“Oh. but they did. One can get tired of talking to the media if the media never reports it. Most of the 'Repeal" attempts by the GOP were aimed at a single part of ACA rather than a complete repeal of the entire law.
I agree with you on one thing, though ... Opponents should stop calling it Obamacare and should start calling it the UNaffordable Care Act. This would be far more accurate.”
“Nonsense, much of the GOP alternative plan that you smurfs say they never preferred, included elements of ACA. It took the good ideas of O-care, added other good ideas and would have been far less confusing and far less chaotic.”
John Kline on Dec 10, 2013 at 09:59:51
“So why do Republicans never mention these ideas? They spend all the time, effort, and money to get rid of ACA, but never offer any suggestions. One day they will regret sarcastically calling ACA Obamacare. Will come back to haunt them in the little time before the Republican party crashes.”
“The GOP alternative plan that the smurfs say they never offered included state exchanges. The difference was that it did not require people to buy from the exchange in order to get their subsidy.
This is why Johnson said of the exchanges, "It may be that they can be usable." Hardly a ringing endorsement of the exchanges in their current state of chaos.
Johnson is correct. The law is here and there is not much that can be done about that. Once a new entitlement is woven into the fabric of society it is difficult, if not impossible, to unravel.
The GOP plan was simpler (only 219 pages), better and would have increased competition by eliminating group power wielded by insurance companies that rob the current system of a) competition and b) making the patient (the consumer of health care services) the actual customer.
That The Patient's Choice Act did not get even get consideration by the smurfs was successful obstruction where the GOP has, if we are all honest here, been able to stop nothing the Obama Express has done, including stop the chaos that we are now experiencing.”
JayInDallas on Dec 10, 2013 at 09:27:26
“New "Entitlement"? As if the greatest country in the world doesn't need to offer affordable healthcare to its citizens, some for the first time in their lives. What does it say about America when there are at least 16 other countries who already do just that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country
Your partisan drivel ignores the fact that when this model was implemented by Romney, it was touted as the model for the rest of the country. But if a Dem rolls it out, it's touted as a "train wreck". So, in effect you're cheering for the demise of a Republican idea as well as the denial of affordable healthcare for your fellow Americans.
As far as chaos, there isn't a greater example of that than the chaos the GOP is experiencing right now. There are very few incumbents who are not 1) facing a Tea party challenger, 2) facing another Republican challenger, 3) facing a Dem challenger or 4) all of the above.
The myopic obsession with derailing this administration coupled with political ADD has left the GOP fractured with insurgents from every faction on the attack after a long string of abject failure. So, blame the Dems all you want. This is a bed made by the GOP and now they're going to have to lie in it in 2014.”
verbal007 on Dec 10, 2013 at 09:20:53
“You're confusing Obama supporters, they been programed to believe GOP had no solution or other plan and were just whining. Your posts tells them otherwise,and they will refuse to believe the truth.”
luvsox on Dec 10, 2013 at 09:15:28
“The R plan never included exchanges. It allowed the sale of cheap, inferior plans to that were lower than the states' standards to be purchased across state lines.”
“You assume a lot. First Amendment rights protect one's religious beliefs ~ not just the ones that meet with your approval ~ as long as they don't rob someone else of their rights. The Kleins did not trample this couple's rights; they are still free to marry and can even get a cake from some other baker who will be more than happy to make it for them.
This is the problem with you extremist on the left AND right.: Unless someone believes what you believe hook, line and sinker, then you reject them in total. I support 1st amendment rights. I support civil rights. But you ultra smurfs are in a major tizzy because I also respect the 1st amendment rights of people with whom I (and you) don't necessarily agree.
Had this been a WalMart bakery and an employee of a PUBLIC company sent this couple away, that would be one thing. But this is a small, PRIVATE, mom and pop biz. They have a right to decline any order for any reason and they should not have to be secluded to their home in order to do so.
Your lack of tolerance is far worse than theirs. It is born out of true hatred for these people and others religious people like them. They did not hate this couple ~ at least the story didn't say they did ~ they simply refused to be involved in their wedding.”
“Thanks for the definition these people don't seem to fit.
I see you avoid the valid point I made -- that you don't know what other convictions these people do (or do not) chose to exercise. Maybe they recognize all of them; maybe none of them. Bottom line: You don't know and thus your point was out of shear ignorance.
However, even if they did "cherry-pick" you overlook a very biblical principle that no one is perfect, especially 'god's people'. The Bible point this basic principle out over and over.
As for my assertion I say to you .... AbsoFRICKINlutely!
If a private business wants to discriminate against and of those 'groups' you listed and more (or any individual person), then they have a right to do so. Will they pay a price? Probably, but it depends on the reason. In this particular case, the Kleins were exercising their 1st amendments rights. You think it is cover for your stretched definition of homophobia (and you have every right to believe it), but only the Kleins know for sure and that STILL doesn't give you the 'right' to trample their rights.
The gay couple should have said, "Fine." and chosen any number of other bakeries that would have been happy to bake them a cake. Creating a stink over it will only bring bad karma on their new union and, in this day and age. no marriage needs to deliberately heap upon itself such a disadvantage.”
“I hear you. Sometimes people jump my case over a comment and if they could just read my other comments they might go, "Oh, he's not so bad." Having seen your link I can see what Lizzy meant. Make no mistake; I like her. She is my favorite democrat ...... PS ~ I was really just playing about all that glycerin stuff.”
“Glycerin for your heart. I was worried about you. I said I stand corrected. What more do you want? Calm down. We wouldn't want to lose you. Truth is, you don't know which 14 million seniors Warren was talking about because she wasn't clear. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't mean to keep this going. Ya know, if you don't want to take a glycerin pill, a good glass of red wine can have the same calming effect.”
DIridescent on Dec 7, 2013 at 21:47:24
“It's Ok. I think sometimes writing on line, even emails, can be confusing because people assume a tone that just isn't there. It's hard when you don't have a face to read not to try to read into the words. Happens to me all the time.
I assure you, I'm not worked up and really haven't been at all in this discussion. That's not to say I don't in some discussions, but certainly not this one.
not to draw this out any longer than we have to , I just have to point out that I think Warren was perfectly clear she was referring to the 14 million who are kept out of poverty. She said exactly that. Although I also understand why that might confuse you if you were only familiar with the other 14 million number. Still, I don't think you can blame her for your misunderstanding. Basically, you thought she was making a mistake, but she wasn't. It really doesn't come down to much more than that.”
“Did they stop the couple from getting married? Did they call all their baker friends and try to convince them to decline the order as well?
This is a private business. They can discriminate against whomever they want, whenever they want for whatever reason they want. The Christian faith does not hide it's opinion about same sex couples (married or not).
You extreme smurfs sling the word homophobia around so loosely that it has no meaning anymore. The 'offended' couple has the right to marry no more or less that the Klein's have a right to refuse to be involved in their wedding. It may not be a great business practice, especially in this economy, but it is indeed their right.
In essence, you can call ANY religious conviction a phobia. In reality, you really don't know what other types of people for whom this bakery has refused to make cakes. However, even if their convictions were less than genuine, they STILL have the right to refuse ANY order for ANY reason.
If they told the couple that they were overloaded with orders and didn't have the time to make their cake, it would have been smarter and this would be a non issue. But people would prefer to state their convictions. For proof, just look at all the ultra-smurfs attacking these people's religious freedoms because of their .... um .... convictions. Quite revealing.”
Clifford T Smith on Dec 8, 2013 at 05:19:14
“I simply called them out on their very evident hypocrisy. If the Kleins has consistently applied all Old & New Testament injunctions to who they where willing to bake wedding cakes for I can safely assume they would have hit the headlines a long time ago already for applying Bronze-Age morals in modern day America.
First Amendment rights are not sacrosanct to the point where they can protect one's perceived right to abuse or infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens. If this where the case you'd still find segregated lunch counters in establishments owned by religious people who find in the scriptures passages that endorse their desire to keep black & white people separated. Now let's hear you argue that a restauranteur who believes that God does not want race mixing in his public diner should be allowed to start painting up Whites Only signs.
If the Kleins are so convinced that God, like them, cannot stomach same sex relationships being formalized in a wedding ceremony then their decision to bake privately from home is the appropriate course of action.”
Clifford T Smith on Dec 8, 2013 at 00:52:16
“Homophobia: "An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."
I see you avoid addressing the very valid point I made - that bigoted Christians are notorious for cherry-picking only the biblical laws that reinforce their personal phobia's and using them as divine vindication for their behavior while hypocritically ignoring the many other equally serious biblical injunctions that are just downright inconvenient thereby making nonsense of their claim that they seek to please God by adhering to his injunctions.
As for your assertion that "This is a private business. They can discriminate against whomever they want, whenever they want for whatever reason they want" would you care to add any exceptions to that sweeping claim? Would a business refusing the patronage of black people, or amputees or blind people or Christian people or people who cannot speak your language be perfectly legitimate in your view? I suspect not.”
“I support a private persons right to marry whomever they want, and I support a private businesses right to serve whomever they want.
I don't agree with the religious beliefs of the owners of this private enterprise, but their constitutionally protected rights are being trampled. This couple can get their cake made anywhere; if the Klein's don't want their business then it is their loss .... but it is their right.”
jamie63 on Dec 9, 2013 at 17:38:49
“See the Colorado decision issued yesterday. If you're providing a unique public service, you provide that to whoever asks for it.”
“Social Security's enactment directly followed the great depression making your statement highly misleading. That is like the GOP calling Obama the Food Stamps president when enrollment in SNAP, although it has grown during his reign, was well on the rise before he took office due to the recession.”
“""We need to keep in mind that two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security to put groceries on the table and for 14 million seniors, Social Security is all that stands between them and poverty."
Ms. Warren, I really like you, but social security does not keep seniors out of poverty; social security IS poverty.”
DIridescent on Dec 5, 2013 at 18:03:46
“How do you figure?
She's not suggesting it's the only form of income. She saying for 14 million it's the difference between living above or below poverty.”
quartersaw on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:45:39
“The poverty rate in the U.S.
was 90% higher per capita BEFORE Social Security was enacted.”
KM Rossman on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:41:05
“You are mis-interpreting her remarks. She is saying that there are 14 million seniors whose income is social security + other $$, but the other $$ are small enough that taking away social security would make them poor. This does not means she thinks that social security alone will keep typical seniors out of poverty. I can assure you that she knows this is not at all the case.”
imanycynic on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:36:33
“If it's all you have then it is. It was never designed to be the sole source of income for the retired.”
Neenerpuss on Dec 5, 2013 at 17:36:22
You are delusional. If Social Security is "poverty" what do they have when you cut it or worse eliminate it? NOTHING!
We need to EXPAND Social Security because people can no long make enough money to save for retirement. The system is rigged. We live under a system of corporate overlords that keep us powerless and pennyless.”