-05-2014 11:07 AM

Yeah, one day the water is only safe for healthy adults to shower in, and then the next day it's OK to drink for everybody? No way.

Hoek 08-05-2014 11:45 AM

Fun times ahead! :p

ChaseSpace 08-05-2014 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172674)
Nate Silver predicts that there is a 60% chance that the republicans end up with 51 seats after the election.

In the senate or house?

WaiverWire 08-05-2014 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseSpace (Post 172676)
In the senate or house?

Senate

http://politics.suntimes.com/article...08042014-141pm

ZeykShade 08-05-2014 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172674)
Nate Silver predicts that there is a 60% chance that the republicans end up with 51 seats after the election.

Cool with me. The faster they burn this fucking country to the ground, the faster we can stick pitchforks in them and start rebuilding it.

Pour some gasoline on the dumpster fire that is our Neo-feudalist Plutocracy and we can get back to attempting to be a Representative Democratic Republic.

grimesy 08-05-2014 05:34 PM

Ohh Please Democratics are just as responsible for the shit we are in as the Republicans. Both suck equally. Nevertheless I choose the suck that that preaches fiscal conservancy, although they have a tough time practicing what they preach sometimes, over the jackaloons that think we can spend our way out of debt. As previously stated they are both kinds of suck and I choose the one that actually has my family interests.

Flycoon 08-05-2014 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimesy (Post 172682)
Ohh Please Democratics are just as responsible for the shit we are in as the Republicans. Both suck equally. Nevertheless I choose the suck that that preaches fiscal conservancy, although they have a tough time practicing what they preach sometimes, over the jackaloons that think we can spend our way out of debt. As previously stated they are both kinds of suck and I choose the one that actually has my family interests.

Maybe you should have looked up the term "representative democratic republic" before you responded.

Civics needs to be mandatory as part of the middle school curriculum again.

the_narrow_way 08-05-2014 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimesy (Post 172682)
Nevertheless I choose the suck that that preaches fiscal conservancy, although they have a tough time practicing what they preach sometimes, over the jackaloons that think we can spend our way out of debt. As previously stated they are both kinds of suck and I choose the one that actually has my family interests.

But they don't dude. Open your eyes. The 'fiscal conservancy' is cutting back programs that help people in need or support the advancement of knowledge which can be used to our (everybody's) benefit, not just a select group. If they really wanted to be fiscally conservative they'd be cutting funding from the bloated military in addition to other things. They aren't doing that though. They are completely bought by those in charge of the military-industrial complex. People the world over suffer and die because of that shit. They don't give a fuck about your family unless you can make them some money to help get themselves re-elected or give them a cushy job after their term. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely money being spent inappropriately by both sides but only one side rubs your face in their holier-than-thou bullshit while they pretend to give a rat's ass about any 'average' person.

ZeykShade 08-06-2014 06:35 AM

You need to reel in your "Both sides do it!" bullshit. Are both sides owned by special interests? Yes. Do both sides spend the majority of their time fundraising instead of legislating? Yes.

If you can't see a difference between a party wanting to provide a better healthcare for every American(even though the only version of Healthcare they could get through is flawed) and a party who actively seeks to undermine social protections for the poor and actively seeks to impose their religious will on the entirety of America; then you're willfully ignorant.

If you wanted to say, "Both sides have their issues", that'd be true. But what you're doing is setting up a false equivalency. One side has proponents who, quite literally, want to shoot some of the people trying to get into the country and leave their bodies lying at the border as a message to those coming behind them. Please show me the equivalent on the Left. Show me the dyed in the wool Democrat voting Liberals who would advocate for the equivalent of murdering poor children fleeing violence. What's the bat-shit leftwing bleeding heart liberal version of this? Universal Healthcare for everyone? Strong as fuck Unions? What's the most deplorable public policy advocated for by those who would vote for Hillary Clinton 300x if they could?

WaiverWire 08-06-2014 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172686)
One side has proponents who, quite literally, want to shoot some of the people trying to get into the country and leave their bodies lying at the border as a message to those coming behind them.

That is some very strong accusations there ZeykShade. Do you have something to back that up with or is that just your opinion?



Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172686)
Please show me the equivalent on the Left. Show me the dyed in the wool Democrat voting Liberals who would advocate for the equivalent of murdering poor children fleeing violence.

Have you seen some of the people in the poorest of poor areas of our country asking "where's the help for us? They have been on the news programs and they have a point. I am sure that most of these people are not right wing conservatives.

And where does the money come from when these children enter the local school systems for the funding of personal tutors that the Federal law mandates? I don't even want to get into the possibly that our classrooms may have to slow the curriculum down to accommodate others.

Truth is that the situation in Central America is awful. No child should have to live in those conditions. But with that said what do we do with the children of these warring countries? Look at the Middle East where thousands of children have been slaughtered. Should we allow safe haven to them?

Where does this all stop?

ZeykShade 08-06-2014 01:17 PM

While one can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that the KKK doesn't vote for Democrats and Progressives.

http://gawker.com/kkk-issues-call-to...-co-1614682377

You know what we should do immediately to ameliorate the living conditions of children in Central America? End the War on Drugs. Everything that's being said now about C.A. immigrants was said about the Italians and Irish.

Want to be able to pay for the proper education of all children in the U.S.? Shift priorities away from boondoggles like the F-35 and onto things like, you know, the future of the fucking nation.

Yeah, let's look at the middle east with all of those orphaned and slain children.
Hard to believe John McCain is a Republican. What? With his "We need to invade every nation possible" views. I do believe foreign aid is a hot topic amongst the right as well. "We spend too much on foreign aid!! CUT IT!!(except to Israel)"

There is almost no equivalency between how bad the political parties are in this country. They both suck, but they do NOT suck equally. One party has adopted a platform of opposing every piece of legislation that the other espouses, and they do it at any cost. Debt Ceiling, Immigration, Abortion Clinics, Healthcare, Foreign Policy... The only thing they both seem to agree on is Corporate Financing of Elections and the servicing of the Financial Sector.

Still challenge you to name a progressive position that is equal in moral bankruptcy to forcing women to seek coat-hangers rather than doctors. Demonstrate an equal policy position on the left, to shooting human beings in search of safety. The KKK is batshit, but show me the equivalent progressive batshit policy.

sandalskate 08-06-2014 02:54 PM

One thing I've come to accept over the years... It is all right to help people who need help. Even if they don't deserve help.( Because, who I think deserves help may be very different than someone elses definition of deserving-), This is compassion. As it stands, it will be impossible to cut all foreign aid and use those funds to assist only poor Americans that need assistance. That is a wrong headed arguement, no matter how well intentioned. We are a global entity, and with that comes the responsibilty to lead by example for the world's endeavoring democratic societies. Closing the borders, and denying help to those who need it most- forsaken children- is way too hard hearted for me. There must be a better way, and it is up to our elected officials to work together to find a solution. In theory this is what a democratic republic is supposed to do... no matter how difficult the issue. In practice what we get is far less than what our tax paying citizens deserve.

WaiverWire 08-06-2014 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172695)
While one can't be 100% certain, I'm pretty sure that the KKK doesn't vote for Democrats and Progressives.

http://gawker.com/kkk-issues-call-to...-co-1614682377

You know what we should do immediately to ameliorate the living conditions of children in Central America? End the War on Drugs. Everything that's being said now about C.A. immigrants was said about the Italians and Irish.

Want to be able to pay for the proper education of all children in the U.S.? Shift priorities away from boondoggles like the F-35 and onto things like, you know, the future of the fucking nation.

Yeah, let's look at the middle east with all of those orphaned and slain children.
Hard to believe John McCain is a Republican. What? With his "We need to invade every nation possible" views. I do believe foreign aid is a hot topic amongst the right as well. "We spend too much on foreign aid!! CUT IT!!(except to Israel)"

There is almost no equivalency between how bad the political parties are in this country. They both suck, but they do NOT suck equally. One party has adopted a platform of opposing every piece of legislation that the other espouses, and they do it at any cost. Debt Ceiling, Immigration, Abortion Clinics, Healthcare, Foreign Policy... The only thing they both seem to agree on is Corporate Financing of Elections and the servicing of the Financial Sector.

Still challenge you to name a progressive position that is equal in moral bankruptcy to forcing women to seek coat-hangers rather than doctors. Demonstrate an equal policy position on the left, to shooting human beings in search of safety. The KKK is batshit, but show me the equivalent progressive batshit policy.

:thankyou:

WaiverWire 08-06-2014 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandalskate (Post 172696)
One thing I've come to accept over the years... It is all right to help people who need help. Even if they don't deserve help.( Because, who I think deserves help may be very different than someone elses definition of deserving-), This is compassion. As it stands, it will be impossible to cut all foreign aid and use those funds to assist only poor Americans that need assistance. That is a wrong headed arguement, no matter how well intentioned. We are a global entity, and with that comes the responsibilty to lead by example for the world's endeavoring democratic societies. Closing the borders, and denying help to those who need it most- forsaken children- is way too hard hearted for me. There must be a better way, and it is up to our elected officials to work together to find a solution. In theory this is what a democratic republic is supposed to do... no matter how difficult the issue. In practice what we get is far less than what our tax paying citizens deserve.

Ye we do need to help the children, but the borders also need to be closed. I like the idea of opening more offices in the countries that these kids are coming from so they can apply and be given entry without having to make that dangerous trip.

But the border has to be closed. We have no idea as to who is crossing.

grimesy 08-06-2014 06:08 PM

Yeah because the KKK has a voice in the Republican Party. That is an asinine and misleading argument, but then again you are a Democrat and they specialize in that bullshit. The KKK is by no means a part of anything other than their personal ideologies which have nothing to do with their political affiliation.

Oh and by your argument than groups such Nation of Islam, New Black Panther Party, and others that call for the killing of white people, Jews, gays, and others are pieces of the Democratic Party and are just as vile and despicable as the KKK. But unlike yourself I don't consider those people a part of the Democratic party just because of who they vote for. They are insane people that no one should listen.

the_narrow_way 08-06-2014 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimesy (Post 172699)
Yeah because the KKK has a voice in the Republican Party.

That is correct.

ZeykShade 08-07-2014 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimesy (Post 172699)
Yeah because the KKK has a voice in the Republican Party. That is an asinine and misleading argument, but then again you are a Democrat and they specialize in that bullshit. The KKK is by no means a part of anything other than their personal ideologies which have nothing to do with their political affiliation.

Oh and by your argument than groups such Nation of Islam, New Black Panther Party, and others that call for the killing of white people, Jews, gays, and others are pieces of the Democratic Party and are just as vile and despicable as the KKK. But unlike yourself I don't consider those people a part of the Democratic party just because of who they vote for. They are insane people that no one should listen.

I stated that the KKK is batshit crazy. Nation of Islam is a conservative fundamentalist religious organization. How can you think they're progressive? I'm NOT a Democrat, because what that words means today, is not what it meant 25yrs ago. A Democrat today is just as pro-establishment as your run of the mill GOPr (non-Freeper/Tea Party fuckstick) is. There are very few actual progressives in our congress.

As for the NBPP, you can't be serious. That group of idiots holds communism and anti-zionism as one of their tenets. Two words that can't with a straight (non-Fox News Feeding Tube Installed) face, be considered remotely affiliated with the pro-corporate/pro-Israel/pro-M/I complex Democratic Party of today.

Do you even know what the fuck you're typing? The KKK is comprised of members who match every key demographic of the typical GOP/Tea Party voter. The only people who steal KKK voters votes from the GOP/Tea Party are people further to the right than our current representatives.

For the record, it's not Democrats who specialize in misleading arguments. It's right wingers who specialize in fact aversion and confirmation bias + fundamental attribution error.

BurnTHalO 08-09-2014 06:03 AM

To update thw algae situation, the toledo mayor is now putting it out there that they were getting false positives. Congress members are now fighting against any regulations on the anime river (which would result on ag monitoring) because this is a problem caused by many things and the solution should be from everyone, not farmers. As I said before, ill take that bet nothing changes.

Flycoon 08-09-2014 09:01 AM

ISIS(L) is by all appearances a true Islamic Caliphate.

Any option other than extermination?

WaiverWire 08-09-2014 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172714)
ISIS(L) is by all appearances a true Islamic Caliphate.

Yes they are. It is far better to try and deal with them now instead of later. And I have a funny feeling negotiations will not work with them.

WaiverWire 08-09-2014 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172713)
To update thw algae situation, the toledo mayor is now putting it out there that they were getting false positives. Congress members are now fighting against any regulations on the anime river (which would result on ag monitoring) because this is a problem caused by many things and the solution should be from everyone, not farmers. As I said before, ill take that bet nothing changes.

The US and Canada really need to clean this up. Canada needs to stop the dumping into the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers from their chemical plants and the US needs to look at their manufacturing plants again.

Canada also needs to rethink the nuclear dumping ground that they are thinking of doing just off the shores of Lake Huron in which some say will seep into Lake Huron if their is a rupture.

We also need to look at the farmers and residential yard products, but not them alone as I think that they are not the biggest problem.

It is not uncommon for the cities and the counties to dump pure waste sewage into these rivers when they have a heavy rain. They need to upgrade their systems.

BurnTHalO 08-09-2014 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172716)
The US and Canada really need to clean this up. Canada needs to stop the dumping into the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers from their chemical plants and the US needs to look at their manufacturing plants again.

Canada also needs to rethink the nuclear dumping ground that they are thinking of doing just off the shores of Lake Huron in which some say will seep into Lake Huron if their is a rupture.

We also need to look at the farmers and residential yard products, but not them alone as I think that they are not the biggest problem.

It is not uncommon for the cities and the counties to dump pure waste sewage into these rivers when they have a heavy rain. They need to upgrade their systems.

If you are talking about Algae blooms, you are completely wrong, the majority is farmers. Its funny you mention the detroit river. If you look at satellite images of algae blooms, there is a big clear spot where the Detroit river dumps in. There are relatively small levels of phosphorus dumps into lake erie from there.

WaiverWire 08-09-2014 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172720)
If you are talking about Algae blooms, you are completely wrong, the majority is farmers. Its funny you mention the detroit river. If you look at satellite images of algae blooms, there is a big clear spot where the Detroit river dumps in. There are relatively small levels of phosphorus dumps into lake erie from there.

I was talking of contamination in general.

Being from that area I follow the local news there. Seems every year more and more of the lakes beaches are closed do to poor water quality.

The bottom of the St. Clair River still has tons of mercury that was dumped into the river from the chemical plants in Sarnia in the 50's and 60's. At one time the level of mercury was so high you could not eat anything from the river.

BurnTHalO 08-10-2014 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172721)
I was talking of contamination in general.

Being from that area I follow the local news there. Seems every year more and more of the lakes beaches are closed do to poor water quality.

The bottom of the St. Clair River still has tons of mercury that was dumped into the river from the chemical plants in Sarnia in the 50's and 60's. At one time the level of mercury was so high you could not eat anything from the river.

Beaches on lake erie will close one to two times a year (if that) for e coli. They will close two to three MONTHS for algae. Water supples are also not really closed for other reasons. The biggest issue on lake erie and bays on all of the others (saginaw, green, etc.) Is cyanobacteria, and by far the biggest contributor are farmers. Their fertilizer practices need to be completely changed. Anyone fighting that has not done any research on the great lakes.

Flycoon 08-10-2014 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172715)
Yes they are. It is far better to try and deal with them now instead of later. And I have a funny feeling negotiations will not work with them.

The only negotiation they engage in is with each other. Shoot or behead the infidels.

This goes against my liberal views, but this group should wiped from the face of the earth. They are like rabid animals.

WaiverWire 08-10-2014 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172723)
The only negotiation they engage in is with each other. Shoot or behead the infidels.

This goes against my liberal views, but this group should wiped from the face of the earth. They are like rabid animals.

My sister is very liberal and she shares your same views.

No one wants to be in another war let alone in the Med East. This is nothing more than the kids crossing our borders. We have to do something for them and we have to do something for the people of the Mid East.

Many do not want the US to be the "policeman" of the world. But there are very bad people out there and someone had to step forward and stop this madness. This is who we are and this is what we do.

Rand Paul must be fit to be tied.

ZeykShade 08-11-2014 07:18 AM

If you're dealing with rational actors, things other than brute force should be employed. ISIS or the Islamic State isn't a rational actor. Al-Qaeda cut all ties to them because they considered them too irrational, too intractable and too violent. Think about that for a second.

Of course, we're to blame for this almost entirely because the Shia and Sunni conflict has been waged since the Year 632 when Mohammed died and there was a conflict between two parties who sought to succeed him. Iraq, Iran and Bahrain are mostly Shia. Shia are vastly outnumbered by Sunni in the world. 85-90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, are Sunni. 11-12% are Shia. What did we think would happen? I hate Dick Cheney, but he was right in the early 1990s and wrong as fuck in the 2000s.

We removed a Sunni leader of Iraq. A dictator who ruled over a mainly Shia country with an iron fist which kinda pissed Shiites off. So when we toppled his ass, Shiites took over and immediately discriminated against Sunnis. ISIS knows this and is capitalizing on it. Shia Muslims and Christians are ISIS' target.

nutznboltz 08-11-2014 06:44 PM

Robin Williams dead at age 63, apparent suicide :ohmy:

So many good movies, such a comedic genius. So many comedians that can make millions laugh are battling so many demons in their private life. RIP Robin

BurnTHalO 08-11-2014 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 172736)
Robin Williams dead at age 63, apparent suicide :ohmy:

So many good movies, such a comedic genius. So many comedians that can make millions laugh are battling so many demons in their private life. RIP Robin

Had a HORRIBLE day with work dealing with subcontractors, and then this happens. My favorite comedian, who did some of my favorite TV/movies. Hopefully some day mental illness will be discussed and considered worth helping.

ZeykShade 08-11-2014 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172737)
Had a HORRIBLE day with work dealing with subcontractors, and then this happens. My favorite comedian, who did some of my favorite TV/movies. Hopefully some day mental illness will be discussed and considered worth helping.

But if we cared for the mentally ill, who would we ignore when they ask us for money on the street?

Maverick9911 08-11-2014 08:42 PM

Florida is 49th in the nation when it comes to funding for mental health treatment. People wait in jail because there are no holding facilities to keep them safe while awaiting spots in residential treatment. I see it happen every day.

Depression kills. It isn't just something you cure by "not being sad." Doesn't work that way. I've seen firsthand how it can cripple even the toughest of individuals. We need to stop stigmatizing mental illness and addiction.

Flycoon 08-12-2014 07:29 AM

Made me think of his role in "The Fisher King" as a mentally ill street person many years ago.

ZeykShade 08-12-2014 10:17 AM

From the Salvador Dali Department of Current Events:

https://twitter.com/mujahid4life/sta...39714448789504

An exchange between western journalists and an ISIS supporter.

ChaseSpace 08-12-2014 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172747)
From the Salvador Dali Department of Current Events:

https://twitter.com/mujahid4life/sta...39714448789504

An exchange between western journalists and an ISIS supporter.

That was interesting in a bizarre way. I hope the entire conversation is compiled in an easier to read format so I don't have to keep clicking "Show more tweets".

Flycoon 08-12-2014 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172747)
From the Salvador Dali Department of Current Events:

https://twitter.com/mujahid4life/sta...39714448789504

An exchange between western journalists and an ISIS supporter.

What I found interesting was the comment that Muslims don't suffer PTSD at the same rate.

Easy answer. Their entire lives have been traumatic so there is no "post" period.

ZeykShade 08-12-2014 11:30 AM

Just so strange to hear some guy commiserate with the rate of PTSD in American Soldiers when he'd have as much problem beheading them as I'd have deciding between driving to Trader Joe's or just going to Stop 'n Shop...

nutznboltz 08-12-2014 05:31 PM

My cynical alert was on HIGH reading that. I am really questioning whether that was an actual ISIS member or either someone acting that way, or maybe their PR spokesperson putting a coherent cogitive spin on their "mission". He didn't respond to anything related to beheadings, that would be unsavory in a "civil" discussion. If all they want do is establish a caliphate, why cannot that be negotiated peacefully with the Iraqi "government"? Why kill men and children, and keep the women just to have sex with? Modern day Huns with no identifiable Attila :mad:

Flycoon 08-12-2014 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 172751)
If all they want do is establish a caliphate, why cannot that be negotiated peacefully with the Iraqi "government"? Why kill men and children, and keep the women just to have sex with? Modern day Huns with no identifiable Attila :mad:

This is the nature of caliphate in the Islamic extremist context.

WaiverWire 08-13-2014 08:22 AM

Malone has no idea how he came into possession of the cocaine that got him arrested.

Quote:

The Tampa Bay Times acquired discovery documents from Malone's arrest that noted the 34-year-old was "baffled" and "shocked" by the finding of illicit drugs in his back pocket, as he had been wearing the same jeans for three days.
http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/554332

Flycoon 08-13-2014 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172760)
Malone has no idea how he came into possession of the cocaine that got him arrested.

This means he had been on a bender for three days wearing the same jeans and doesn't recall buying the coke.

WaiverWire 08-13-2014 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172762)
This means he had been on a bender for three days wearing the same jeans and doesn't recall buying the coke.

Cruel, but most likely true.

ZeykShade 08-13-2014 01:35 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ness/13992387/

WaiverWire 08-13-2014 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172765)

Polygraph time

BurnTHalO 08-13-2014 05:30 PM

So do me a favor, anyone who listens to Rush Limbeaugh (even as a joke), let me know so I can block you. It is a true condemnation of our society that this man is allowed to have a media platform.

Quote:

The leftist attitude is "one of pessimism and darkness, sadness -- they're never happy, are they?" Limbaugh said on Tuesday's broadcast of his radio show. "They're always angry about something. No matter what they get, they're always angry."

Limbaugh cited a Fox News story that said Williams killed himself because he was embarrassed to take TV roles and parts in movie sequels, but had to do it because of financial troubles.

"He had it all but he had nothing. Made everybody else laugh but was miserable inside," Limbaugh said. "I mean, it fits a certain picture or a certain image that the left has. Talk about low expectations and general unhappiness and so forth."
by the way, special middle finger to fox on that completely ridiculous report. And if you read in, the article, by the way, studies point to more suicide among republicans (not that any of the F'ing matters, just furthers how bs Rush was).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5673626.html

Flycoon 08-13-2014 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172767)
So do me a favor, anyone who listens to Rush Limbeaugh (even as a joke), let me know so I can block you. It is a true condemnation of our society that this man is allowed to have a media platform.



by the way, special middle finger to fox on that completely ridiculous report. And if you read in, the article, by the way, studies point to more suicide among republicans (not that any of the F'ing matters, just furthers how bs Rush was).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5673626.html

El rushbo is middle of the road compared to Michael savage bad mark levin. Laura ingraham and Hannity are in the middle of these goofs. Oxy addicts shouldn't be pointing a finger at anyone with mental illness.

If you want to see something really bizarre, look up rush bedroom pics. Dan Savage would say it looks like a closet queens room.

Flycoon 08-13-2014 06:27 PM

So you think you are a libertarian
 
The 1980 libertarian presidential platform is below. It is in the middle of a column about the Koch Bros.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

Sounds more like anarchy than liberty.

the_narrow_way 08-13-2014 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172769)
The 1980 libertarian presidential platform is below. It is in the middle of a column about the Koch Bros.

Insanity. Every [rich] man for themselves. No money to fund education, infrastructure, police/fire/medical, etc. It's an absolute non-starter of a platform. Fuck the Koch brothers.

Flycoon 08-14-2014 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172770)
Insanity. Every [rich] man for themselves. No money to fund education, infrastructure, police/fire/medical, etc. It's an absolute non-starter of a platform. Fuck the Koch brothers.

And Ron Paul. Children are attracted to the libertarians because nobody's is going to tell THEM what to do or what is in the public interest.

But in libertarian world there is no public interest. Only me, me, me......

ZeykShade 08-14-2014 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172769)
The 1980 libertarian presidential platform is below. It is in the middle of a column about the Koch Bros.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

Sounds more like anarchy than liberty.

“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

LOL. Laughable as fuck.

the_narrow_way 08-14-2014 10:03 AM

Honey, I need to drive up to Tampa today, did you pay the bill for University Parkway, Highway 301, Interstate 75, and the Crosstown Expressway yet? Oh, and what about Channelside Drive? I was thinking about going up through St. Pete but the Skyway is falling apart and I'm not taking the risk.

nutznboltz 08-14-2014 10:31 AM

I was thinking of joining Twitter, even though I am an old guy and my life is not that interesting. But there are too many asshats out there who exist solely to tweet hate filled messages and negativity. Case in point is Robin WIlliams' daughter, Zelda, giving up social media because of the posts and images of her hanging, dead father tweeted or instagramed to her. Twitter is good for getting information out there quickly, it's when the user doesn't apply a brain filter to what they are tweeting, or try and interract with Joe Schmoe hater is where it goes off the tracks. It could be said Twitter is the best thing to ever happen and also the worst thing ever invented. :mad:

Flycoon 08-14-2014 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172772)
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”

LOL. Laughable as fuck.

You should see water bills in areas where utilities have been privatized. On the west side of US 19 in Gulf Harbors in NPR, it is common for the water bill to be higher than the electric bill by over $100. Client who moved out of there paid an average of over $250/month and did not irrigate the lawn.

sandalskate 08-14-2014 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172775)
You should see water bills in areas where utilities have been privatized. On the west side of US 19 in Gulf Harbors in NPR, it is common for the water bill to be higher than the electric bill by over $100. Client who moved out of there paid an average of over $250/month and did not irrigate the lawn.

Quote:

Laughable as fuck
LAF....

True story. It has come to my recent thoughts that an interesting paradox is at the forefront these days. The people (in general, this is a generalization) who reap the fruits of living in this republic are the ones who profess the most disdain for the government of this country, and profess to strive for a democracy of very little, if any government at all. All the while these same folks believe that the poor folks that struggle day to day, week to week to survive in the rat race do not succeed financially because of an inner lack of drive, and an obvious dependency on the Government to carry them through the malady created by their very own laziness and lack of will to embrace the opportunity presented equally to all Americans. LAF. For the record I believe if you cheat on your taxes, and shout your disdain for our form of government from every soapbox, you might not be as big a part of the "solution" as you think you are....just my opinion.

Flycoon 08-14-2014 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandalskate (Post 172776)
LAF....

True story. It has come to my recent thoughts that an interesting paradox is at the forefront these days. The people (in general, this is a generalization) who reap the fruits of living in this republic are the ones who profess the most disdain for the government of this country, and profess to strive for a democracy of very little, if any government at all. All the while these same folks believe that the poor folks that struggle day to day, week to week to survive in the rat race do not succeed financially because of an inner lack of drive, and an obvious dependency on the Government to carry them through the malady created by their very own laziness and lack of will to embrace the opportunity presented equally to all Americans. LAF. For the record I believe if you cheat on your taxes, and shout your disdain for our form of government from every soapbox, you might not be as big a part of the "solution" as you think you are....just my opinion.

This was, and is, the real goal of the "Reagan Revolution". Great strategy and long game by the uber rich.

The dumbing down of America was very purposeful.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172765)

More has come out today, and more will be released this afternoon.

The two wee stopped as they fit a description of a strong armed robbery suspects that had just occurred not far from where they were at.

And this witness is the second person in this incident which is why he must pass a polygraph or his statement be tossed until other evidence supports his claim.

BurnTHalO 08-15-2014 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172784)
More has come out today, and more will be released this afternoon.

The two wee stopped as they fit a description of a strong armed robbery suspects that had just occurred not far from where they were at.

And this witness is the second person in this incident which is why he must pass a polygraph or his statement be tossed until other evidence supports his claim.

Nowhere in this does anything state the guy had a gun of any kind, in fact, they state the opposite. And yeah, having a tough time believing a kid with no criminal background went after a cop and tried to take his gun. And I think my favorite story so far:

Quote:

Reporters Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of The Huffington Post said on Twitter that police told them to stop recording the events, then took them into custody.

weebs 08-15-2014 10:19 AM

Ferguson
 
To paraphrase someone I can't remember, "This has taken a step into the bizarre".

Two consecutive posts to my FB feed:

http://libertyviral.com/theres-somet...#axzz3ANWKdqGv

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/0...american-teen/

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172785)
Nowhere in this does anything state the guy had a gun of any kind, in fact, they state the opposite. And yeah, having a tough time believing a kid with no criminal background went after a cop and tried to take his gun. And I think my favorite story so far:

A video has now been released that shows this "kid", who looks like a pro football player, committing a strong armed robbery and the says fought with the clerk of the store.

Take a look at the size of this "kid" on the CNN page. Makes me wonder if the media was showing us a picture of Moore from several years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/

Like I have said, we still do not know all the details. More to come.

Flycoon 08-15-2014 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172787)
A video has now been released that shows this "kid", who looks like a pro football player, committing a strong armed robbery and the says fought with the clerk of the store.

Take a look at the size of this "kid" on the CNN page. Makes me wonder if the media was showing us a picture of Moore from several years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/

Like I have said, we still do not know all the details. More to come.

So, "strong armed robbery" is not the same as "armed robbery", is it?

He (allegedly) grabbed a box of cigarillos, pushed the owner, and ran.

This is now a capital offense?

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172788)
So, "strong armed robbery" is not the same as "armed robbery", is it?

He (allegedly) grabbed a box of cigarillos, pushed the owner, and ran.

This is now a capital offense?

Strong armed robbery is a 2nd degree felony punishable up to 15 years. Strong armed robbery is also one of the Part One UCR violations and is considered a violent crime.

The difference between the two Flycoon is one is a use of a weapon and the other is physical force.

So lets look at the scenario again. We had a witness, who was with Moore at the time of the incident claiming Brown was attacked by the officer. We also now know that this witness was also with Brown during the robbery and also participated in it. So toss this witness statement unless there are other facts of evidence that we do not yet know.

I had also heard that the office sustained some injuries to the face and had to seek medical treatment. If this is the case I would hope that a photo would now be released as we know who the officer is.

Like I have said before, we should not jump to a conclusion as not all the facts are known by us.

But at the same time you have Al Sharpton and others stirring the pot and they do not know the answers either. In fact they may have stirred the pot so much that this community could have serious problems for years. He, and others, need to keep their mouths shut until the facts are known.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172789)
WW - But don't you think the police / city administration screwed up by not disclosing what was known about the incident until now? Wouldn't there have been less community reaction if there had been a release somewhat like:

There had been a report of a robbery at a local convenience store. Officer Wilson encountered two individuals who seemed to match the description. During the officer's attempt to question the suspects an incident occurred and Officer Wilson fatally shot one of the individuals. As is standard protocol, the Officer has been placed on leave and the department will investigate the circumstances involving the incident.

Instead, by withholding the incident report, it allowed the public perception that a kid was stopped solely for being black to enflame the community. By withholding the name of the officer it looked like something was being hidden / covered up. Whatever the circumstances of the events, the police reaction after the incident seems to have been poorly handled. Yesterday, for example, the chief told the community that they could peaceably demonstrate during daylight hours (I'm not even going to ask where he thought that he had the right to limit demonstrations to daylight hours.) But when a demonstration occurred, during daylight hours, his officers told the group to disburse. Then they had a police officer on top of a military unit aiming a rifle at the crowd when there was no reason to believe the demonstration would be anything but peaceful.

The police / community relationship (community 70% black / police department 94% white) seem to have been poor before the incident. The withholding of information and then the police reaction after the incident seems to have done nothing but pour gasoline on a smoldering fire that was ready to ignite.

You are 100% correct Donnie. The police should had been more forth coming with information.

But with that said should we not also being looking at people like Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther leaders that went to this community and stirred the pot with little information?

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 02:47 PM

Glad they got this menace to society off the streets and put him in the ground then. That'll teach any other shoplifters in Ferguson. :rolleyes:

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172791)
You are 100% correct Donnie. The police should had been more forth coming with information.

But with that said should we not also being looking at people like Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther leaders that went to this community and stirred the pot with little information?

No, you shouldn't be looking at Black Community leaders for anything other than being asleep at the wheel and allowing this kind of shit to build to this point in the first place. Larger Municipalities and urban environments are run like open air prisons with how they're policed. Us vs. Them. Protect and Serve is a damned joke. The police in these environments serve the wealthy and the powerful to oppress the powerless. It's the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted on a massive scale. The cops aren't solely to blame for this. They're a product of this fucked up situation as much as the socio-economically oppressed are.

Every single person on this forum is complicit, myself included. We've let this shit happen. It's happened so gradually, out of sight and out of mind for most of us. Eventually enough is going to be enough.

Also, the contact between the police officer and Michael Brown was completely unrelated to the robbery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...te-to-robbery/

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172793)
No, you shouldn't be looking at Black Community leaders for anything other than being asleep at the wheel and allowing this kind of shit to build to this point in the first place. Larger Municipalities and urban environments are run like open air prisons with how they're policed. Us vs. Them. Protect and Serve is a damned joke. The police in these environments serve the wealthy and the powerful to oppress the powerless. It's the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted on a massive scale. The cops aren't solely to blame for this. They're a product of this fucked up situation as much as the socio-economically oppressed are.

Every single person on this forum is complicit, myself included. We've let this shit happen. It's happened so gradually, out of sight and out of mind for most of us. Eventually enough is going to be enough.

Also, the contact between the police officer and Michael Brown was completely unrelated to the robbery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...te-to-robbery/

Your so wrong. Outsiders have no business coming into a community and fanning the flames when they do not have all the facts.

So what if he was being stopped because of the robbery. Brown did not know that. The fact that he had just committed a violent offense makes one wonder if he did in fact attack the officer because he did not want to be arrested on a very serious charge.


At the end of the day everyone handled this terribly. The department could had released both incidents as they became available. The name of the officer should had been released along with a photo of these injuries we keep hearing about, swelling to the head. The outsiders should had stayed home and had allowed the community and the leaders handle the situation.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172794)
Your so wrong. Outsiders have no business coming into a community and fanning the flames when they do not have all the facts.

So what if he was being stopped because of the robbery. Moore did not know that. The fact that he had just committed a violent offense makes one wonder if he did in fact attack the officer because he did not want to be arrested on a very serious charge.

"Get the fuck on the sidewalk!" Fantastic police work and community outreach method. Screams "a gentle, quiet man" as the chief called Darren Wilson.

So you yell at a person walking down the street, flexing your muscle on people you have no reason to suspect of doing anything wrong(per the Chief of Police), back your car up and try to intimidate them further because they didn't "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITEYE!!". Show me in the policing manual where it's ok to grab someone and drag them into your car. Shit goes south for the officer because he's essentially instigated it and CAUSED the confrontation in the first place. So as Michael Brown runs away, he gets shot in the back, stops and puts his hands up and the "Gentle, quiet man" Officer Darren Wilson pursues and proceeds to shoot him at close range in the chest and face.

Quality policing there. Fact remains, walking down an empty street while black is what caused this. Robbery had nothing to do with Wilson's detainment of Brown. The manner in which he attempted to detain Brown directly lead to Brown being killed. A higher standard is what the people with the power and with the guns should be held to. A human walking down the street shouldn't be treated like a piece of shit instantly.

Maverick9911 08-15-2014 03:31 PM

Quote:

We officially have more facts about a likely unrelated robbery of a single Swisher than we do about the execution of Mike Brown
— @fivefifths
Let's just slow down and give everyone time to dig up the dirt, er I mean, find all the facts.

And while we're tossing polygraphs for everyone like Oprah and her favorite things, let's polygraph the officers as well. Sure they'll most likely never see the light of day in a courtroom, as they're prone not to do, but might as well keep it "fair and balanced", eh?

Thank God the protesters weren't doing something really outrageous like grazing cattle without paying the appropriate taxes. Then again, all the people on the ground in that case would be true American patriots and not rabble rousers.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172795)
"So you yell at a person walking down the street, flexing your muscle on people you have no reason to suspect of doing anything wrong(per the Chief of Police), back your car up and try to intimidate them further because they didn't "RESPECT MAH AUTHORITEYE!!". Show me in the policing manual where it's ok to grab someone and drag them into your car. Shit goes south for the officer because he's essentially instigated it and CAUSED the confrontation in the first place. So as Michael Brown runs away, he gets shot in the back, stops and puts his hands up and the "Gentle, quiet man" Officer Darren Wilson pursues and proceeds to shoot him at close range in the chest and face.

Can you please post a reliable link that supports what you claimed happened?

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 172796)
Let's just slow down and give everyone time to dig up the dirt, er I mean, find all the facts.

And while we're tossing polygraphs for everyone like Oprah and her favorite things, let's polygraph the officers as well. Sure they'll most likely never see the light of day in a courtroom, as they're prone not to do, but might as well keep it "fair and balanced", eh?

Thank God the protesters weren't doing something really outrageous like grazing cattle without paying the appropriate taxes. Then again, all the people on the ground in that case would be true American patriots and not rabble rousers.

Yeah, amazed that the Pro-2A right wingers aren't flocking to Ferguson to protect the rights of their fellow citizens to peaceably assemble in the face of outright Police State fascism. Of course, that got defused by the State gov't when they let the state troopers take over. One of the smarter things they've done.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172797)
Can you please post a reliable link that supports what you claimed happened?

I will when you link to me a similarly believable and credible source of anything to the contrary. Citing the Ferguson PD's report on it is NOT credible or to be considered anything but biased. Just as you will discount any other eyewitness to Michael Brown's killing.

I'll wait for the forensics to be done (preferably by some organization other than the local/state police). Not sure why anyone would trust any organization linked to law enforcement at this point to serve the interests of the citizens of the community.

Do I hate cops? No. I hate what they're made and hired to be. Do I respect cops who show respect to those they are supposed to serve? Absolutely. Stop me for reasons they can't reasonably articulate and you'll get no respect or compliance.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 04:11 PM

Here's your Ferguson PD for you...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...loody-lie.html

Holy fucking shit how has this community put up with this kind of shit for this long?

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172801)
They have every right to ask questions and demand answers. If they don't have all the facts it because the police / city have resisted providing any information.

WW - Just when did the people give up their constitutional right to peaceably assemble in the US?

They never gave up that right.

But all the facts are not in. I am not talking about the witnesses are saying, but what the forensics will tell us. Was there gun power tattooing on Brown? Was there blood splatter on the officer? I am waiting for things like this before I make a judgment.

As for the stopping, did the officer have the right to stop? Well, yes. These 2 were walking down the center of a road. How many get killed each year by walking in the roadway let alone down the middle? In Hillsborough County he have the highest pedestrian accident rate in the State. Bet you would be shocked as to how many of these pedestrians were using a crosswalk.

One thing is certain. A law enforcement officer never knows what an individual will do or react. Here the officer thought he was stopping a stupid shit for walking down the road. He had no idea this guy had just committed a strong armed robbery. The guy had just confronted and threatened a store clerk and a reasonable person would had thought they were being stopped for that. So could Brown had attacked the officer thinking he was going to be arrested for a serious crime? It is still very possible. But we do not know what was going through Brown's mind at the time.

So if there is not tattooing or blood splatter you will have to lean towards the witnesses. But until then you don't come out and blame the law enforcement officer without the facts.

You can blame the department for how it was handled.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172800)
Here's your Ferguson PD for you...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...loody-lie.html

Holy fucking shit how has this community put up with this kind of shit for this long?

The agency may in fact have problems, but you have to take one incident at a time and not think all are guilty in the future.

I know the first agency I ever worked for had their problems which is why I left. I so happy that another agency called so I could get the hell out of there..

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172803)
The agency may in fact have problems, but you have to take one incident at a time and not think all are guilty in the future.

I know the first agency I ever worked for had their problems which is why I left. I so happy that another agency called so I could get the hell out of there..

What this issue and the story says is less important than what all of our opinions on it say about us. If you apologize for LEOs and quickly point out character assassination points against the victim(fyi, that's Michael Brown and all of the African-American Community), then you're have authoritarian proclivities.

"It's not ALL cops, it's just a few bad apples." What a horseshit point. It's an entire culture cultivated by Law Enforcement. The culture is rotten.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172804)
It's an entire culture cultivated by Law Enforcement. The culture is rotten.

And your full of it if you really believe all cops are bad. Look no further than the Captain from the State Police who has stepped up and showed you how most police officers act.

Take your crap elsewhere.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172805)
And your full of it if you really believe all cops are bad. Look no further than the Captain from the State Police who has stepped up and showed you how most police officers act.

Take your crap elsewhere.

The culture is rotten. Apologize for some more fascists elsewhere.

WaiverWire 08-15-2014 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172806)
The culture is rotten. Apologize for some more fascists elsewhere.

Like your attitude. I bet you are a little man behind a monitor that would cry if ever arrested.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172807)
Like your attitude. I bet you are a little man behind a monitor that would cry if ever arrested.

LOL, would that make you feel big and bad? Does that kind of stuff get your rocks off?

I've had an HCSO officer fucking try to intimidate the shit out of me in my dormroom at USF back in the day. He didn't find me an easy mark and I was 18 at the time.

Unlike the uneducated and powerless that a lot of police prey on, I know my rights.

ZeykShade 08-15-2014 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 172810)
And I'm appalled that you would compare the tens of thousands of honest men and women in this country who are putting themselves at considerable risk every day for little pay so that you can live in a free society to the right wing fascists who have imprisoned, tortured and killed millions to prevent them from having the freedoms that we enjoy.

Little f, not big F. If you inferred otherwise, I'm sorry.

Authoritarians who serve the Oligarchy, you can call it whatever you want. I'll call it fascism or fledgling fascism.

The bolded won't be around for long if the culture of policing doesn't change. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we're all complicit in allowing this to happen.

Flycoon 08-15-2014 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172791)
You are 100% correct Donnie. The police should had been more forth coming with information.

But with that said should we not also being looking at people like Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther leaders that went to this community and stirred the pot with little information?

The "new black panthers"? Meeeeeooowwww. Get all 7 or 8 of them.

ZeykShade 08-16-2014 07:37 AM

Two more eye witnesses corroborate Dorian Johnson's statement of events.

Wilson tries to drag Brown into the car window with Brown trying to push away from the car window attempting to prevent Wilson from dragging him into the car. Wilson shot once while in the car, Brown broke free and ran away. Wilson got out of the car shooting, hit Brown and caused Brown to turn putting his hands up but Wilson kept shooting until Brown drops.

Done, by Ferguson PD's own admission, for not walking on the sidewalk.

Flycoon 08-16-2014 11:11 AM

Police forces need to be de-militarized. Too much fire power, too many who can't resist using it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us...lice.html?_r=0

nutznboltz 08-16-2014 11:49 AM

It seems like everything is video taped somewhere, either by people on the side with I phones or business security cameras, or community street cameras. Has there been any indication that this incident was recorded? I find it hard to believe in 2014 America that there's no recording. What about the police car itself, the dash cam, did this PD have one and have it running? There's a lot more to the story yet to come out IMO.

ZeykShade 08-16-2014 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 172828)
It seems like everything is video taped somewhere, either by people on the side with I phones or business security cameras, or community street cameras. Has there been any indication that this incident was recorded? I find it hard to believe in 2014 America that there's no recording. What about the police car itself, the dash cam, did this PD have one and have it running? There's a lot more to the story yet to come out IMO.

Dash cam wouldn't have caught anything but Brown and Johnson walking in the street. The officer engaged and escalated the contact with them from the driver side window. He then backed his car toward Brown and Johnson and parked it blocking both lanes of traffic at an angle. Opened his door hitting Brown with the door which bounced back and closed. That's when he attempted to grab Brown and pull him into the window. Seconds later he shot Brown as Brown was trying to pull away from Wilson. Brown got away and ran toward the back of the police vehicle(an SUV) and around it down the street. Wilson got out of the vehicle followed him while firing hitting Brown again in the back which caused him to jerk and turn around to give up with his hands in the air. Wilson closed and fired 5-8 more times killing Brown.

Of course, all of this is just eye witness testimony from 3 different people. Eye witnesses aren't reliable, but forensics can back some of it up or refute it. Body camera would have helped, but the officer still has to activate some of the good ones by sliding open the lens cover etc.

ZeykShade 08-16-2014 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172826)
Police forces need to be de-militarized. Too much fire power, too many who can't resist using it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/us...lice.html?_r=0

They do need to be demilitarized, but how likely is that to happen when the M/I Complex loves selling to new markets? If they don't have a fresh war every decade or so, how are they to line their pockets with cash? Cash they then turn around and buy "our" representatives with. It's hilarious because it's tax payer money that pays the Military Industrial Complex. They use the profits to offset the buying of our representatives to vote for their interests instead of ours. We're essentially one step removed from paying out of our pockets to fuck ourselves over. :doh:

nutznboltz 08-16-2014 01:07 PM

Don't dash cams have recording ability too? Investigators might have been able to piece together a scenario timeline of voices, ambient sounds, gunshots etc that could help them determine the sequence of events that followed. I guess my initial point was to ask the group if anyone has heard of any news of cameras possibly recording anything that went on, or any news reporters line of questioning about whether local businesses or residents have been surveyed if anyone has any film of the incident etc. :noidea:

WaiverWire 08-16-2014 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeykShade (Post 172808)
LOL, would that make you feel big and bad? Does that kind of stuff get your rocks off?

I've had an HCSO officer fucking try to intimidate the shit out of me in my dormroom at USF back in the day. He didn't find me an easy mark and I was 18 at the time.

Unlike the uneducated and powerless that a lot of police prey on, I know my rights.

Just wondering when this was and if USFPD was with them?

WaiverWire 08-16-2014 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutznboltz (Post 172832)
Don't dash cams have recording ability too? Investigators might have been able to piece together a scenario timeline of voices, ambient sounds, gunshots etc that could help them determine the sequence of events that followed. I guess my initial point was to ask the group if anyone has heard of any news of cameras possibly recording anything that went on, or any news reporters line of questioning about whether local businesses or residents have been surveyed if anyone has any film of the incident etc. :noidea:

Did he have one?

They should also record the audio. You can tell a lot from just have the voice recorded.

Like I have said, don't put much into anything that people are saying now. Not even the Chief of things from a press conference. Many of my arrests made headlines and it seems like those releasing the info to the press always got the main point of the investigation wrong. We always used to watch and laugh while shaking our heads as they messed up the press releases. Wait for the reports and the final out come of the investigation.

A girl, who claimed to be a friend of Wilson, was on the radio and gave his account as to what happened. I will not post it here as it is not verified as to her relationship to Wilson or if she really even knows him.

WaiverWire 08-16-2014 03:03 PM

On August 8th a Federal Judge upheld the North Carolina Voter ID Law.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/federal-j...uppression-law

BurnTHalO 08-18-2014 07:33 AM

So the autopsy report has come out. Shot 6 times, none from close range (no GSR). So wasn't shot in a struggle (as police reported), wasn't any sort of a suspect (as was implied). This really does look very bad.

Flycoon 08-18-2014 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 172857)
So the autopsy report has come out. Shot 6 times, none from close range (no GSR). So wasn't shot in a struggle (as police reported), wasn't any sort of a suspect (as was implied). This really does look very bad.

Not completely verified yet. They don't have his clothing to check for powder residue. Can't quite figure out how he got shot in the top of the head.

But I expect that the allegations are more true than false.

WaiverWire 08-18-2014 08:35 AM

Here is the NYT article on the autopsy. What jumped out at me is that he was not shot in the back like some have said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...re-iphone&_r=0


Now the big question. There is a cell phone video that is circulating the WEB. IT shows the police and Browns body in the street. You can hear what I believe is the person shooting the video talking. But in the background you also can hear 2 people talking about the incident. I wonder how true this video is or is it something that has been doctored as it may very well tell us what really took place and could be in line with the NYT report.

The NYT report is based on the autopsy conducted by the doctor contacted by the family.

the_narrow_way 08-18-2014 09:48 AM

I saw it pointed out that some of the shots to the arm could have been landed from behind, especially if the victim was running. The standard autopsy pose has the arms oriented differently than they would be if the victim was running.

WaiverWire 08-18-2014 10:11 AM

Found the video on YouTube. The interesting stuff starts around the 5:30 mark. You have to pay close attention as you can hear someone in the background talking about what he saw.

From what I can tell it sounds like a tussle in the SUV and Brown ran. The officer gets out of the car and gives chase and Brown turns around and runs back towards the officer. The officer then shots.

I have a lot of questions that need to be answered still, like did the officer have a taser or an ASP? Did the officer have time to retreat and how close was his back up? Was the officer injured from the first encounter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhM

***Update***

This just can across CNN. This is a lady calling and giving the officers side of the story which is pretty close to what the one by stander was heard saying off camera.

Quote:

When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once, the caller said. Wilson pursued Brown and his friend, ordering them to freeze, according to the account. When they turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed, the caller said.

Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead, and the teenager fell two or three feet in front of Wilson, said the caller, who identified herself as the officer's friend.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/mis...html?hpt=hp_t1

the_narrow_way 08-18-2014 11:32 PM

Whatever actually happened, I really hope there's video evidence to prove it. Otherwise, there will never be closure for either side.

Logically, I don't see why Brown would pick a fight with Wilson, even if he was on edge due to his recent larceny. What would he gain by punching Wilson and trying to take his gun? And then, after theoretically assaulting him and fleeing, why would Brown turn around and charge Wilson? If that does turn out to be what happened, then Brown had a death wish. Why he would want to provoke an officer to end his life?

On the other side of the coin, why would Wilson shoot Brown at all if Brown was fleeing and especially if Brown then turned around and put his hands up? Assuming Brown did punch him, would Wilson really have lost his ability to take a deep breath and not blast the kid in broad daylight in the middle of the street?

Both stories don't really pass the sniff test. The toxicology report might have a huge impact if it shows Brown was intoxicated or otherwise under the influence. We know they'll probably find some evidence of cannabis use but that certainly is no reason for Brown to act violently.

BTW, who ended up with the cigars Brown and his buddy stole? A minor detail, but I'm curious.

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 11:37 AM

Malone pleas No Contest
 
Quote:

Former Tampa Bay Lightning player Ryan Malone pleaded no contest Tuesday to driving under the influence and agreed to enter pretrial intervention program on a cocaine possession charge.



Malone was adjudicated guilty for DUI and then sentenced to 12 months probation, a Hillsborough County court spokesman said. He must attend DUI school and perform 50 hours of community service.
Let us all hope he can get his act together, put this behind him and hook up with another team.

http://tbo.com/sports/lightning/ex-b...-dui-20140819/

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 12:43 PM

I do not know a thing about this site but they have posted that Wilson had " an orbital blowout/fracture of the eye socket" which happened when Brown encountered him and reportedly struck him several times with his fist(s). Brown then tried to take Wilson's firearm. A casing should then be in Wilson's vehicle as the first shot was allegedly fired within the vehicle .


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...th-mike-brown/

sandalskate 08-19-2014 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172870)
I do not know a thing about this site but they have posted that Wilson had " an orbital blowout/fracture of the eye socket" which happened when Brown encountered him and reportedly struck him several times with his fist(s). Brown then tried to take Wilson's firearm. A casing should then be in Wilson's vehicle as the first shot was allegedly fired within the vehicle .


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...th-mike-brown/

The problems in Ferguson will subside hopefully when the incident report from the officer himself is released to the public. That then can be compared with the forensics, which I believe also have not been released to the public (perhaps because they are still incomplete). The citizens protesting want that information- and until they get it, I would expect the problems to continue. It is a bad situation- there is a serious racial divide in that city- The authorities need to do what they can to defuse, not infuse....

the_narrow_way 08-19-2014 02:41 PM

There's been another officer-involved shooting and fatality, this time a few miles from the protest area. This one appears like lethal force was used lawfully. 'suicide by cop' one witness said.

Ferguson police not doing themselves any favors by releasing partial or faulty information. Jail records from last night indicate over 70 arrests, all but a few were from Ferguson. This contradicts the 30-some arrests number they released. Also, official story is now that Wilson did not know Brown and his buddy were involved with the theft at the convenience store, but he did see the cigars during the confrontation and made the connection.

As for the lady who called the radio station yesterday and corroborated Wilson's story, she said that what she was saying was what 'he said', meaning Wilson. Of course her story is the same, she's not an actual witness, she's just repeating what he (presumably) told her.

Flycoon 08-19-2014 03:01 PM

More good news.....the KKK is on the way to "help" the police and protect the officers.

BurnTHalO 08-19-2014 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172874)
There's been another officer-involved shooting and fatality, this time a few miles from the protest area. This one appears like lethal force was used lawfully. 'suicide by cop' one witness said.

Ferguson police not doing themselves any favors by releasing partial or faulty information. Jail records from last night indicate over 70 arrests, all but a few were from Ferguson. This contradicts the 30-some arrests number they released. Also, official story is now that Wilson did not know Brown and his buddy were involved with the theft at the convenience store, but he did see the cigars during the confrontation and made the connection.

Including multiple reporters. That is getting REALLY out of control.

BurnTHalO 08-19-2014 03:50 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08...son-pd-busted/

Quote:

When the Ferguson police department released the name of Darren Wilson, they also chose to release video footage which they claimed was of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store for some cigars.

The problem is, the video shows Michael Brown at the register, paying for the cigars.
Quote:

Whatever words were exchanged between the man in the video and the store owner, they were not considered very serious, as the store owner nor the employees did not report a theft at the store. According to the stores attorney, the owners were bewildered when the police approached them demanding the surveillance tapes.

Maverick9911 08-19-2014 05:24 PM

Quote:

As for the lady who called the radio station yesterday and corroborated Wilson's story, she said that what she was saying was what 'he said', meaning Wilson. Of course her story is the same, she's not an actual witness, she's just repeating what he (presumably) told her.
Polygraph!!!!!!

Still waiting on all the open carry/defend against the police state/duck wranglers for First Amendment protection types to descend upon Ferguson and practice what they preach.

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick9911 (Post 172878)
Polygraph!!!!!!

Still waiting on all the open carry/defend against the police state/duck wranglers for First Amendment protection types to descend upon Ferguson and practice what they preach.

I am sure that the officer has already taken one at the request of his attorney.



From sandalskate:

Quote:

The problems in Ferguson will subside hopefully when the incident report from the officer himself is released to the public. That then can be compared with the forensics, which I believe also have not been released to the public (perhaps because they are still incomplete). The citizens protesting want that information- and until they get it, I would expect the problems to continue. It is a bad situation- there is a serious racial divide in that city- The authorities need to do what they can to defuse, not infuse....
At this point in time the violence is not about the lack of information. The violence will not subside until the thugs leave the area. Of the 70+ people that were arrested last night only 4 were from Ferguson. Some are turning this into an opportunity to get free stuff and harm if they can.

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 05:49 PM

News reports are saying ISIS has just released a video of U.S. reporter James Foley being beheaded.

They claim a second U.S. reporter being held is next.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/world/...ley/index.html

dannybolt 08-19-2014 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172875)
More good news.....the KKK is on the way to "help" the police and protect the officers.

Thank goodness for that. Hopefully the idiot hillbillies in bedsheets will be able to succeed where kevlar, gas masks, camouflage, riot shields, automatic weapons and MRAPs have failed.

This whole thing is a mess from front to back, but at least the rest of the country is catching up to where Radley Balko has been on police militarization for the last half decade.

It's also interesting to see the absence of the NRA when the people of Ferguson underwent pretty much exactly what the NRA constantly worries about in regards to the overstepping of personal liberties and totalitarian government action.

Not surprisingly, John Oliver makes more than a couple brilliant points here:
[YOUTUBE]http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A[/YOUTUBE]

Edit: I should add, I'm not entirely against the police in this instance; certainly, when molotov cocktails get introduced, things are going to break bad for the protestors.

the_narrow_way 08-19-2014 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172879)
Of the 70+ people that were arrested last night only 4 were from Ferguson.

I read the exact opposite. Is your info new from today? The story changes so often.

Edit: I read that Brown actually bought the cigars and that there's more of the surveillance video which shows it. If that's true then the police are really going to look bad.

Parting thought:
It's hard to fact-check when the ones who are supposed to have the facts don't.

Hoek 08-19-2014 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannybolt (Post 172881)
This whole thing is a mess from front to back, but at least the rest of the country is catching up to where Radley Balko has been on police militarization for the last half decade.

And Cato has been on it since 1999...

Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments

But I will allow folks to go back to flogging libertarian strawmen of 30+ years ago. :p

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172882)
I read the exact opposite. Is your info new from today? The story changes so often.

Edit: I read that Brown actually bought the cigars and that there's more of the surveillance video which shows it. If that's true then the police are really going to look bad.

Parting thought:
It's hard to fact-check when the ones who are supposed to have the facts don't.

Here's the link to a local news cast.


Quote:

According to arrest records obtained by ABC News, only four of the 78 arrested are from Ferguson while 18 people arrested are from locations across the country, including Chicago, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Austin, Huntsville, Ala., and Des Moines.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08...#ixzz3AsukKyxv
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08...ue-106219.html

Not saying be bought them or not, but if he did in fact buy them why would he go after the clerk who was trying to stop him from leaving?

And on Wednesday a Grand Jury will start hearing the case. According to this article Wilson has given a statement to the prosecutor.

Quote:

Edward Magee, spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch, said local investigators have interviewed Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson and he will be "offered the opportunity'' to testify if he chooses.

Magee said the case will be presented to a regular grand jury that already has been seated. He said the panel has a few weeks remaining in its current term. He did not know how long it would take to present the case.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/u...sday/14272141/

Flycoon 08-19-2014 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 172883)
But I will allow folks to go back to flogging libertarian strawmen of 30+ years ago. :p

The libertarians are like broken clocks; right a couple of times each day. True libertarians have more in common with anarchists than with either party.

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoek (Post 172883)
And Cato has been on it since 1999...

Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments

But I will allow folks to go back to flogging libertarian strawmen of 30+ years ago. :p

That is only the half of it. I am so glad I am retired now.

We sent our current Deputy Chief to a Naval school in San Diego for military/law enforcement training. When he came back the Office started their change. First was a mandatory "Challenge Course" that ended several careers due to sever injuries and heart attacks. This was not some easy course that the State mandates, but it was a grueling course that took many 45-50 minutes to run.

Then came the 2 week boot camp with the want to be drill instructors. 50% or more would drop out thinking that it was a joke and would go else where to look for work.

Because of these moves, and many others, HCSO is now down by almost 300 deputies. The streets are very short staffed and those still there complain daily of the non stop work load.

the_narrow_way 08-19-2014 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172884)
Here's the link to a local news cast.

Interesting. I think I heard my info from a CNN source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172884)
Not saying be bought them or not, but if he did in fact buy them why would he go after the clerk who was trying to stop him from leaving?

Not sure. The proof will be in the full video. Something I read stated that the shop owner did not know what the cops were there for when they came in looking for surveillance video.

WaiverWire 08-19-2014 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172887)
.


Not sure. The proof will be in the full video. Something I read stated that the shop owner did not know what the cops were there for when they came in looking for surveillance video.


Are you saying the owner did not report the theft?

I do know that they did respond to the store and took a report. They also place a detailed alert for the suspects.

What I do not understand is why would they return for the video? Any LEO knows that the surveillance tape is evidence and they should make every effort to view it and take it into evidence.

the_narrow_way 08-19-2014 11:47 PM

Yeah, this whole situation appears to have constant flipping of stories and it just gets muddier every day.

WaiverWire 08-20-2014 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way (Post 172890)
Yeah, this whole situation appears to have constant flipping of stories and it just gets muddier every day.

You got that right.

I had read something that the State and Feds did not want the video released when they had been told the media knew about it and had filed several FOIA for copies of it. Seems the local chief got fed up with the stonewalling and said he could not hold it back any longer and thus it was released Friday. Very poor timing. It should had been released as soon as they had it and had confirmed it.

I found this letter on a web site for LEO's. It was written by an unknown author and posted under the State of Missouri page. Gives you a little insight as to what are daily lives are like as we just never know.

Quote:

An Open Letter to Captain Ronald S. Johnson

Chief Ed Delmore |

I have to call you out.

I don’t care what the media says. I expect them to get it wrong and they often do. But I expect you as a veteran law enforcement commander—talking about law enforcement—to get it right.

Unfortunately, you blew it. After days of rioting and looting, last Thursday you were given command of all law enforcement operations in Ferguson by Governor Jay Nixon. St. Louis County PD was out, you were in. You played to the cameras, walked with the protestors and promised a kinder, gentler response. You were a media darling. And Thursday night things were better, much better.

But Friday, under significant pressure to do so, the Ferguson Police released the name of the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown. At the same time the Ferguson Police Chief released a video showing Brown committing a strong-arm robbery just 10 minutes before he was confronted by Officer Darren Wilson.

Many don’t like the timing of the release of the video. I don’t like that timing either. It should have been released sooner. It should have been released the moment FPD realized that Brown was the suspect.

Captain Johnson, your words during the day on Friday helped to fuel the anger that was still churning just below the surface. St. Louis County Police were told to remain uninvolved and that night the rioting and looting began again. For much too long it went on mostly unchecked. Retired St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch tweeted that your “hug-a-looter” policy had failed.

Boy did it.

And your words contributed to what happened Friday night and on into the wee hours of Saturday. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, you said the following regarding the release of the video: “There was no need to release it,” Johnson said calling the reported theft and the killing entirely different events.

Well Captain, this veteran police officer feels the need to respond. What you said is, in common police vernacular—bullshit. The fact that Brown knew he had just committed a robbery before he was stopped by Officer Wilson speaks to Brown’s mindset. And Captain, the mindset of a person being stopped by a police officer means everything, and you know it.

Let’s consider a few examples:
On February 15, 1978 Pensacola Police Officer David Lee conducted a vehicle check. He didn’t know what the sole occupant of the vehicle had recently done, but the occupant did. Who was he? Serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy attempted to disarm Lee. Lee was able to retain his firearm and eventually took Bundy into custody.

On April 19, 1995 Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hangar stopped a vehicle for minor traffic violations. He didn’t know that 90 minutes earlier the traffic violator, Timothy McVeigh, killed 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building. But McVeigh sure knew it, didn’t he? Fortunately, given his training and experience Hangar was able to take McVeigh into custody for carrying a concealed firearm. It was days later before it was determined that McVeigh was responsible for the bombing.

On May 31, 2003 then-rookie North Carolina police officer, Jeff Postell, arrested a man digging in a trash bin on a grocery store parking lot—an infraction that would rise to about the level of jaywalking. Postell didn’t know that he had just captured Eric Rudolph, the man whom years earlier had killed and injured numerous people with bombs and was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.

So now, let’s consider Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson’s stop of Michael Brown. Apparently Wilson didn’t know that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery. But Brown did! And that Captain, is huge.

Allegedly, Brown pushed Wilson and attempted to take Wilson’s gun. We’re also being told that Officer Wilson has facial injuries suffered during the attempt by Brown to disarm him. Let’s assume for a moment those alleged acts by Brown actually occurred. Would Brown have responded violently to an officer confronting him about jaywalking? Maybe, but probably not.

Is it more likely that he would attack an officer believing that he was about to be taken into custody for a felony strong-arm robbery? Absolutely.

Officer Wilson survived the encounter with Brown as did Lee, Hangar, and Postell. Michael Brown didn’t survive and it’s too soon to say if Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force was justified and legal. You and I both know that not all officers survive such confrontations. Officers die in incidents like this Captain Johnson, including a couple that I remember from your own organization:

On April 15, 1985 Missouri Trooper Jimmie Linegar was shot and killed by a white supremacist he and his partner stopped at a checkpoint; neither Trooper Linegar nor his partner were aware that the man they had stopped had just been indicted by a federal grand jury for involvement in a neo-Nazi group accused of murder. The suspect immediately exited the vehicle and opened fire on him with an automatic weapon.

Just a month before, Missouri Trooper James M. Froemsdorf was shot and killed—with his own gun—after making a traffic stop. When the Trooper made that stop he didn’t know that the driver was wanted on four warrants out of Texas—But again the suspect knew it.

So Captain Johnson, I guess the mindset and recently committed crimes of the suspects that murdered those Missouri Troopers didn’t mean anything. The stops by the Troopers, as you have said, are entirely different events right?

Bullshit.
This is why I think the video is so important.

BurnTHalO 08-20-2014 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172889)
Are you saying the owner did not report the theft?

I do know that they did respond to the store and took a report. They also place a detailed alert for the suspects.

What I do not understand is why would they return for the video? Any LEO knows that the surveillance tape is evidence and they should make every effort to view it and take it into evidence.


Go look at the article posted a couple pages ago.

Quote:

Whatever words were exchanged between the man in the video and the store owner, they were not considered very serious, as the store owner nor the employees did not report a theft at the store. According to the stores attorney, the owners were bewildered when the police approached them demanding the surveillance tapes.

Flycoon 08-20-2014 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 172886)
That is only the half of it. I am so glad I am retired now.

We sent our current Deputy Chief to a Naval school in San Diego for military/law enforcement training. When he came back the Office started their change. First was a mandatory "Challenge Course" that ended several careers due to sever injuries and heart attacks. This was not some easy course that the State mandates, but it was a grueling course that took many 45-50 minutes to run.

Then came the 2 week boot camp with the want to be drill instructors. 50% or more would drop out thinking that it was a joke and would go else where to look for work.

Because of these moves, and many others, HCSO is now down by almost 300 deputies. The streets are very short staffed and those still there complain daily of the non stop work load.

Safe to assume that those who remain buy into the "warrior cop" mentality more than the previous force?

WaiverWire 08-20-2014 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flycoon (Post 172893)
Safe to assume that those who remain buy into the "warrior cop" mentality more than the previous force?

Some do. Many that can take a retirement have or will in the near future.

What has caused the most change is the attitudes. Many are arrogant, respect is out the window.

WaiverWire 08-20-2014 08:19 AM