|
Shut 'em down!
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:12:19
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like? No, they shouldn't.
But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.
This is just one route they have/had taken. lie What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)
That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?
That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?
Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad?
Fabricated is exactly the right word. In fact, it was deliberated and changed with the help of both senate and house republicans for nearly 9 months before it was signed into law.
Have any of you even read the short and sweet versions of what ACA does? or do you only focus on the part that fox and rush hammer on about thinking it's all there is to it?
Forbes cliff's notes on ACA
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:13:23
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.
You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.
history of reelection in the house and senate.
Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).
Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:14:42
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like? No, they shouldn't.
But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.
This is just one route they have/had taken. lie What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)
That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?
That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?
Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad? That one.
Meh... probably not "technically" true, I'm sure someone at some point said something that could be counted as a contribution. But lets be real here, none of them voted for it, how much could they have really contributed?
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:14:57
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like? No, they shouldn't.
But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.
This is just one route they have/had taken. lie What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)
That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?
That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?
Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad? That one. Prove me wrong.
What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
You're the one contesting the facts, the burden of proof is on you.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:18:48
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.
You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.
history of reelection in the house and senate.
Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).
Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
4 years?
2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate
Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:22:47
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.
You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.
history of reelection in the house and senate.
Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).
Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
4 years?
2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate
Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!
you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:24:51
Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like?
It shouldn't but from 1976 to the present, it does so quite a bit:
1976 Sep 30- Oct 11 President:Ford (R):Senate= Dem:House= Dem
Citing out of control spending, President Gerald Ford vetoed a funding bill for the United States Department of Labor and the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), leading to a partial government shutdown. On October 1, the Democratically-controlled Congress overrode Ford's veto but it took until October 11 for a continuing resolution ending funding gaps for other parts of government to become law.
1977 Sep 30-Oct 13 President: Carter (D):Senate=Dem:House=Dem
The Democratically-controlled House continued to uphold the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother was at stake. Meanwhile, the Democratic-controlled Senate pressed to loosen the ban to allow abortion funding in the case of rape or incest. A funding gap was created when disagreement over the issue between the houses had become tied to funding for the Departments of Labor and HEW, leading to a partial government shutdown. A temporary agreement was made to restore funding through October 31, 1977, allowing more time for Congress to resolve its dispute.
1977 Oct 31-Nov 9 President: Carter (D): Senate= Dem: House= Dem
The earlier temporary funding agreement expired. President Jimmy Carter signed a second funding agreement to allow for more time for negotiation.
1977 Nov 30-Dec 9 President:Carter (D):Senate=Dem:House=Dem
The second temporary funding agreement expired. The House held firm against the Senate in its effort to ban Medicaid paying for the abortions of victims of statutory rape. A deal was eventually struck which allowed Medicaid to pay for abortions in cases resulting from rape, incest, or in which the mother's health is at risk.
1978 Sep 30-Oct 18 President:Carter (D):Senate=Dem:House=Dem
Deeming them wasteful, President Carter vetoed a public works appropriations bill and a defense bill including funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Spending for the Department of HEW was also delayed over additional disputes concerning Medicaid funding for abortion.
1979 Sep 30-Oct 12 President:Carter (D):Senate=Dem:House=Dem
Against the opposition of the Senate, the House pushed for a 5.5 percent pay increase for congress members and senior civil servants. The House also sought to restrict federal spending on abortion only to cases where the mother's life is in danger, while the Senate wanted to maintain funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest.
1981 Nov 20-Nov 23 President:Reagan(R):Seante=Rep:House=Dem
Reagan pledged that he would veto any spending bill that failed to include at least half of the $8.4 billion in domestic budget cuts that he proposed. Although the Republican controlled Senate passed a bill that met his specifications, the Democratically controlled House insisted on larger cuts to defense than Reagan wanted as well as pay raises for congress and senior civil servants. A compromise bill fell $2 billion short of the cuts Reagan wanted, so Reagan vetoed the bill and shut down the federal government. A temporary bill restored spending through December 15 and gave Congress the time to work out a more lasting deal.
1982 Sep 30-Oct 2 President:Reagan (R):Senate=Rep:House=Dem
Congress passed the required spending bills a day late.
1982 Dec 17-Dec 21 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Rep:House=Dem
The House and Senate wished to fund job programs, but Reagan vowed to veto any such legislation. The House also opposed plans to fund the MX missile. The shutdown ended after Congress abandoned their jobs plan, but Reagan was forced to yield on funding for both the MX and Pershing II missiles. He also accepted funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which he wanted abolished, in exchange for higher foreign aid to Israel.
1983 Nov 10-Nov 14 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Rep:House=Dem
The House increased education funding but cut defense and foreign aid spending, which led to a dispute with Reagan. Eventually, the House reduced their proposed education funding, and also accepted funding for the MX missile. However, the foreign aid and defense cuts remained, and oil and gas leasing was banned in federal wildlife refuges. Abortion was also prohibited from being paid for with government employee health insurance.
1984 Sep 30-Oct 3 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Rep:House=Dem
The House wished to link the budget to both a crime-fighting package President Reagan supported and a water projects package he did not. The Senate additionally tied the budget to a civil rights measure designed to overturn Grove City v. Bell. Reagan proposed a compromise where he abandoned his crime package in exchange for Congress dropping the water projects package. A deal was not struck, and a three-day spending extension was passed instead.
1984 Oct 3-Oct 5 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Rep:House=Dem
The October 3 spending extension expired, forcing a shutdown. Congress dropped its proposed water and civil rights packages, while President Reagan kept his crime package. Funding for aid to the Nicaraguan Contras was also passed.
1986 Oct 16-Oct 18 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Rep: House=Dem
Disputes over multiple issues between the House and President Reagan and the Republican Senate forced a shutdown. The House dropped many of their demands in exchange for a vote on their welfare package, and a concession of the sale of then-government-owned Conrail.
1987 Dec 18-Dec 20 President:Reagan(R):Senate=Dem: House= Dem
The House and Senate opposed funding for the Contras and wanted the Federal Communications Commission to renew enforcement of the "Fairness Doctrine". They yielded on the "Fairness Doctrine" issue in exchange for non-lethal aid to the Contras.
1990 Oct 5-Oct 9 President:George H.W. Bush(R):Senate=Dem: House=Dem
George H.W. Bush vowed to veto any continuing resolution that was not paired with a deficit reduction package, and did so when one reached his desk. The House failed to override his veto before a shutdown occurred. Congress then passed a continuing resolution with a deficit reduction package to end the shutdown.
1995 Nov 13-Nov 19 President:Clinton (D):Senate=Rep:House=Rep
Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. A deal was reached allowing for 75-percent funding for four weeks, and Clinton agreed to a seven-year timetable for a balanced budget.
1995–96' Dec 15-Jan 6 President:Clinton(D):Senate=Rep: House=Rep
The Republicans demanded that President Clinton propose a budget with the seven-year timetable using Congressional Budget Office numbers, rather than Clinton's Office of Management and Budget numbers. However, Clinton refused. Eventually, Congress and Clinton agreed to pass a compromise budget.
2013 Sep 30-Ongoing President:Obama(D):Senate=Dem:House=Rep
Due to disagreement regarding inclusion of language defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act,the Government has not passed a substantial funding bill. Funding has been agreed to by the President and Congress for active military pay and back wages for furloughed employees. In addition, the House has offered very small funding measures for a few, high-profile functions, which the Senate and White House have rejected as "game-playing" while the Senate continues to offer bills that do not include language to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act, but the House has rejected them. The shutdown is currently in progress.
But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.
This is just one route they have/had taken.
You must have meant "Full opposition" because the voting tally is definitely not indicative of "ZERO opposition"
H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM Tally 219 Y to 212 N it barely passed and there were 34 democrats who voted nay.
Siren.Mosin
Serveur: Siren
Game: FFXI
By Siren.Mosin 2013-10-10 12:25:17
you guys are silly, it was a republican plan in the first place, how much more *** input do you need, man!!??!
Ragnarok.Hevans
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15273
By Ragnarok.Hevans 2013-10-10 12:29:16
Your level of ignorance, delusion, and self-righteousness is astounding.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:29:50
D.C. city democrats starting to get pretty antsy over Obama's shutdown politics.
DC democrats have their own funding to run their city but are not permitted to do so because of shutdown politics. Needless to say they are getting kinda fed up with it. Reid told them today "Don't screw it up!". Screw what up Reid?
YouTube Video Placeholder
I guess their suffering is "good for the collective". Sorry DC, you get the shaft cause we're too busy playing politics.
Didn't they try something like this in the USSR once?
(Not Godwin's law either Pleebo!)
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 12:30:59
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:32:02
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
It was originally drafted to oppose Hillarycare in the 90's... its more like Hillarycares less corporate dependent evil twin.
[+]
Siren.Mosin
Serveur: Siren
Game: FFXI
By Siren.Mosin 2013-10-10 12:34:37
Your level of ignorance, delusion, and self-righteousness is astounding.
hey! *** you too, buddy!
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:35:16
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.
You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.
history of reelection in the house and senate.
Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).
Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
4 years?
2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate
Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!
you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.
Right so, congress passed this law and suffered the lowest incumbency rate in 2010 cause we "threw the bums out" (63 seats changed) they all were elected to stop obamacare and then maintained a higher incumbency rate in the 2012 election.
As I said quit digging your own hole!
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:36:38
Oh wow, did you just compare a famine to a partisan temper tantrum? You're talking about two VERY different things.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 12:39:59
Oh wow, did you just compare a famine to a partisan temper tantrum? You're talking about two VERY different things.
Aye was hyperbole, that comment to Pleebo should have been the hint...
But the logic of it's the good of the party can have some disastrous effects if left unchecked
By Zerowone 2013-10-10 12:42:45
Aye was hyperbole, that comment to Pleebo should have been the hint...
But the logic of it's the good of the party can have some disastrous effects if left unchecked
http://on.cc.com/15mkcQa
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 12:47:54
Someone conveniently forgets the massive "kick the bums out" movement of the 2010 midterms.
You mean the kick the bums out movement that put the incumbency rate to it's lowest point in 4 years?! The truth is, the 2012 election incumbency rate was only slightly below the historical average, still over 90% and higher than the 50 year low of the 2008 elections.
history of reelection in the house and senate.
Quit digging your own hole. Congress passed this monstrosity, then suffered the lowest incumbancy rate when 61 seats changed hands in the house during the 2010 election. That's more than any other election in the last 30 years (and I only looked back 30 years).
Should have looked back 4 years, then you'd have found one lower.
4 years?
2010 Repubs gained 63 in house and 6 in senate
2008 Dems gained 21 in house and 8 in senate
2006 Dems gained 31 in house and 6 in senate
Your facts are incorrect bud, sorry!
you're talking about seat changes by party, that's a different metric than incumbency. You can't prove that there was a lower incumbency rate in 2012, because there wasn't. So, you take a different metric to make your case. Yes, more seats changed party in 2012, but I was talking about incumbency rate. And more total seats were retained in 2012 than 2008.
Right so, congress passed this law and suffered the lowest incumbency rate in 2010 cause we "threw the bums out" (63 seats changed) they all were elected to stop obamacare and then maintained a higher incumbency rate in the 2012 election.
As I said quit digging your own hole!
You're talking about less than 10% of congress, also forgetting that nearly 40 members of congress didn't seek reelection and 9 of the seats won were unopposed. That's not throwing the bums out, it's also not significantly different than ANY election in the past 50 years. If you want a "throw the bums out" election, look back to the 180 years before that where the incumbency rates were in the teens.
[+]
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 12:55:59
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-10 13:03:08
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.
It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:05:24
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.
It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.
no one paid any attention to them when they made sense...
BORING!!!!
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:11:06
Fabricated is exactly the right word. In fact, it was deliberated and changed with the help of both senate and house republicans for nearly 9 months before it was signed into law.
Have any of you even read the short and sweet versions of what ACA does? or do you only focus on the part that fox and rush hammer on about thinking it's all there is to it?
Forbes cliff's notes on ACANo, I actually read the law.
A good portion is *** (amendments to previous laws) while the actual "Obamacare" law was pretty much a new list of taxes and regulations. Nothing about making healthcare affordable.
But you wouldn't believe me though. You only focus on the part that MSN and Washington Post hammer on about thinking that is all to it...
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:12:54
Just because you see it as rotten doesn't make it so... It has already been through the gauntlet too... Should the government shut down every time the other side does something they don't like? No, they shouldn't.
But when you pass a bill that the opposing side had no say or even had a chance to contribute to because the other side had a super-majority (Dems had a super-majority in both the House and Senate in 2009-2010, just in case you forgot) and could effectively pass any bill they want with ZERO opposition (which is the only way Obamacare actually got passed), then don't blame the other side for taking any and all routes available to them.
This is just one route they have/had taken. lie What part? That the 111th congress didn't have 59 Dem Senators or 255 Dem Reps? (Compared to 41 Republican Senators or 179 Republican Reps)
That Obamacare was passed with zero votes from Republicans?
That Obama didn't even allow Republicans to contribute to Obamacare, because he knew he had to get this passed as quickly as possible before the public really can see what's going on?
Or is that all fabricated by Limbaugh and Fox News and Bush? That never really happened and they are all lying to make the liberals look bad? That one. Prove me wrong.
What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
You're the one contesting the facts, the burden of proof is on you. I have supplied my facts, I was called out on one, the burden of proof is on Pleebo to make my fact into an untruth.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2013-10-10 13:13:24
[What did the Republicans contribute to a bill they didn't want?
they actually wrote most of it...it was called Romneycare.
which was a *** child/direct result of Hillarycare.
Right so if you are sitting there scratching your head wondering why the tea party is opposed to a bill the republicans wrote in the first place... the answer is the individual mandate which was fine on the state level but on the federal level goes against their basic anti federalist instincts.
It's absolutely an affront to libertarianism. But instead of talking about it as what it is, they demonize it as socialism, marxism, unconstitutional, government takeover, claim it's going to kill small businesses (which are the ones NOT effected by it), make up jail sentences for violators, wildly exaggerate individual cost, etc.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.
Keep digging!
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:17:09
Thank you for supporting my whole point.
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:19:05
You have to keep in mind that the "tea party" didn't actually evolve from a child's tea party with feather boas and stuffed animals with fancy sounding names like His Royal Majesty Fluffyionicus III
NO, It gets it's name from the historical "boston tea party" where participants dressed up like native americans, stormed a ship and threw all the tea overboard because they didn't like the tax england imposed on them to pay for the bills they racked up during the french and indian wars.
shutting down the government makes about as much sense as throwing tea overboard but if you understand the historical context then you should have seen it coming and not taunted them with "you don't get to shut the government down because you didn't get what you wanted" to which they responded by blowing raspberries and wearing underwear on their heads in protest
The lesson, if there is one to be learned is,
NEVER LEAN ON WEIRD/CRAZY PEOPLE!!!
They will tell you to cram it sideways and then take all their marbles and go home.
[+]
Serveur: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2013-10-10 13:24:04
the burden is on Pleebo to make all of our dreams come true
Save us Pleebo!!! You're our only hope!!!
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-10 13:34:41
>.>
Caitsith.Zahrah
Serveur: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2013-10-10 13:35:27
the burden is on Pleebo to make all of our dreams come true
Save us Pleebo!!! You're our only hope!!!
This will have to hold us over for now...
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2013-10-10 13:37:35
Some people just like to watch the world burn...
I am one of them... So excuse my while I perform the end zone touchdown dance of my people.
/dances like an old white guy at a wedding
Happy Shut Down Day Everybody!!! Enjoy trying to figure out what impact not having a government will have on your miserable lives. Muhahahahahahahaha! Tell 'em chuck!
YouTube Video Placeholder
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
|
|