Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

AENeuman 06-05-2015 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 3031448)

Edit: The stereotypical conservative Republican moral hostility that we oppose so much is towards stuff like homosexuality, gay marriage, divorce, adultery. You guys are throwing in child abuse into that mix. Don't you see how that's different? Don't you see how that's weird and actually offensive to throw child abuse in there? Is child abuse really another one of those weird Republican hang-ups like gay marriage?


I disagree. There is a loud conservative narrative that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. They put both groups under the same pervert umbrella. Thus, when someone from that group commits a perverted child act, I feel a little hope in that their sick narrative of connecting homosexuals to pedophiles will go away.

NobodyHere 06-05-2015 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob (Post 3031581)
Looks like some potentially big stuff could be included in this hack:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politi...ent/index.html

Not that I'm advocating it here, but I wonder at what point a country will consider hacking as an act of war? Will it require some physical destruction caused by the hack (like a power plant being sabotaged) or will the simple theft of classified material do it?


If espionage was a good enough reason to go to war then every country in the world would be declaring war on the US right now.

bob 06-05-2015 02:47 PM

I understand that, just wondering if there is a line somewhere.

JonInMiddleGA 06-05-2015 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3031611)
If espionage was a good enough reason to go to war then every country in the world would be declaring war on the US right now.


Eh, only the ones with a big enough hammer to make it stick.

Schmidty 06-05-2015 03:12 PM

The "Adventure" game from Atari. It'a still magic to me.

By the way, shut up.

NobodyHere 06-05-2015 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schmidty (Post 3031616)
The "Adventure" game from Atari. It'a still magic to me.

By the way, shut up.


Am I missing something here or was this post suppose to go in the Random Thoughts thread.

flere-imsaho 06-06-2015 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3031453)
Domestic policy is still important but unless the economy takes a drastic downturn again, I am putting more weight on a President that can do a "better" job on Foreign policy this time around.

Hillary obviously has a lot of experience but I don't remember a lot of production (and no, I don't think she gets the blame for Benghazi).

FWIW, polls say

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch


I love how the survey was about effectiveness, but the article title is about "worst". Those are two very different things, or at least they can be. Also, I could have sworn we had a similar discussion about a similar survey a few years ago.

flere-imsaho 06-06-2015 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AENeuman (Post 3031586)
I disagree. There is a loud conservative narrative that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. They put both groups under the same pervert umbrella. Thus, when someone from that group commits a perverted child act, I feel a little hope in that their sick narrative of connecting homosexuals to pedophiles will go away.


This.

Look, there's a 20-year-old GOP narrative that liberals are evil, filthy creatures with loose morals who engage in all sorts of acts that right-thinking people abhor.

When someone who spouts that kind of rhetoric gets caught engaging in acts that right-thinking people abhor it is absolutely more hypocritical than if someone who spouts no rhetoric engages in such an act. Both acts, in and of themselves, are abhorrent. The hypocrisy is a separate thing. Does it make the act, itself, more abhorrent? No.

molson 06-06-2015 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 3031700)
When someone who spouts that kind of rhetoric gets caught engaging in acts that right-thinking people abhor it is absolutely more hypocritical than if someone who spouts no rhetoric engages in such an act.


Democrats also oppose and abhor child abuse. Democrats are just as against child abuse as Republicans are. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Edward64 06-09-2015 11:26 PM

Didn't quite realize (or remember) that we have 3,000 trainers/advisers in Iraq. Adding another 400 ... seems to be a lot of trainers.

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:

WASHINGTON — In a major shift of focus in the battle against the Islamic State, the Obama administration is planning to establish a new military base in Anbar Province and send 400 American military trainers to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi.

Although a final decision by the White House has yet to be announced, the plan follows months of behind-the-scenes debate about how prominently plans to retake another Iraqi city, Mosul, which fell to the Islamic State last year, should figure in the early phase of the military campaign against the group.

The fall of Ramadi last month effectively settled the administration debate, at least for the time being. American officials said Ramadi is now expected to become the focus of a lengthy campaign to regain Mosul at a later stage, possibly not until 2016.
:
The United States now has about 3,000 troops, including trainers and advisers, in Iraq. But the steps envisioned by the White House are likely to be called half-measures by critics because they do not call for an expansion of the role of American troops, such as the use of spotters to call in airstrikes.
:
The United States is not the only country that is expanding its effort.

Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, said this week that his country would send up to 125 additional troops to train Iraqi forces, including in how to clear improvised bombs.

Italy is also expected to play an important role in training the Iraqi police.


Edward64 06-12-2015 02:55 PM

Not a good day for Obama and busy weekend for his strategists.

Obama trade push runs aground as House Democrats derail key bill | Fox News
Quote:

In a dramatic defeat for the White House, President Obama's trade agenda ran aground in the House on Friday as Democrats banded together in opposition despite a personal plea from the president.

In a 302-126 vote, the House killed a worker aid bill that was tied to the president's main agenda item -- legislation that would give Obama "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade deals. Without it, the trade push withers for now. The vote marked a stunning blow for the president at the hands of his own party, with Nancy Pelosi and labor unions helping drive the stake into the legislation in the end.

Minutes before the vote, Pelosi took to the floor to appeal for a "better deal" for American workers.

Afterward, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called the vote a "procedural snafu," downplaying the drama and voicing hope that a bipartisan majority could eventually be reached. "These kinds of entanglements are endemic to the House of Representatives," Earnest said.

But the margin of defeat Friday was already raising questions about how Obama might be able to persuade more Democrats.

The key vote Friday was on the so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, a program that retrains workers displaced by trade. The bill was originally put on the table as a sweetener to help get Democrats on board and ultimately move the "fast-track" bill. But Democrats are so opposed to that legislation, all but 40 opposed the sweetener.

The biggest defection for Obama came when Pelosi joined the rebellion in opposing TAA. Though she supports the worker aid, she said voting against it was the only way to "slow down the fast track."

She said the main trade bill would be "stuck in the station" without TAA.

JPhillips 06-12-2015 04:50 PM

The media is constantly clamoring for politicians to be less bound by party ID, but when politicians do something that is evidence of not being bound by party ID, the media goes crazy.

Dutch 06-12-2015 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3033027)
The media is constantly clamoring for politicians to be less bound by party ID, but when politicians do something that is evidence of not being bound by party ID, the media goes crazy.


The media is great at generating noise...buzz...when there isn't any.

Edward64 06-15-2015 07:05 PM

Jeb made it official today.

Jeb Bush enters 2016 White House race, ending the long wait | Fox News
Quote:

Jeb Bush jumped off the sidelines and into the Republican presidential race on Monday, kicking his campaign-in-waiting into gear after spending months raising money and lining up support.

The former Florida governor formally announced his 2016 bid at a rally in Miami, vowing to use his executive experience to make Washington work again.

"I'm a candidate for president of the United States of America," Bush said. "We will take command of our future once again in this country."

In formally announcing his bid, Bush seeks to recapture the momentum he initially generated, only to watch several other GOP candidates seize the spotlight while he made preparations.

No longer the unquestioned front-runner, Bush has to contend with 10 other candidates who already have declared and several more expected to enter in the coming weeks. Lately, he's been bunched at the top of national Republican polls with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has not yet declared, and home-state rival Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has. Yet Bush remains an undeniable force in the race and still leads the field by a slim margin, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polling.

Thomkal 06-15-2015 07:15 PM

Hey Jeb! We are not going to forget your last name just because you took it off your campaign logo. :)

JPhillips 06-16-2015 10:58 AM

PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?

NobodyHere 06-16-2015 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3033845)
PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?


Don't they have to go through the mandatory gay marriage process first?

ISiddiqui 06-16-2015 11:30 AM

And the toupeed one enters the race officially.. what a clown car LOL!

NobodyHere 06-16-2015 12:54 PM

Trans fat is not safe and must be removed from food: US

NobodyHere 06-16-2015 07:59 PM

The democratic primary might actually be interesting

2 shocking polls show a Democratic challenger picking up steam against Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton only has a mere 10 point lead against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. Granted that's Bernie's backyard but if he has a couple of impressive debate performances he might actually win the thing.

Edward64 06-16-2015 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3033845)
PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?


Now that the public know about the master plan with all the publicity, its been updated and likely deferred for another time.

nol 06-16-2015 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3034066)
Now that the public know about the master plan with all the publicity, its been updated and likely deferred for another time.


62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation and Full-Scale Government Takeover

JPhillips 06-16-2015 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3034060)
The democratic primary might actually be interesting

2 shocking polls show a Democratic challenger picking up steam against Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton only has a mere 10 point lead against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. Granted that's Bernie's backyard but if he has a couple of impressive debate performances he might actually win the thing.


The media is soooo desperate to create a story for the Dem nomination. In three polls Clinton is up +40, +40, and +10. I think she's fine.

NobodyHere 06-17-2015 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3033856)
And the toupeed one enters the race officially.. what a clown car LOL!



Edward64 06-18-2015 06:47 AM

Ready to get this over with. Wish the Supremes would make a decision already. If it goes for Obama, great. If against, it'll be great political drama until election day.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politi...ate/index.html
Quote:

Opponents are asking the Supreme Court to determine a critical question: does the text of the law authorize tax subsidies for 6.4 million Americans who have already received help to afford health coverage?

As the justices work toward a self-imposed June deadline, they will seek to answer that question, knowing that if they side with the challengers the ruling could severely destabilize the structure of the entire law.
:
:
Challengers say those four words - "established by the State" - in a section of the law make clear that subsidies are only available to those living in the 16 states that set up their own exchanges.

Michael Carvin, the lead lawyer representing the Virginia plaintiffs, argued in Court that the IRS—an agency charged with implementing the ACA—was wrong to interpret it as offering subsidies to more than 5 million people living in states that have federally run exchanges. He said that Congress limited the subsidies in order to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges, but when only a few states acted the IRS tried to "fix" the law.
:
:
A ruling against the government wouldn't nullify the law, but absent a fix by Congress or the States, it would destabilize it. If millions of American were to lose the tax subsidies and as a result not buy insurance, it would cause premiums to skyrocket in the individual market because there would be less healthy people in the pool.
:
:
Some 6.4 million enrollees in the affected states could lose their subsidies as soon as Aug. 1, depending on how the court rules. The subsidies are what make Obamacare plans affordable for most enrollees. Some 87% of those participating receive this government assistance, which comes to an average of $272 a month.

JPhillips 06-18-2015 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3034520)
Ready to get this over with. Wish the Supremes would make a decision already. If it goes for Obama, great. If against, it'll be great political drama until election day.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politi...ate/index.html


And millions will lose their healthcare and the whole insurance industry will be at risk.

panerd 06-18-2015 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3034537)
And millions will lose their healthcare and the whole insurance industry will be at risk.


I love it. When these programs are proposed it's always why worry about this it doesn't even effect you what about the people it effects! But when somebody wants to take them away a major industry is always going to collapse.

JPhillips 06-18-2015 09:15 AM

Because of how this would play out. Take the subsidies away without any alternative and things will fall apart. It doesn't have to end this way, but the GOP won't pass the one sentence bill that would keep this from happening.

panerd 06-18-2015 09:37 AM

Just so we are clear though when fiscal conservatives (not all the GOP obviously) oppose these grand plans because they realize it creates another monster government program they are labeled as racist, hating the poor, and tin foil conspiracists. But then when they try to remove the programs they can't for exactly the reasons they predicted.

JPhillips 06-18-2015 09:43 AM

Well your choice of words is overly grand, but I'll grant you that for me wanting to keep millions from having adequate health insurance and taking away adequate health insurance from millions are both objectionable.

panerd 06-18-2015 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3034567)
Well your choice of words is overly grand, but I'll grant you that for me wanting to keep millions from having adequate health insurance and taking away adequate health insurance from millions are both objectionable.


Nice attempt at flipping the question. So again... when myself or another poster (or a legit conservative politician) says this will create another huge program that we will never be able to cut down or remove the response is some sort of allusion to the fact that we are just window dressing racism and are overselling the scale of the program. Now just a few years later that entire insurance industry will collapse if changes are made to the health care system? Seems like we can't ever cut back on any of these programs without some widespread calamity.

JPhillips 06-18-2015 11:29 AM

Since never called you out as racist, I don't need to address that strawman.

And again, as I said above, it isn't about any change, it's about this specific change. If you can change healthcare and make it better I'm willing to listen. If your goal is to make sure millions lose coverage with no plan on replacement, yeah, I object to that.

ISiddiqui 06-18-2015 11:36 AM

I'm not sure how its that difficult to follow that if the court removes a big piece of a bill, the rest of the bill may not function as well as it is supposed to (you know, due to all parts of a bill supposed to work together and stuff)

panerd 06-18-2015 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3034620)
Since never called you out as racist, I don't need to address that strawman.

And again, as I said above, it isn't about any change, it's about this specific change. If you can change healthcare and make it better I'm willing to listen. If your goal is to make sure millions lose coverage with no plan on replacement, yeah, I object to that.


My apologies. Your use of the term "tea bagger" for anything related to fiscal responsibility a few years ago was just part of the discussion and had no other implications whatsoever.

ISiddiqui 06-18-2015 12:51 PM

Um... ok. I mean you may not be a racist, but you are definitely an idiot.

spleen1015 06-18-2015 12:52 PM

ROFL.

panerd 06-18-2015 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3034648)
Um... ok. I mean you may not be a racist, but you are definitely an idiot.


What enlightened discourse! Thanks for taking part in a back and forth between myself and JPhillips. You have really changed my mind to your more "open minded" way of thinking. (The funny part is a lot of liberals like you think they are so much better than everyone else and throw out the insults left and right)

Edward64 06-18-2015 01:37 PM

Alright, trying to bring this back to a less personal discussion ...

I guess this is better than the alternative, its a stop gap for the immediate situation ... and kicking the can down the road.

Senate GOP floats 2-year Obamacare fix - Jennifer Haberkorn and Burgess Everett - POLITICO
Quote:

Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan to extend Obamacare subsidies for up to two years if the Supreme Court strikes them this month.

The court is due to rule within days on whether the president’s health care law allows people using HealthCare.gov to get insurance subsidies. If the court rules against the White House and strikes the subsidies, Republicans say they want to be ready to protect the more than 6 million people who could lose their subsidies.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, Republicans crafted the outline of a plan that would extend the subsidies for a period of time — potentially through 2017 — and couple it with a delayed repeal of big-ticket pieces of Obamacare, such as the individual and employer mandates.

Democrats are unlikely to embrace any plan that derails the health law and President Barack Obama has said he would veto any bill that hurts his signature domestic policy achievement.

Republicans plan to frame the extension as a way to help people who would lose subsidies because of the law’s flawed construction, not as an extension of Obamacare. Sources said they may even call it a “grandfathering” of the existing subsidies.


larrymcg421 06-18-2015 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 3034672)
What enlightened discourse! Thanks for taking part in a back and forth between myself and JPhillips. You have really changed my mind to your more "open minded" way of thinking. (The funny part is a lot of liberals like you think they are so much better than everyone else and throw out the insults left and right)


What discourse? I see JPhillips trying to engage in discourse and you trying to claim he called you a racist. In his most recent post, he denied calling you a racist and tried to continue a substantive discussion about the health care law. Your response ignored the substantive parts of the discussion (either because you don't want to discuss it or are simply unable to) and reverted to a bizarre accusation from years ago about how using the term teabaggers = calling you racist.

I have to admit that calling ISiddiqui a liberal was pretty funny, though. Good one.

JPhillips 06-18-2015 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3034678)
Alright, trying to bring this back to a less personal discussion ...

I guess this is better than the alternative, its a stop gap for the immediate situation ... and kicking the can down the road.

Senate GOP floats 2-year Obamacare fix - Jennifer Haberkorn and Burgess Everett - POLITICO


This is just politics. There's no way Obama will sign a bill killing the individual mandate and if he did the insurance industry would collapse as everyone would cancel insurance until they needed it. Completely repealing the ACA is a much better option.

molson 06-19-2015 10:50 AM

My state has finally started getting aggressive on going after this kind of fraud after ignoring it forever, it's really nice to see the federal government get a takedown like this. And this just scratches the surface how much fraud there are in these systems. There's always been really easy money available for health care providers if they want it.

FBI — Health Care Fraud Takedown

JPhillips 06-22-2015 04:44 PM

The Governor of Maryland announced today that he has "very advanced" and "very aggressive" non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Fuck cancer.

cartman 06-25-2015 09:10 AM

King v. Burwell is upheld, 6-3. The ACA subsidies are ruled legal.

ISiddiqui 06-25-2015 09:29 AM

The decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf

I think this is the operative part from the Chief:

Quote:

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement
could well push a State’s individual insurance market into
a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate
in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and
community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation,
but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage
requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that
Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.
Pp. 15–19.

Which... yeah, of course. But conservatives thought they got a gotcha - as if they assumed every conservative on the court was more of a textualist (hint, Roberts and Kennedy definitely are not)

Kodos 06-25-2015 09:51 AM

Excellent.

SirFozzie 06-25-2015 10:09 AM

Or shorter version, from the decision:

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."

JPhillips 06-25-2015 10:14 AM

I was reading someone last week that argued Kennedy and maybe Roberts would use the same logic as they did with Medicaid expansion, you can't force states to make a decision that could cause great harm. Were there any specific references to that in the decision? It certainly seems like that's what the decision boils down to, Congress can't say establish an exchange or we'll kill the insurance market in your state by withholding subsidies.

ISiddiqui 06-25-2015 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3036665)
I was reading someone last week that argued Kennedy and maybe Roberts would use the same logic as they did with Medicaid expansion, you can't force states to make a decision that could cause great harm. Were there any specific references to that in the decision? It certainly seems like that's what the decision boils down to, Congress can't say establish an exchange or we'll kill the insurance market in your state by withholding subsidies.


Nope. Nothing about federalism at all. Just straight you have to read the statute in a way that it would make sense, and Congress wouldn't intend to have a rule where the federal subsidies don't go to a non-state run exchange (added to that the federal subsidies never seem to be an incentive to create a state run exchange).

In a way, as Reason's blog indicated, it's a very judicial restraint type of decision - give a great degree of deference to Congress in their drafting of the law (even though Roberts constantly says it was a very poorly drafted law).

Butter 06-25-2015 01:51 PM

Found it interesting that in Obama's interview on the WTF podcast, he talked about this very subject, and even addressed one of the arguments from above, that while maybe he and many of his supporters would ultimately like a single-payer system and were disappointed when it didn't work out, switching to that in one fell swoop would have a result of putting millions that are employed in the health insurance industry out of work and definitely have a very negative impact to the economy short-term.

Referred to making course changes of 2 degrees instead of 50 degrees all at once.

JPhillips 06-25-2015 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69 (Post 3036725)
Found it interesting that in Obama's interview on the WTF podcast, he talked about this very subject, and even addressed one of the arguments from above, that while maybe he and many of his supporters would ultimately like a single-payer system and were disappointed when it didn't work out, switching to that in one fell swoop would have a result of putting millions that are employed in the health insurance industry out of work and definitely have a very negative impact to the economy short-term.

Referred to making course changes of 2 degrees instead of 50 degrees all at once.


That's been my problem with single payer. I think it's a better system, but we've got such a deeply entrenched private system that we can't just walk away from it in one swoop.

molson 06-25-2015 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3036714)

In a way, as Reason's blog indicated, it's a very judicial restraint type of decision


In this case, maybe, but the reasoning can really be used to either to accomplish either restraint or activism depending on what the end result is. Bottom line, the United State Supreme Court has shown a new willingness to re-write poorly drafted legislation where the intent of the legislature is clear. I think that is a departure from prior precedent. Generally, appellate courts won't even consider the intent of the legislature unless the language of the statute is ambiguous, or would lead to an absurd result (which is not the same as a result that the legislature did not intend.)

Is my state, the appellate courts go even further on the judicial restraint side. The language of the statute controls, period, EVEN IF the result would be absurd or something the legislature clearly didn't intend. As someone who has argued in front of my state's appellate courts 100+ times there is something clean and workable and desirable about that. The separation of powers is truly respected. Because you get to focus on the language first, not history or politics or whatever. Once you have to argue history or politics, biases are going to come in. Because while sometimes legislative intent is objectively clear, much more often it's just believed to be clear by the appellate court that wants a certain outcome. And just having that ability to try to interpret what the legislature meant gives the judiciary the power to make law in closer cases. I wish it wasn't too much to ask for federal or state legislatures to draft statutes that say what they mean. But since it apparently is, I'm not 100% gung-ho in favor of my state's approach either. Though, it has been much easier for my state legislature to amend statutes than it ever would be for the federal legislature.

ISiddiqui 06-25-2015 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 3036778)
In this case, maybe, but the reasoning can really be used to either to accomplish either restraint or activism depending on what the end result is. Bottom line, the United State Supreme Court has shown a new willingness to re-write poorly drafted legislation where the intent of the legislature is clear. I think that is a departure from prior precedent. Generally, appellate courts won't even consider the intent of the legislature unless the language of the statute is ambiguous, or would lead to an absurd result (which is not the same as a result that the legislature did not intend.)


Not really. Legislative intent as a primary interpretative gloss has always been a major school of legal jurisprudence. Textualism was really just some sort of minor school of SCOTUS Jurisprudence until Scalia gave it greater prominence (just look at Substantive Due Process cases - from Lochner to the Warren Court and beyond).

FWIW, the ruling indicates that the area up for discussion is ambiguous and Roberts goes to lengths to show how, by mostly looking at the statute as a whole and seeing how the small part at issue fits into that.

SirFozzie 06-25-2015 09:13 PM

GOP lawmakers: Time to move on from Obamacare repeal - Manu Raju and Burgess Everett - POLITICO

It's interesting to see who has taken the cluebat of sanity upside the head and who is still frothing at the mouth. "The first 50 times we tried to defund the law didn't work.. but this time it will. Why? (whispers) because it's all we have left. My tea party constituents don't call any more and I'm lonely.. I need positive attention and I can only get it in a quixotic attempt to do the impossible" (/whispers)

JPhillips 06-26-2015 04:26 PM

Obama's eulogy and message on grace was very moving for me.

Grover 06-26-2015 05:54 PM

Paul LePage Jokes About Shooting Newspaper Cartoonist

The most embarrassing governor in this country.

Subby 06-26-2015 11:52 PM

Great moment yesterday.


Edward64 06-27-2015 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby (Post 3037318)
Great moment yesterday.


What do you guys think - planned or not?

I think he had planned to maybe do it if it felt right but did not make the call until right then and there.

Great imaging.

Galaril 06-27-2015 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3037071)
Finally, Finally I can proudly call myself a gay American. Yes I was one of the two people (i think) marked that box we had in that poll here a while back. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor, I feel it was time to come out of the shadows. This issue has caused some strife in my own family, with the person I should be closest to-my twin brother. He is very much a conservative Christian Republican...while I'm not any of those. It's been hard for both of us to put our political/social beliefs behind us at times and remember we are our brothers first. I don't expect this decision to do much to change things between us, but it has and will help many of my gay brethren who have fought for this for so long, and for that I am happy for them.

NOTE: If today's results and my "coming out here" disgusts and angers you, then please block me-I don't want to hear your words anymore than you want to hear mine anymore I'm guessing.


Congrats to you and all Americans!

corbes 06-27-2015 06:29 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000....nav=top-news]

Obama's full eulogy for Clementa Pinckney was really moving, capped of course by the singing of Amazing Grace, which Subby linked above. My wife and I watched this together last night; it was a perfect way to end to a beautiful day.

digamma 06-27-2015 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby (Post 3037318)
Great moment yesterday.



I overuse the word amazing, but this truly was amazing--grace. God bless.

BillJasper 06-28-2015 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 (Post 3037586)
Per some above comments, I think your point is that some of the "bad stuff" may have happened in the OT as a historical record but its not approved by God.

The OT is problematic for me. I always had an issue with the Book of Job and cannot reconcile my belief in a God that encouraged and allowed those things to happen to Job.


Every time I see "OT", I think of the Star Wars original trilogy and have to stop. :lol:

bob 06-28-2015 06:41 PM

OT is overtime for me.... takes me a second to re-adjust my train of thought.

claphamsa 06-28-2015 10:27 PM

“The problem for the Republican Party is that you have a recalcitrant minority trying to hold off a tolerant majority,” says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute. “The increased salience of social issues is a challenge for Republicans. Candidates like Bush — who have to think about running in a general election — know there’s a shift going on and they have to react. … That’s why most of the [top-tier] candidates will try to avoid these issues. But the ones who aren’t at that level, they are going to keep bringing them back.”

Read more: The Grand Old Party’s future shock - Glenn Thrush and Kyle Cheney - POLITICO

this... (quote from politico)

digamma 06-29-2015 09:35 AM

Gay marriage ruling posts moved to separate thread. Please continue the discussion there.

Thomkal 06-29-2015 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma (Post 3037715)
Gay marriage ruling posts moved to separate thread. Please continue the discussion there.


Thanks dig!

ISiddiqui 06-29-2015 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillJasper (Post 3037588)
Every time I see "OT", I think of the Star Wars original trilogy and have to stop. :lol:


LOL. OT is used for so many things. My go-to was "On Topic" forum, when posting on a Civilization message board (I still do, but no one seemingly posts on the On Topic boards anymore).

Now, I'm more included to use it for Old Testament, but still the On Topic pops into mind. (FWIW, the Book of Job is my favorite book of Scripture).

JPhillips 06-29-2015 01:02 PM

I know this isn't exactly the same thing, but the conservative justices arguing that we have to look at the whole law and see what was intended is funny given their freak out over the subsidies decision.

Quote:

EPA points out that other parts of the Clean Air Act expressly mention cost, while [the power plant clause] does not. But this observation shows only that [the power plant clause's] broad reference to appropriateness encompasses multiple relevant factors (which include but are not limited to cost); other provisions’ specific references to cost encompass just cost. It is unreasonable to infer that, by expressly making cost relevant to other decisions, the Act implicitly makes cost irrelevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants....Other parts of the Clean Air Act also expressly mention environmental effects, while [the power plant clause] does not. Yet that did not stop EPA from deeming environmental effects relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants.

Tekneek 06-29-2015 01:32 PM

I fully expect outrage over this JUDICIAL TYRANNY!

Of course this decision contradicts dissenting views from other decisions. It is like they write these things without considering the consistency from their other decisions and maybe nobody will ever read them well enough to notice.

PilotMan 06-29-2015 04:38 PM

Some really interesting and important rulings out today.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politi...ection-ruling/

Supreme Court Places A Stay On Abortion Law In Texas : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Blocks Obama Administration Plan On Power Plant Emissions : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Backs Arizona's Redistricting Commission Targeting Gridlock : The Two-Way : NPR

Supreme Court Rejects Arizona Kansas Voter Registration Appeal | The Daily Caller

Thomkal 06-30-2015 03:54 PM

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma:

10 Commandments statue must be removed from state Capitol, Oklahoma Supreme Court rules | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com

Find it kind of hard to believe that Oklahoma, perhaps the most conservative evangelical state there is, ruled this way. Can't believe it'll happen though.

Edward64 07-01-2015 01:55 PM

Obama did a good job on Cuba. Its time to try something different and let bygones by bygones. Cuba hasn't been a threat for a while now.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politi...ies/index.html
Quote:

But Congress, controlled by Republicans, has shown little sign that it intends to end the embargo. Several GOP candidates for President expressed their opposition to the shift in policy.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was quick to criticize Obama's move to reopen embassies.

"It's unacceptable and a slap in the face of a close ally that the United States will have an embassy in Havana before one in Jerusalem," tweeted Cruz, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

In a statement, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio vowed to oppose the confirmation of an ambassador to Cuba until the Castro regime makes several concessions, including "securing greater political freedoms for the Cuban people."

And former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the Cuban government had made no changes that suggest re-engagement would benefit Cuban citizens.

"The Cuban people today are not any freer politically or economically, and President Obama has failed to account for what the Castro regime has done in the last several years that warrants such an enormous shift in a longstanding U.S. policy," he said.
:
:
U.S. engagement with their country, and said it was time to look toward the future.

"You can't hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past," Obama said, quoting a Cuban resident.

The President agreed, pointing out that the Eisenhower administration had severed ties with Cuba in the same year that Obama had been born.

"You don't have to be imprisoned by the past," he said. "If something isn't working, we can and will change."

But after his announcement, protesters in Miami spoke out against the move, indicating at least some pockets of the Cuban community are not supportive of his policy.


Edward64 07-01-2015 02:23 PM

I think Jimmy is speaks the truth and possibly too nice about it. I also agree you can't blame Obama (directly) for everything but it did happen on his watch.

(The last 2 paragraphs seem contradictory so not sure what to think.)

Jimmy Carter Calls Obama's Foreign Policy Success 'Minimal'
Quote:

Former President Jimmy Carter said recently that he finds President Barack Obama's success on the world stage to be "minimal."

“I think he’s done some good things domestically like the health program and so forth, but on the world stage, just to be as objective about it as I can, I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over,” he said in a conversation with Aspen Institute CEO Walter Isaacson last week.

“If you look at Russia, if you look at England, if you look at China, if you look at Egypt and so forth -- I’m not saying it’s his fault -- but we have not improved our relationship with individual countries and I would say that the United States influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago,” he added.

The 39th president repeatedly said that he did not blame Obama for the current state of world affairs. Instead, Carter attributed the decline to an historical trend of the U.S. relinquishing "its unquestioned domination of world politics and cultural influence."

Carter did, however, praise John Kerry for his "outstanding” work as secretary of state.

"I can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over," he added.


Edward64 07-03-2015 07:46 AM

Interesting read on China and what's been happening in SE Asia. Its a "game" and don't think that Obama's presidency (for whatever reason e.g. distractions from the war, congress, domestic issues etc.) has been playing well, and sometimes wonder, if he really wants to play beyond the quote below of "simply countermeasures".

The vacuum is being filled by China. I think China policy is going to be one of my hot buttons for this election cycle.

With an absent United States, China marches on - The Washington Post
Quote:

In January 2007, not long after George W. Bush announced his surge of troops into Iraq, I happened to be having lunch with a Chinese friend who is a well-connected member of the Communist Party. I asked him how the news was being received in Beijing. He replied in words to the effect of: “We would hope that you would send the entire American Army into Iraq and stay for another 10 years. Meanwhile, we will keep building up our economy.” I thought of that story this week while traveling in Southeast Asia. As the Islamic State, Iran and Greece occupy the attention of the Western world, China marches forward, except now it is not just building its economy but also a new geopolitics in Asia.

Recently released satellite photos show that China has almost completed an airstrip on one of the many artificial islands it has created in the Spratly archipelago over the past year and a half. Its actions in the area are intended to consolidate its claims to 90 percent of the South China Sea, through which $5 trillion in trade flows every year. (These claims are disputed by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.)

President Xi Jinping has marked a break with his predecessors in openly embracing an activist foreign policy, speaking about the “Asia-Pacific dream” and announcing ventures such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the “Maritime Silk Road.” Behind this rhetoric is an avalanche of cash. Scholar David Shambaugh points out that if you add up China’s promised investments in all of these regional ventures, the total is $1.41 trillion. The Marshall Plan, by comparison, cost $103 billion in today’s dollars.

A senior Southeast Asian diplomat explained to me that China is using money and pressure to “suborn” countries in the region. He pointed out that aid is often carefully targeted, so that money to Malaysia, for example, is directed specifically to the state of Pahang, the political base of the prime minister. “In Myanmar and Thailand, [the Chinese] make sure the generals get their share of the contracts,” he said. In smaller countries such as Cambodia and Laos, Chinese money dominates the economy.
:
And how do diplomats in Southeast Asia see the United States? As distracted and largely absent. The ones I spoke with credit the Obama administration with the right basic strategy in its “pivot” to Asia, but they fault it for little follow-up and poor implementation. They have been heartened by the moves forward in Congress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement but worry that it has taken too long in the face of relentless Chinese advances.
:
“What we want from Washington is not simply countermeasures, but sophisticated, nuanced and persistent diplomacy,” says Kishore Mahbubani, former foreign secretary of Singapore. The United States was “able to do this during the Cold War, when you were in competition with the Soviet Union. You had to listen to locals, woo countries and above all be deeply, continuously engaged. I don’t see that anymore.”

Edward64 07-04-2015 10:51 AM

Insurers are asking for significant increases in rates which could mess up the affordable in Obamacare. Its yet to see how it plays out, the last 2 paragraphs below talks about the 80% threshold and how companies are exceeding it.

My gut tells me 30+% increases are ridiculous but if audits truly show they are paying out much more than the 80%, then I agree that its unsustainable and rates will need to be increased, some services need to be decreased, or other competitors will take up the slack.

Log In - The New York Times
Quote:

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies around the country are seeking rate increases of 20 percent to 40 percent or more, saying their new customers under the Affordable Care Act turned out to be sicker than expected. Federal officials say they are determined to see that the requests are scaled back.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans — market leaders in many states — are seeking rate increases that average 23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota, according to documents posted online by the federal government and state insurance commissioners and interviews with insurance executives.
:
President Obama, on a trip to Tennessee this week, said that consumers should put pressure on state insurance regulators to scrutinize the proposed rate increases. If commissioners do their job and actively review rates, he said, “my expectation is that they’ll come in significantly lower than what’s being requested.”

The rate requests, from some of the more popular health plans, suggest that insurance markets are still adjusting to shock waves set off by the Affordable Care Act.

It is far from certain how many of the rate increases will hold up on review, or how much they might change. But already the proposals, buttressed with reams of actuarial data, are fueling fierce debate about the effectiveness of the health law.
:
The rate requests are the first to reflect a full year of experience with the new insurance exchanges and federal standards that require insurers to accept all applicants, without charging higher prices because of a person’s illness or disability. The 2010 health law established the rate review process, requiring insurance companies to disclose and justify large proposed increases. Under federal rules, increases of 10 percent or more are subject to review.

Federal officials have often highlighted a provision of the Affordable Care Act that caps insurers’ profits and requires them to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care and related activities. “Because of the Affordable Care Act,” Mr. Obama told supporters in 2013, “insurance companies have to spend at least 80 percent of every dollar that you pay in premiums on your health care — not on overhead, not on profits, but on you.”

In financial statements filed with the government in the last two months, some insurers said that their claims payments totaled not just 80 percent, but more than 100 percent of premiums. And that, they said, is unsustainable.


Tekneek 07-04-2015 11:58 AM

Hard for me to believe that many plans are exceeding that, especially since every year we have received notices that our provider is not spending enough and we get a rebate. Perhaps ours is the exception to the rule.

Warhammer 07-04-2015 12:05 PM

This is what hacks me off about this. How in the world are we supposed to put pressure on a state regulator to keep rates down?

My health insurance as a family is much worse than 2-3 years ago, and now rates are going to be an issue? The way this law went down hacks me off. With businesses, there was a department that sought the best bang for their buck, if rates went up, they would seek out a better plan. With government there is no real incentive to reduce cost. With insurers unable to charge more than others through the government plan, insurers have to move those increased fees elsewhere.

cartman 07-07-2015 10:45 AM

There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.

PilotMan 07-07-2015 11:50 AM

I had a bunch of facebook posts on mine that clearly showed Texas was getting ready to secede.

NobodyHere 07-07-2015 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 3039784)
There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.


On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.

cartman 07-07-2015 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3039813)
On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.


Yeah, most people say it was nowhere near as big as they were expecting. Also they are disappointed to find out there really isn't a basement. :D

bob 07-07-2015 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 3039784)
There are some people here in Texas losing their collective shit over the Alamo being designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. I'm pretty sure a Venn diagram of the people upset over this and people convinced that Jade Helm is a government plot to enslave them would be a single circle.


Why in the hell would you be mad that it was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site? That just means that it is a location of special cultural or physical significance. And gives them access to funds (if wanted) to maintain the site.

JPhillips 07-07-2015 01:12 PM

You can't spell UNESCO without UN One World Government.

Edward64 07-14-2015 11:51 PM

Who knows if this is really a good deal but its a good sign that it was a collaborative effort with allies plus Russia & China. A nice win (for now) for Obama.

I'm sure Iran will cheat some and there will some wiggle room due to different interpretations of the agreement. Obama says we'll hold them to it but who knows what will happen with Russia & China.

In the end, its something instead of continuing on the current course and only time will tell.

Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program - The Washington Post
Quote:

In the end, the basic outline of the agreement hewed closely to, and in some areas expanded, a political framework reached in early April between Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — along with the European Union.

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2015 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3039813)
On a side note I think the Alamo is very underwhelming as a tourist site.


Really?

To my considerable surprise, it was probably the second most emotional place I've ever visited (Ground Zero being the top).

I had very little in the way of expectations on that visit, found it to be incredibly moving.

NobodyHere 07-15-2015 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 3041665)
Really?

To my considerable surprise, it was probably the second most emotional place I've ever visited (Ground Zero being the top).

I had very little in the way of expectations on that visit, found it to be incredibly moving.


What did you find moving about it?

I found a cheap tourist attraction in the middle of San Antonio that gave really no sense of history. I visited the place after Air Force boot camp.

In contrast my parents wanted to visit some local catholic mission and it provided a much deeper sense of history.

cartman 07-15-2015 12:42 AM

Across the street from the Alamo is the Menger. The bar in the lobby of the hotel also holds a lot of history. Teddy Roosevelt recruited his Rough Riders while holding court there. The first public display of barbed wire occurred right outside the doors of the hotel, and orders were placed in the bar area.

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2015 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobodyHere (Post 3041667)
What did you find moving about it?

I found a cheap tourist attraction in the middle of San Antonio that gave really no sense of history. I visited the place after Air Force boot camp.

In contrast my parents wanted to visit some local catholic mission and it provided a much deeper sense of history.



Not being particularly interested in the site prior to the visit, I think I was taken aback by the utterly unimpressive nature of it. Just how small it was really.

Standing in the rooms, walking around, really felt a sense of the desperation along with the claustrophobic nature of the scene. Some three dozen or so Tennesseans, nearly a half dozen Georgians, dying a very long way from home. Somewhere around reading the list of names, just a tremendous sense of grief overtook me.

An inadequate explanation I guess, I've never really been able to quite put my finger on it really.

Edward64 07-15-2015 07:13 AM

First poll out. I guess I'm in the 35%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...04740a3de47ca?
Quote:

A Monmouth University poll conducted in the days leading up to the Iran nuclear agreement announced Tuesday found that a majority of Americans don't believe Iran will abide by the terms of a deal.

Asked how much they trusted Iran to abide by the terms of a potential deal limiting its nuclear program, 55 percent of respondents answered "not at all," while 35 percent said they trusted Iran "a little." Only 5 percent had "a lot" of trust that the country would stick to the terms of an agreement.

A plurality of Americans, however, stated support for the ongoing negotiations: Forty-nine percent said they thought the talks were a good idea, while 36 percent thought they were a bad idea.

Sixty-one percent of respondents who identified as Democrats said they favored negotiations for a deal, compared to 38 percent of those who identified as Republicans.


EagleFan 07-15-2015 07:31 AM

Because Iran has done so much to earn trust...

ISiddiqui 07-15-2015 09:15 AM

Have we? I mean we started a war against the neighbor of Iran just because we felt like it.

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2015 10:24 AM

The biggest question I have about that poll is who the hell the 38% of (presumably self-identifying) Republicans who thought this was a good idea were.

I think somebody fudged their affiliation.

Chief Rum 07-15-2015 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3041698)
Have we? I mean we started a war against the neighbor of Iran just because we felt like it.


Straw man. That question was about Iran's trustworthiness.

Our lack of trustworthiness is a whole separate matter.

Chief Rum 07-15-2015 10:30 AM

Should I be upset about this Katie Shiendle thing? Logically, it appears I should be, but the only channel I see really covering it is Fox News and I inherently don't trust them.

ISiddiqui 07-15-2015 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 3041731)
Straw man. That question was about Iran's trustworthiness.

Our lack of trustworthiness is a whole separate matter.


Not really. The issue of trust goes both ways. Both sides are buying into the notion that the other side can finally be trusted this time. The faith that is being put into the process by Iran is actually a decent sign.

I'm not saying its akin to it, but similarly to Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, the other side being willing to trust you, allows one to trust them more fully.

Chief Rum 07-15-2015 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3041737)
Not really. The issue of trust goes both ways. Both sides are buying into the notion that the other side can finally be trusted this time. The faith that is being put into the process by Iran is actually a decent sign.

I'm not saying its akin to it, but similarly to Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, the other side being willing to trust you, allows one to trust them more fully.


I agree if the discussion is trust as a whole. But it wasn't. It was a poll on whether Americans trust Iran. Different discussion.

ISiddiqui 07-15-2015 10:37 AM

Can't view that in a vacuum, IMO.

Chief Rum 07-15-2015 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 3041742)
Can't view that in a vacuum, IMO.


Again, I tend to agree, but the discussion point was a poll of Americans on whether they trust Iran in this deal. Bringing up trust in America is a straw man that has nothing to do with that discussion. I suspect you bring it up because an Iran peace deal is a coup for Obama's foreign policy and you lean left and so you want Obama to be seen as successful.

That's fine and all, but just calling it what it is. ;)

ISiddiqui 07-15-2015 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 3041746)
Again, I tend to agree, but the discussion point was a poll of Americans on whether they trust Iran in this deal. Bringing up trust in America is a straw man that has nothing to do with that discussion. I suspect you bring it up because an Iran peace deal is a coup for Obama's foreign policy and you lean left and so you want Obama to be seen as successful.

That's fine and all, but just calling it what it is. ;)


And this is just being overly pedantic for no reason. Obviously I'm debating whether or not Americans feel they can trust Iran is relevant to anything. Basically, who cares.

Solecismic 07-15-2015 11:49 AM

What are we trusting Iran to do? They already said they want to destroy Israel. They openly train and fund Hezbollah. The mullahs have already said the military sites are off-limits. I trust them at their word.

The question is more why make an agreement where one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing? Especially when the side asking for more is calling for your death after it takes care of Israel.

NobodyHere 07-15-2015 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solecismic (Post 3041764)
The question is more why make an agreement where one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing? Especially when the side asking for more is calling for your death after it takes care of Israel.


Well to be fair Iran only calls for the peaceful elimination of Israel, or something.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.