Or is it just blatant dishonesty? Like the mythical "war on women" Democrats just can't seem to have an honest discussion. Frankly I'm more than a bit fed up with it, particularly the aforementioned meme and the never ending explanations on why Republicans hate Obama.

And now a word (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/nancy-pelosi-unplugged-behind-the-curtain-97095.html) from Mimi Pelosi.


Throughout a 50-minute interview on Thursday in her second-floor Capitol office, where the late Speaker Tip O’Neill used to receive supplicants, Pelosi was sharply derisive about the scorn Republicans have for this president.

“You know why it is,” she said. “You know why it is. He’s brilliant, … he thinks in a strategic way in how to get something done … and he’s completely eloquent. That’s a package that they don’t like.”…

Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”

If were drinking a beer right now I would have spewed it all over the floor.

By all means, please tell us how the guy who couldn't take a break from railing on Republicans while people were being shot in DC, whose IRS has targeted conservative groups, the guy of the "attack watch" fame - the most political, partisan, divisive president of my lifetimes is as Nancy says "open", "apolitical" and "non-partisan."

No Orwellian BS please, let's get real here.

They have a way with words to totally side step issues and facts

People believe what they want to believe, they give Noble Prizes to prize idiots... but I digress

You noticed that too about the nobel peace prize?

I notice many things, sometimes it helps to be a little further away from the problem, sometimes not

Will you parse your second sentence for me?
There seem to be 3 premises in it that I can't grasp.

Democrats just can't seem to have an honest discussionWell neither can republicans, therein lies your political problem.

Will you parse your second sentence for me?
There seem to be 3 premises in it that I can't grasp.


I notice many things, sometimes it helps to be a little further away from the problem, sometimes not

I expect you are speaking about this statement

1st Part responding to NOhelp4U, 2nd Part referring to the fact that I am at some distance to events in the Northern Hemisphere and Washington in particular and therefore can be more objective, 3rd Part suggesting sometimes you need to be close to the issues to understand the nuiances

Non-partisan ? This is the guy who made an address on Monday while the bodies of the victims of the Navy Yard shooting were still warm to lambast the Repubics .Oh he gave lip service to the shooting ,and his bumbling and incoherent handling of Syria . Then he wasted no time to trash talk about the House Repubics :

The problem is at the moment, Republicans in Congress don't seem to be focused on how to grow the economy and build the middle class. I say “at the moment” because I'm still hoping that a light bulb goes off here. (Laughter from the drones in attendance.)
Other gems from his speech .....they're willing to tank the entire economy.....Are they really willing to hurt people just to score political points?....(they ) haven't put forward serious ideas .....I put forward ideas for tax reform—haven't heard back from them yet. (a complete lie )
The same bs we hear on these boards... but I have no expectation of negotiating with anyone here to do the job the people elected me to do .

She is right about one thing... the apolitical thingy . He doesn't have a clue about how to conduct politics in a town that practices nothing but politics. In the emperor's mind ;everyone must conform to his thinking . He says I will not negotiate .But that is not completely true . He is willing to negotiate with the 12ers in Tehran . He's willing to negotiate with Putin and Assad. He'll negotiate with every likeminded person on the planet . But he won't negotiate with the Repubics in the House . They are the enemy that Alinsky said must be isolated and ridiculed .

Like
The mythical - ?
"war on women" - ?
Democrats just can't seem to have an honest discussion.
You are saying that the war on women, whatever that is, but maybe it isn't because it's mythical, can't have an honest discussion?
Or is the word 'like' meant in that valley girl way.

That all is what I was hoping to get sorted out.

Like
the mythical - ?
"war on women" - ?
Democrats just can't seem to have an honest discussion.
You are saying that the war on women, whatever that is, but maybe it isn't because it's mythical, can't have an honest discussion?
Or is the word 'like' meant in that valley girl way.

That all is what I was hoping to get sorted out.

I sorry there seems to be a disconnect here like a distant echo from another thread or perhaps you are not speaking to me. I see now you are referring to the OP.

The war on women is mythical, there is no glass ceiling, those who have ability rise, just not as quickly as their over inflated egos would have them. Reality steps in sometimes, but the ones who hold women back are women themselves, get over yourselves. There I've put the cat among the pigeons...

I give up. My point about premises isn't getting across.

I can see it but who wants to debate BO's personality. If you have points to make make them but we have come not to expect explanations

I've discovered the video that explains Liberals everywhere... its their medication.

MinusIQ | The pill to lower your IQ permanently - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/z9pD_UK6vGU)

I've discovered the video that explains Liberals everywhere....its their medication.

MinusIQ | The pill to lower your IQ permanently - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/z9pD_UK6vGU)

I'm sure it is very droll unfortunately the speakers on my PC aren't working

I'm sure it is very droll unfortunately the speakers on my PC arn't working

Its actually a comedy skit...

Well right in line with politics then

non-partisan ? This is the guy who made an address on Monday while the bodies of the victims of the Navy Yard shooting were still warm to lambast the Repubics .Oh he gave lip service to the shooting ,and his bumbling and incoherent handling of Syria . Then he wasted no time to trash talk about the House Repubics :

Other gems from his speech .....they're willing to tank the entire economy.....Are they really willing to hurt people just to score political points?....(they ) haven't put forward serious ideas .....I put forward ideas for tax reform—haven't heard back from them yet. (a complete lie )
The same bs we hear on these boards ... but I have no expectation of negotiating with anyone here to do the job the people elected me to do .

She is right about one thing ...the apolitical thingy . He doesn't have a clue about how to conduct politics in a town that practices nothing but politics. In the emperor's mind ;everyone must conform to his thinking . He says I will not negotiate .But that is not completely true . He is willing to negotiate with the 12ers in Tehran . He's willing to negotiate with Putin and Assad. He'll negotiate with every likeminded person on the planet . But he won't negotiate with the Repubics in the House . They are the enemy that Alinsky said must be isolated and ridiculed .

More from the emperor yesterday... We're not some banana republic. This isn't some deadbeat nation[...he accused the GOP of threatening to blow the whole thing up... Now they've gone beyond just holding Congress hostage. They're holding the whole country hostage... They're focused on trying to mess with me.

Is this some of the apolitical stuff that Madame Mimi speaks of ?

Yeah I got more . The emperor said : "We don't run out on our tab" because we are not a "banana Republic" . Does a nation that is not a banana republic run up a tab without ever attempting to pay it down ? When does the bar tender say enough is enough ?
The emperor said : Raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt.
I don't even know what that means . I do know that when an agency like the FDA has $182,000 to study whether they are "liked" on Facebook then the government has not even begun yet streamlining it's budgets to sequester levels .
FDA spends to monitor Twitter, Facebook - Kyle Cheney - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/fda-social-media-contract-raises-eyebrows-on-hill-97086.html)
I'll tell you what is banana republic... unleashing the IRS on your political opponents is banana republic.

more from the emperor yesterday ....We're not some banana republic. This isn't some deadbeat nation[...he accused the GOP of threatening to blow the whole thing up...Now they've gone beyond just holding Congress hostage. They're holding the whole country hostage.....They’re focused on trying to mess with me.

Is this some of the a political stuff that Madame Mimi speaks of ?

Interesting premeses there we are not a banana republic, beg to differ you spend more than you earn this isn't a dead beat nation, well mass killings and 50000 dead a year from gun violence would suggest otherwise. they are holdong the whole country hostage then why don't all those good gun owners rise up in the name of liberty

Hello again, Steve:

Or is it just blatant dishonesty? Democrats just can't seem to have an honest discussion. Frankly I'm more than a bit fed up with itApparently, you think our discussions over the years, HAVEN'T been in good faith... That's a pretty sh!tty thing to say.

If you're fed up, why don't you try the flower page? I'm sure it's less upsetting.

Excon

I love flowers, I'm fed up with imaginary wars on women and discussing all the manufactured reasons we hate Obama and such. I do think you believe that war on women thing, but since there isn't one I fail to see how that furthers the discussion.

Do you believe we hate Obama? Has he been apolitical, open and nonpartisan? Did he not begin his presidency by telling Republicans "I won" while shutting them out then proceeding to ask for snitches that dared to disagree with him then proceeded to push his agenda through without any Republican input? Are we going to continue this sham Mimi speaks of? I've had the distinct impression that we're supposed to just shut up and go along with whatever disaster dems want to impose on us, like it and be thankful for our eloquent, apolitical leader or face the consequences.

We don't need any more dishonest lectures from people like Pelosi and we are not helpless children in need of a nanny rapping our knuckles and putting us in our proper place

Hello again, Steve:

Do you believe we hate Obama? We, is a lot of you. But, let me see if I can break that down.. I don't believe that YOU, personally hate Obama. I believe that tom hates him a little bit, and I think smoothy hates him a lot.

The three of you represent a pretty good cross section of the Republican party.

Now, I don't know if he uttered the words, "I won", in the context of, it's going to be MY way or the HIGHWAY... IF he said it, you believe that was the context, and not just a statement of fact.

But, if he meant what you believe he did, then I don't believe he would have burdened his health care law with loads and loads of provisions put IN there specifically to attract Republican support.

If he meant it YOUR way, he actually WOULD have rammed it down your throat by passing SINGLE PAYER.

Over to you, winger.

Excon

PS> I'm sorry you have to listen to the likes of Nancy Peloci.. But, I have to listen to the likes of smoothy.

Exactly what provisions did he put in there to get support from exactly zero Republicans, against the wishes of a clear majority of Americans? As I recall he promised an executive order to persuade a handful of pro-life Democrats into supporting it, and something like 34 dems joined Republicans in voting against it.

Now, the challenge is exactly how has he been apolitical, open and nonpartisan? I haven't seen it, he is clearly this week being anything but such things so what world are these Dems putting on this charade living in?

Hello again, Steve:
Exactly what provisions did he put in there to get support from exactly zero Republicans, against the wishes of a clear majority of Americans?You opened this thread talking about blatant dishonesty... Having accused the left of such prevarications, you should be PARTICULARLY careful about NOT engaging in it yourself.

Alas and alack, you failed.

Here's some TRUTH. While most Americans oppose the law, what you NEGLECT to reveal is that a sizable portion of those who oppose the law do so because they don't think it goes far enough, not because it goes too far. A May CNN/ORC (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/05/28/healthcarepoll.pdf)poll found that 43% of Americans favored the law while 54% opposed it. But it also found that of those polled, 16% opposed the law because they thought that it wasn't liberal enough. Put another way, 59% of Americans support the law or want it to be more liberal.

Over to you, Mr. Honest Broker of the Truth.

Excon

Nice spin there, the question was if you oppose it why? 16 percent who oppose it do so because it isn't liberal enough. You don't get to add the two together to come up with a majority in favor.

But you don't get to ignore it either.

What part of 16 percent of those who oppose it do so because it isn't liberal enough am I supposed to get worked up ove?

Why get worked up? Just recognize that if 16% want more of it, don't assume it's a sign that they want it gone completely.

Its you guys that say most Americans want the ACA repealed. That may not be true because as I point out, democrats don't have the outrage that republicans have for the law. Nor are they hollering to shut the government down unless it is repealed.

And since when does one third of the governing body dictate to the other two thirds? In truth you guys have a narrow majority in one third of the governing body.

That's reality dude, and if you guys stick together you can defeat whatever the senate sends back to the house to vote on. That too is reality, and how it works and contrary to the title of this thread democrats have no aversion to that reality.

We thrive on the challenge.

And that's more aversion to reality, a minority of Americans want Obamacare and you complain about those trying to give the majority what they want being dictators. What the..?

Hello again, Mr. Honest Broker:

a minority of Americans want Obamacare Let's review, shall we. Not 6 months ago we had a BIG poll. It was a NATIONAL poll.. It WASN'T a small sample. EVERYBODY participated. ONE side of that poll said his FIRST job was to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST.

So, I don't think you really want to be honest here.. You just want to SPIN, SPIN, and then SPIN some more.

Excon

When you get your right wing conservative house, senate, and president, then you can repeal the whole country if you want but until then you can squeal until the pigs come home. Luckily you don't have long to wait, 7 days to be exact.

Let me know when that honest debate gets here.

Hello again, Steve:

Here's some right wing reality:

Hello again, Mr. Honest Broker:
Let's review, shall we. Not 6 months ago we had a BIG poll. It was a NATIONAL poll.. It WASN'T a small sample. EVERYBODY participated. ONE side of that poll said his FIRST job was to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST.

So, I don't think you really want to be honest here.. You just wanna SPIN, SPIN, and then SPIN some more.

excon

This coming from the side who tried to tell American Romney wanted to take their tampons away.

Hello again, Steve:

Here's some right wing reality:

No, they really don't think that way. But thanks for giving us a perfect example of what this thread is about.

No, they really don't think that way. But thanks for giving us a perfect example of what this thread is about.

Then why are they VOTING that way?

House Republicans vote to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program was 'heartless' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/republicans-snap-decision-heartless-article-1.1463600)

This is a part of congress YOU guys control. Actions speak louder than thoughts.

Left thinking... a hungry child wouldve been better if killed before birth.
Left thinking... spend $500 million on a program that will seek to solve the problem of 5 year old children that “can't sit still in a kindergarten classroom.
Left thinking... spend $30 million on a program designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.
Left thinking... spend $1.8 million on a “museum of neon signs” in Las Vegas
Left thinking... spend $630,000 (State Dept) advertising to get "likes" on Facebook.


Then Pelosi today tells us the budget is cut to the bone.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Nothing left to cut in budget (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/rep-nancy-pelosi-nothing-left-cut-budget-cupboard-/)

Hello again, Steve:

No, they really don't think that way.It's true. I WAS being a bit hyperbolic... But, now that the conversation is started, where do you think children, who are being FED on food stamps TODAY, are going to get lunch TOMORROW if the $40 Billion CUT in food stamps your party proposed, passes??

I know... I know... They can get ALL the food they want at church... Just like they can get ALL the health care they want at the ER.

Bwa, ha ha ha..

Excon

Then why are they VOTING that way?

House Republicans vote to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program was 'heartless' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/republicans-snap-decision-heartless-article-1.1463600)

This is a part of congress YOU guys control. Actions speak louder than thoughts.

While the claim may be somewhat true it's just more fear-mongering. Food stamps have doubled under Obama, he eliminated the work requirement and eligibility loopholes have "swelled" the rolls. Even the allegedly non-partisan Politifact admits (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/21/barbara-lee/food-stamp-cuts-would-deny-aid-millions-school-lun/) "CBO analysis largely supports the food stamp rolls reduction."

No one wants to take food from children and seniors, we want it to go to those who actually need the assistance and promote a robust economy where people enter the workforce instead of abandoning it (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/01/85-million-americans-left-labor-force-obamas-first-term) and become productive. Welfare is not the path to prosperity, and neither is a nation of part-time workers, another byproduct of your precious Obamacare.

Right wing thinking - Make enough noise and nobody will notice them destroying America for everyone but THEM.

Right wing thinking - Make enough noise and nobody will notice them destroying America for everyone but THEM.

We give you facts and you give us this?

The left believes Obama has made things so much better... then they would agree the need for foodstamps has been reduced and money can be saved by shrinking the program.

When you pass a jobs bill then we talk. Shut down the government and layoff all those government contractors. And send the government workers home. Then cut any kind of safety net assistance from the government, including your government health care. You're right why should my tax money subsidize you sitting on your a$$ at a job where you have time to talk trash.

There have been many jobs bills passed that are sitting on Harry Reid's 'shelf' in the Senate . Ball's in the Senate court.

We passed a bill... Obama gets his money... we just want to cut one thing MOST of the American public what cut...

Anything that happens now is the Democrats fault... and Obamas.

Hes got to look up what a President is... then look up what King is... because he's not a King no matter how much he might think he is..

there have been many jobs bills passed that are sitting on Harry Reid's 'shelf' in the Senate . Ball's in the Senate court.

Tax cuts for rich guys isn't a jobs bill, its seed money for cheap labor in other countries.

Wingers hate everybody except rich guys. Sad since most wingers are poor.

No not tax cuts... jobs bills.. many of them .

How well have Obamas policies been working so far? Pretty dismal... huh? Even though he had a rubber stamp his first two years...

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/dead-horse.gif

THe horse is dead... beatiing its not going to make it get up and win the Derby.

no not tax cuts ... jobs bills .. many of them .

Name one please so I can look it up

I do have a list of all the house bills since 2010.

Yeah here's just a few of them . H.R. 1231,H.R. 2021,H.R. 1938,H.R. 2587,H.R. 2433,H.R. 2930,H.R. 3

yeah here's just a few of them . H.R. 1231,H.R. 2021,H.R. 1938,H.R. 2587,H.R. 2433,H.R. 2930,H.R. 3

As opposed to repeated meaningless "pivots" after multiple fumbles and getting nowhere with Obama's preferred agenda.

He's had a "jobs bill " in the Senate for over 2 years . Because the Dems refuse to compromise on the details ,it's alternately been stalled ,couldn't pass under cloture rules , and shelved . Good thing too because it's one of those comprehensive cr@p sandwich pork bills that spends a lot of taxpayer money while producing very few jobs.

H.R. 1231, To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes. (H.R. 2021) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2021)

H.R. 2021, To amend section 1951 of title 18, United States Code (commonly known as the Hobbs Act), and for other purposes. (H.R. 2021) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2021)

H.R. 1938, To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury have access to hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and for other purposes. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1938)

H.R. 2587, Planting STEM in the Classroom Act (H.R. 2587) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2587)

H.R. 2433, Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2013 (H.R. 2433) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2433)

H.R. 2930, Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (2011; 112th Congress H.R. 2930) - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2930)

H.R. 3-http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/19/news/economy/food-stamp-cuts/index.html

Which one of these bills is a jobs bill? Most are still in committee.

H.R. 1231 Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act
Status: Died (Passed House)

H.R. 2021 Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
Status: Died (Passed House)


H.R. 1938 North American-Made Energy Security Act
Status: Died (Passed House)

H.R. 2587 Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act
Status: Died (Passed House)

H.R. 2433 Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011
Status: Died (Passed House)

H.R. 2930 Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
Status: Died (Passed House)

H.R.3 Northern Route Approval Act (Keystone Pipeline)

So it's a jobs bill if the title says so? The reading of it says right wing wish list for rich guys with no rules or accountability for bad behavior, mistakes, like when you guys capped oil company liabilities at a few million bucks and left the rest to taxpayers. Remember how insulted you guy were when Obama got them to pay for it all themselves?

But I could be wrong, explain how these bills create jobs please, and fixing bridges, and roads do not?

So its a jobs bill if the title says so? The reading of it says right wing wish list for rich guys with no rules or accountability for bad behavior, mistakes, like when you guys capped oil company liabilities at a few million bucks and left the rest to taxpayers. Remember how insulted you guy were when Obama got them to pay for it all themselves?

But I could be wrong, explain how these bills create jobs please, and fixing bridges, and roads do not?

Please explain how more porkulus will create jobs, especially when huge chunks of it go to Obama's cronies and pet green projects that no one wants.

Fixing a bridge doesn't create jobs??

Fixing a bridge doesn't create jobs???

It all worked so well the first time.

Obama is going full steam ahead on more green tech spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/energy-environment/us-revives-aid-program-for-clean-energy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). So next time you want to complain about us making children go hungry in spite of the truth about the matter, you can ask whatever happened to the billions spent subsidizing big oil, solar panels, electric cars that were never built and eagle-killing windmills.

You don't mind the critters that get oil all over them? Or the fish that have to swim and lay eggs in it? Or the plants that attract the bees that pollenate them being wiped out for a housing development?

Your outrage is selective.

$8 billion hmmmmm wonder how many people could be fed in the SNAP program ?


Here is a look at our future if the emperor gets his way :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

You don't mind the critters that get oil all over them? Or the fish that have to swim and lay eggs in it? Or the plants that attract the bees that pollenate them being wiped out for a housing development?

And right on cue another post demonstrating the point of this thread. You don't get to base your arguments on positions you assign to me that are not based in reality, OK? In other words, you're just making sh*t up, it isn't reality.


Your outrage is selective.

Just like yours, but at least it isn't contradictory. One post you rail about subsidies for big oil and cutting food stamps and the next you defend giving money to big oil that could have been spent on food stamps.

If you guys care about children and education maybe less money should be wasted on college sports. The highest paid public employee in pretty much all states is a university sports coach. Priorities folks.

The biggest problem is that they are 'public paid' . Besides that I don't care how much coaches make.

Naw... its the University President... after all they do such difficult work to earn those Millions of dollars a year...

Infographic: Is Your State's Highest-Paid Employee A Coach? (Probably) (http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-employee-a-co-489635228)

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18r80t094bgctpng/ku-bigpic.png
Don't have to look to far to see that the priorities are a little messed up.

THey do a lot more work than the University president does... particularly considering the amount of money the football program brings into the College Coffers. I'm guessing th Girls badmitten team brings in less than the janitorial services for the locker room cost.

considering the amount of money the football program brings into the College Coffersfacts are good, link me up.

facts are good, link me up.

I wouldn't bother, you have an aversion to facts and reality - just like Democrats.

$8 billion hmmmmm wonder how many people could be fed in the SNAP program ?


Here is a look at our future if the emperor gets his way :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

You have to fed the poor kids old people working poor and their families. You have to invest in future technology. Some American already live with the high and rising energy costs.


QUOTE by speechlesstx;And right on cue another post demonstrating the point of this thread. You don't get to base your arguments on positions you assign to me that are not based in reality, OK? In other words, you're just making sh*t up, it isn't reality.

I have assigned no position to you, merely asking, so don't get all bent out of shape about it. I get you like eagles and I like ducks, but I like eagles too. The Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska, and the Colorado River, and the Ogallala Aquifer ARE REALITY.


Just like yours, but at least it isn't contradictory. One post you rail about subsidies for big oil and cutting food stamps and the next you defend giving money to big oil that could have been spent on food stamps.

I have to look that up and confirm your version of my position, and will clarify if needed. But food stamps are needed as more people have to adjust to this jobless recovery, and the solution is jobs that pay enough not to need food stamps. Go talk to your cheap labor job creators. Not the government.

facts are good, link me up.

Easy to Google them up...


» Which Football and Basketball Programs Produce the Largest Profits? (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/)

College Football's Most Valuable Teams - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2011/12/22/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams/)

The only reason NY's isn't a coach is because our state colleges teams suck

Well you did pick one of the only one that comes ahead, otherwise:
AD salaries are warping the economy of college sports. | SportsonEarth.com : Patrick Hruby Article (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/42924176)

This could be on the Obamacare thread but it's so ridiculous it belongs here.


Little Sisters of the Poor sue over Obamacare fines, contraception requirement (http://washingtonexaminer.com/little-sisters-of-the-poor-sue-over-obamacare-fines-contraception-requirement/article/2536338)

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized a contraception mandate that ignores the fact groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor are religious organizations, according to a lawsuit filed to protect them against fines for refusing to comply with an Obamacare mandate.

"We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government's program to provide access to abortion-inducing drugs,” Sister Loraine Marie said of a class-action lawsuit filed against the mandate on behalf of multiple religious organizations that provide health benefits.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The choice of jurisdiction is critical: The Colorado district court falls under the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and thus is governed by that court's precedent in most cases.

A 10th Circuit panel ruled earlier this year that the owners of Hobby Lobby did not have to comply with the HHS mandate (that lawsuit was also filed by the Becket Fund). President Obama's attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit's ruling.

“The Sisters should obviously be exempted as ‘religious employers,’ but the government has refused to expand its definition,” Becket Fund senior counsel Mark Rienzi said.

“These women just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced to violate the faith that animates their work. The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like it always has -- and not to pay the IRS,” he said.

As I've said before it should be blatantly obvious that forcing nuns to buy contraceptive coverage is beyond the pale, but I do get it, Democrats prefer the government be the source of all benevolence. But it is especially infuriating to not only watch their utter disregard for the first amendment, but to listen to insufferable lectures on helping the poor - while penalizing those who do. Really? Do these ladies really need to buy contraceptive coverage? What in the hell is wrong with someone who would impose such an outrageous burden?

The law sets a bare minimum for EVERYBODY, whether you use it or not. If you don't use the coverage, you don't pay for it. It's in court, let them decide, but if they want a special policy, then they have to pay for it. I think you will find that it's more expensive and saves nothing even if they underwrite there own insurance.

The law sets a bare minimum for EVERYBODY, whether you use it or not. If you don't use the coverage, you don't pay for it. It's in court, let them decide, but if they want a special policy, then they have to pay for it. I think you will find that it's more expensive and saves nothing even if they underwrite there own insurance.

Come on Tal, the whole idea is freakin' ridiculous. and obviously you still have NO regard for our clearly enumerated constitutional rights.

LSP Comments on HHS Mandate: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (http://littlesistersofthepoor.org/44-news-a-events/324-lsp-nprm-comments)


The proposed "religious employer" exemption does not cover our homes because the exemption extends only to group health plans offered by a nonprofit entity referred to in 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(I) or (iii).4 Those provisions relate to the obligation to file an informational return and exempt "churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches"5 and "the exclusively religious activities of any religious order"6 from this obligation. Each of our homes is a separate corporate entity that files an annual Form 990 for purposes of compliance with the tax code. Because each home is a "large employer" under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and is not exempt from filing under the Code provision that currently defines the scope of the proposed "religious employer" exemption, the group health plan offered by each home is not exempt from the HHS Mandate under the proposed exemption.

They are a corporate entity, not a CHURCH by their own words, and IRS filings. Religious though they may be.

LSP Comments on HHS Mandate: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (http://littlesistersofthepoor.org/44-news-a-events/324-lsp-nprm-comments)



They are a corporate entity, not a CHURCH by their own words, and IRS filings. Religious though they may be.

Churches HAVE to incorporate to protect themselves and as your post notes comply with the tax code, it does not make them a business. Geez.

Hello again, Steve:

Churches HAVE to incorporate to protect themselves and as your post notes comply with the tax code, it does not make them a business. Geez.Nahhh... A businessman incorporates to protect HIS assets from being at risk if his corporation is sued... But, I don't think church people are WEALTHY, or at least they SHOULDN'T be, so there's NOTHING to protect by incorporating... Besides, they don't OWN the church. They're EMPLOYEES, and their assets are NOT at risk. In fact, the ENTIRE church's assets ARE at risk EVEN if they're incorporated. So, they gain NOTHING by doing so.

If a church is going to ask the state to give it certain protections, then it has to pay the piper. Look. A church doesn't HAVE to ask for permission to BE a church. But, if it asks the state to call it a CORPORATION, then it's a CORPORATION...

Excon

Why are they not tax exempt as a church is? Are they non profit, or for profit.

Definition of corporation (n)

Bing Dictionary

Cor·po·ra·tion

[ kàwrpə ráysh'n ]

1.group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.
2.local governing authority: the governing authority of an incorporated municipality such as a city or town
3.group acting as single entity: a group of people acting as a single entity

Synonyms: company, business, firm, establishment, concern, organization, house, conglomerate, group

By definition they are a business for whatever reason. They want to make profit with the benefit of a church.

You two are obviously clueless about this, not all corporations are for profit and incorporation as a non-profit provides clear legal benefits and protections to a church. Give it up guys, a church is NOT a business, but thanks for showing me how little regard you have for our rights.

Hello tal:

Why are they not tax exempt as a church is? Are they non profit, or for profit. The tax code is complex. But, how it deals with a church, is NOT.. The very FIRST sentence in my tax code books, is this: "Church's are exempt". Then it moves on to other business.

What that tells me, is that church's don't have to ASK the government for permission to BE exempt, because they ALREADY are. But, once they ASK the federal government to RECOGNIZE them as a church, they GIVE the government the ABILITY to DECIDE what a church IS and what it ISN'T.

Additionally, as I said before, once they ASK the government to give them corporate status, they GIVE the government the ABILITY to treat them as a CORPORATION. Who's surprised at that?

Excon

Hello tal:
The tax code is complex. But, how it deals with a church, is NOT.. The very FIRST sentence in my tax code books, is this: "Church's are exempt". Then it moves on to other business.

What that tells me, is that church's don't have to ASK the government for permission to BE exempt, because they ALREADY are. But, once they ASK the federal government to RECOGNIZE them as a church, they GIVE the government the ABILITY to DECIDE what a church IS and what it ISN'T.

Additionally, as I said before, once they ASK the government to give them corporate status, they GIVE the government the ABILITY to treat them as a CORPORATION. Who's surprised at that?

Excon

What part of "non-profit corporation" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is too difficult for you to comprehend?

My church is incorporated and I assure you no one but and Tal confuse it with a business.


Why and How to Incorporate Your Church (http://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/index.cfm/resources/ministry-safety/article/incorporate-your-church/)

If your church or ministry is already incorporated, many states require annual paperwork to maintain your corporate status. This includes submitting a simple annual report to the Secretary of State’s office.

When an organization becomes incorporated, that means it legally holds the same rights and responsibilities as an individual. There are many reasons churches and other ministries should consider incorporation. The most important is to protect individual members from personal liability associated with the negligent actions of fellow members.

Other benefits of incorporation include:


Clarification of the ministry’s purpose, procedures, and vision.
Eligibility to apply for and receive grants through federal or faith-based organizations and foundations.
Eligibility to receive special mailing rates and other discounts from vendors.

What are the risks churches face by not incorporating?

According to Richard R. Hammar, author of Church Law & Tax Report, “Members of an unincorporated association are individually liable for [wrongful] acts of agents or employees of the association if the [act] is committed within the scope of their authority.”

This means all members of an unincorporated church can legally be found responsible for the negligent or criminal acts of one of their fellow members.

Also see WHY SHOULD A CHURCH INCORPORATE? (http://www.scbaptist.org/churchadministration/article202440.htm)

A church almost has to incorporate to protect its members and operate these days, but I don't expect you to get it, you're totally convinced that incorporation gives the state sovereign power over the church and that celibate nuns should be forced buy abortifacients and contraceptives, which is so ridiculous I cannot believe a smart guy like you would lend your name to defending it.

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I understand what the suits and the well paid CPA's say. I just happen to disagree. I also understand what the tax code says.

Look. I'm on your side. I believe that if a church doesn't want to PAY for contraceptives at all, for ANYBODY, EVER, it ABSOLUTELY has that right under the First Amendment...

But, a hospital ISN'T a church. I KNOW that because there ARE hospitals IN the market to make a profit, and they're NOT church's. Besides, there's NO market for a church. There's a BIG market for hospitals.. That's a major LEGAL distinction.

Oh, a church owned hospital does churchly things. And, it probably HAS a chapel inside... But, it ISN'T a church.

Plus, when a church asks for certain government "protections", that you amply outlined above, those protections don't come without a price... If you want the government to PROTECT you, then it's Going to regulate you. You can't have it ONLY one way.

Over to you winger.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I understand what the suits and the well paid CPA's say. I just happen to disagree. I also understand what the tax code says.

Look. I'm on your side. I believe that if a church doesn't want to PAY for contraceptives at all, for ANYBODY, EVER, it ABSOLUTELY has that right under the First Amendment...

But, a hospital ISN'T a church. I KNOW that because there ARE hospitals IN the market to make a profit, and they're NOT church's. Besides, there's NO market for a church. There's a BIG market for hospitals.. That's a major LEGAL distinction.

Oh, a church owned hospital does churchly things. And, it probably HAS a chapel inside... But, it ISN'T a church.

The constitution does not say anything about freedom of church, it says Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The church is not now nor has it ever been singing and reading the bible inside a church building, but you know that. You don't get to redefine what the church and religion to suit your agenda, bucko.

You and Tal are just deflecting from the point that it's freakin' ridiculous to force nuns to buy coverage for contraceptives and abortifiacients. What the hell is wrong with you people for doing and defending such a thing?


Plus, when a church asks for certain government "protections", that you amply outlined above, those protections don't come without a price... If you want the government to PROTECT you, then it's Going to regulate you. You can't have it ONLY one way.


That is so much BS I don't even know where to begin. A church does not cede it's first amendment rights by incorporating. Period.

it's freakin' ridiculous to force nuns to buy coverage for contraceptives and abortifiacients.Not all employees at those hospitals are nuns, are they?

It's freakin ridiculous to force ANYONE to buy coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.

Not all employees at those hospitals are nuns, are they?

It doesn't matter, the first amendment was not abolished by Obamacare.

The avaerage Democrat apparently can't afford condoms what with the price of iPhones and their monthly cell phone charges and the price of Latte's at Starbucks..

it's freakin ridiculous to force ANYONE to buy coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.

Absolutely true, but one would think even a liberal would get how freakin' ridiculous it is to force nuns to do so.

The constitution does not say anything about freedom of church, it says Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You can practice all the religion you want, but you cannot take away the protection of law, nor the right to practice their own religion from the employee. To deny employees the right to have contraceptives is a violation of their rights, but of course righties and conservatives want religion above the rights of others.

When you hire employees you become an employer, must pay that employee, and give them full benefits under the law. The claim that incorporation to protect itself from the liability of it's members is BOGUS, unless they had knowledge of the wrongdoing. In addition there are far better options under the law to relieve that liability, such as a background check or screening all hires, that's what employers do to avoid liabilities, not deny rights.

Surprised no female has sued you for denying her the right to have a full package of benefits under the law. This is all about getting out of your DUTY to ensure your employees THEIR lawful rights. LOL, you just want the right to get between a female and her doctor. And think you can do it on the cheap.

Sad you think you are going to push the boundaries of your rights and not be pushed back on. Guess we wait for the court process to play out to see who's right, and what kind of rights we have.

Insurance benefits are not for the church, but for the people they hire to perform a service. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are, all that matters are what the rights of those you employ are.

Seems the citizen needs protection from the church, not the other way around.

Insurance benefits are not for the church, but for the people they hire to perform a service. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are, all that matters are what the rights of those you employ are.

Seems the citizen needs protection from the church, not the other way around.

They are free to seek employment elsewhere... if they don't agree with what the church or that employer wishes to provide.

I suppose if you go work for some Islamic group... you get to sue them for not serving pork Bar-B-que in the caffeteria?

Contrary to popular belief, they can seek redress in court also. They don't have to serve the church, or put up with religious stuff to have a job.

This isn't a Mission in rural Africa... there are other jobs...

Good you will have someplace to go when they shut your job down.

The avaerage Democrat apparently can't afford condoms what with the price of iPhones and their monthly cell phone charges and the price of Latte's at Starbucks.. Posts don't get more ignorant or bigoted than this.

Good you will have someplace to go when they shut your job down.

I can walk half a block down the street tomorrow and start at $120K a year... standing offer from the CEO and owner of the company.

You can practice all the religion you want, but you cannot take away the protection of law, nor the right to practice their own religion from the employee. To deny employees the right to have contraceptives is a violation of their rights, but of course righties and conservatives want religion above the rights of other.

There is no constitutional right to contraceptives. Deal with it.

Funny how you see rights that don't exist but disregard those which are clearly enumerated, another example of what this thread is about.

There is no constitutional right to contraceptives. Deal with it.

There is a law they must be included in a minimum health insurance package, deal with it.

There is a law they must be included in a minimum health insurance package, deal with it.

You would really force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage? Talk about cold and callous and again, an utter disregard for their rights.

And freakin' ridiculous!

I want the corporation to conform to the same law all other corporations conform to. I want employees to have what they are due under the law, as citizens.

If you can obey the law and be a corporation, then obey the law and be governed as a corporation. I will concede the churches right to have it's days in court. Or change the law within the system. I can go along with whatever the court rules at the end of the process. Can you?

The nuns are not buying contraceptive coverage for themselves are they? Of course not, they are offering a benefit package in lieu of pay. Often administered by a provider, not them.

You would really force nuns to buy contraceptive coverageThey buy the same package as everyone else which includes that coverage. Same as the priests that have coverage that include Pap smears. Neither will be used.

The NAACP should therefore be forced to hire a proportionate number of whites equal to the countries population... And give them Lee - Jackson day off... paid of course.

There are laws against discrimination on the books.

Sue them.

Sue them.

If the ACLU won't take the case Pro-Bono we get to sue them for discrimination too.

Go for it man. Put your money where your mouth is.

Go for it man. Put your money where your mouth is.

ACLU gets much of their money from tax dollars... I'd be entitled to free representation...

Unless of course they are really a racist organization themselves.themselves...

Go ahead, demand your rights as a white man.

Go ahead, demand your rights as a white man.

You mean white men got rights?

They invented rights for themselves. Then they invented rights for everybody else. They are still inventing new rights for themselves and others. They do it in Australia too.

They invented rights for themselves. Then they invented rights for everybody else. They are still inventing new rights for themselves and others. They do it in Australia too.

Yes, in a way but we don't have to talk about rights here, in the sense of having to enforce them. They invented new ways to tax us, now they are inventing new ways to stop taxing us in that way. They invented new ways to give us benefits, but the government giveth and the government taketh away, what was a right to connect to the internet by fibre in my home has now been taken away. What was a right to land anywhere on these shores and be considered a migrant was taken away. The indigenous right to spend their social security on booze was taken away. My right to own assault weapons was taken away. You could say we are not into creating new rights but removing them

BREAKING NEWS The republican aversion to reality has resulted in Ted Cruz being elected President of the TPARTY!

After his bus tour and all night one man sillibuster, he was anointed by Rush Limbaugh immediately after. He vowed to take over the GOP by the fall.

Oh as his first executive action he voted with the rest of the senate on a bill to fund the government without the defund Obamacare language in it. Boehner said he will veto it, or something like that.

you mean white men got rights? WE should... but democrats seem to believe we don't.

WE should...but democrats seem to believe we don't.

Sure we do, you have a right to remain silent, and anything you say will be used to ridicule you.

Cruz was great . He could've kept the filibuster going for another day just by reading the text of the cr@p sandwich Obamacare law.

Sure we do, you have a right to remain silent, and anything you say will be used to ridicule you.

That's it just be the silent majority

Sure we do, you have a right to remain silent, and anything you say will be used to ridicule you.

And in a nutshell... is just one of the reasons we hate the Bozo in the White House so much... his worshipers act unstable. Not to mention 5 years of one disaster after another... all of which they blame Bush for, or anyone else.

And in a nutshell...is just one of the reasons we hate the Bozo in the White House so much....his worshipers act unstable. .

What is the characteristics of the leader comes down on the followers

BREAKING NEWS The republican aversion to reality has resulted in Ted Cruz being elected President of the TPARTY!!

After his bus tour and all night one man sillibuster, he was anointed by Rush Limbaugh immediately after. He vowed to take over the GOP by the fall.

Oh as his first executive action he voted with the rest of the senate on a bill to fund the government without the defund Obamacare language in it. Boehner said he will veto it, or something like that.

Yes, unlike Democrats Cruz has the cojones to stand up to the bullsh*t coming from DC. You know, things like "we have to pass it to know what's in it", forcing nuns to buy contraceptive coverage and all those other aversions to reality.

Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.

Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.

I take a dim view of the church lying to me.

The republicans wouldn't be shutting down the government... face it... the choice to shut it down is in the hands of the democrats... and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.

The public will love it after they find out republicans have been lying through there teeth about it. They love what they have seen implemented so far.

Hello again, smoothy:

and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:
Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Reality check here...

ALL current and valid polls show overwelmining desire to dump Obamacare.

The House is who controls the purse... not the senate... not the White house.

They create, write and pass the spending bill... if the Democrat controlled senate or the Bozo controlled White house refuse to sign it... THEY are the ones shutting down the Government by putting their petty partisan politics above what's good for the country.

But then trying to talk to a democrat about what they are doing wrong is like trying to talk with a cannible about what's wrong with eating people. They don't get it because they've always been doing the wrong thing.

They feel the constitution and Bill of rights are obsticals to circumvent... instead of something to aspire to embrace.


Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.

Hello again, smoothy:
Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Now you sound like McLame . We had 8 years of Bush and never once did I hear the Dems say that elections have consequences so they should stop fighting for what they believe in ,or stop opposing the President's agenda . I never heard Shmucky say that the Dems should "respect outcomes of election " .

Enough of this rabble shut the sucker down and see.

Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

LOL, you guys are scared of him.


I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.

And so far Hobby Lobby has the court on their side.


Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.

The corporation is non-profit. Tax exempt but not contraceptive exempt? Really, arguing with you is surreal.


I take a dim view of the church lying to me.

As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

Dude, that's cold blooded.

Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express, lower right, page 15 (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

For a population of a bit over 632,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.

As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

Dude, that's cold blooded.

They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

In any case we await a ruling.

They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

In any case we await a ruling.

What part of it's freakin' ridiculous to force anyone to buy contraceptive coverage do you not get? But the church? Really? It should have NEVER happened and you're guy who waives and weaves through his own law could make it all go away with the stroke of a pen.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor) is your evil "multinational corporation":


The first group of Little Sisters destined for America left the motherhouse on August 28, 1868. After a long journey by boat they set foot on American soil in Brooklyn, New York, on September 13, 1868. The Little Sisters were faced with a cultural barrier, as no one traveling over spoke English.

Soon after arriving in Brooklyn the Little Sisters received their first donation, a gift of $20, from Rev. Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists. After welcoming their first Residents, the Sisters wrote back to the motherhouse: “The public appear delighted to see that we are willing to work for the poor; that we ask no endowment; that we desire to trust in Providence and in the generosity of the public.” A second group of Sisters arrived in Cincinnati on October 14, 1868. The arrangements for the home were facilitated by Sarah Worthington Peter, a convert to Catholicism and daughter of an Ohio senator. Six days before Christmas a third group of Little Sisters arrive in New Orleans. The house was offered to them by a group of charitable ladies who already named the house “Home of St. Joseph.” As a show of support, the municipal government paved the street in front of the home and approved an allowance of $1,000 to pay for repairs to the building.

On April 6, 1869, the Little Sisters establish their work in Baltimore. The seminary, staffed by French Sulpicians, offers donations of food and their moral support. Bishop Martin John Spalding states, “The Little Sisters of the Poor are called to do a great deal of good in America, not only among the poor, but also among the rich; for words no longer suffice — works are necessary.” From Baltimore the Little Sisters head west, establishing a house in Saint Louis on May 3, 1869. People would ask, “What are you going to do in a house where there is nothing?” “Wait a few days,” the Little Sisters replied.

Observing the Little Sisters, Bishop Patrick J. Ryan said, “If one builds on holy poverty, Providence cements the building.” Shortly after, the Sisters established a relationship with a steamboat company on the Mississippi who would solicit donations from their passengers and would set aside leftovers from the dining room, all to the benefit of the aged poor of Saint Louis. Philadelphia opened its doors to the Little Sisters on August 24, 1869. In an act of generosity on the part of a young Philadelphian, Mary Twibill, asked for her estate to be left to the Little Sisters.

Just one month later Louisville welcomed the Little Sisters. Bishop William George MacCloskey provided his assistance by lending the Sisters an estate that was intended for a seminary. The Little Sisters write back to the motherhouse, “Divine Providence provided according to our needs; within a few days, our house was found furnished with beds, tables, chairs, kitchen utensils and provisions of all kinds. We were quite overcome with gratitude towards the good God, who disposed so well people’s hearts in our favor.” The Little Sisters arrived in Boston on April 19, 1870. The Superior of the local Jesuit community remarked, “What I admire is that these Sisters are such as people describe them. One sees that they not only have confidence in Providence, but that they have not a doubt of its protection. One sees that they do not calculate, they do not reckon, they do not ask what people will give them for the needs of their poor.”

In the spring of 1870, the Little Sisters also opened a home in Cleveland. With help from a local German family the Sisters were provided with linens, mattresses and other sorts of necessary items, while the bishop, along with a wealthy Protestant, contributed toward the purchase of a suitable property. The tenth home was established in our Nation’s Capital on February 2, 1871. Together with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Father Walter, parish priest of St. Patrick’s Church, Washington, D.C. provided the Sisters with a house with carpeted rooms, numerous fire places, plenty of furniture and a well-stocked kitchen. The home gained considerable political support and the Little Sisters were authorized to beg for donations in Federal government buildings — an unprecedented privilege that continued uninterrupted until the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

When you express your disdain for corporate interests I had no idea that carried over to nuns who beg for donations to help the poor.

Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.

No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.

Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

Everything, duh. You're the one using the "corporate" label to justify the mandate and call the church a liar. Get real, Tal, you think I was born yesterday?


Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.

Which means exactly nothing, it's a non-profit charitable religious organization and the mandate violates their first amendment rights.


No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.

Drop the corporate crap, the nuns are the corporation. Geez, you're being totally ridiculous about this.

the nuns are the corporationNo they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.

No they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.

You don't even know what you're talking about, the Little Sisters of the Poor (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3558477-post131.html) is not a hospital. They are nuns who help the poor. Try and keep up all that information was right in front of you.

Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts (http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/09/20/catholic-bishops-urge-us-to-oppose-food-aid-cuts/)

Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.

Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.

Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."

What part of charity do you not get? It is not a business.

Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts (http://cal-catholic.com/wordpress/2013/09/20/catholic-bishops-urge-us-to-oppose-food-aid-cuts/)

Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?

Been there, done that. Even the CBO supports the cut in food stamps. If you want more food stamps take out of Obama's crony corporate charity fund, you'd think that would be an area of agreement.

And P.S. there is no constitutional right to food stamps and you want to punish those whose ministry is to feed the hungry and turn that over to a wasteful federal nanny.

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.




I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.

I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.

They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.

They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.

It doesn't really matter if they are non-profit. They can be still registered as a corporation. Incorporation as far as the sisters are concerned would mean they are registered as a legal entity. This would mean they have legal status as a company. The key feature of corporate personhood is that generally speaking the sisters cannot be sued for individual work done while they are incorporated.

I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether one is incorporated.

I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether or not one is incorporated.


You told Tal to drop the corporate crap and that the nuns are the corporation. You then admonished him for being ridiculous. As I pointed out before you are not correct. The nuns are not the corporation, the corporation for the purpose of this exercise is the individual.

The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.

The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.

I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.

I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.

Yes, what you have been saying from the beginning is in relation to the First Amendment. I far as I can see it is a reasonable argument. However, I don't recall any arguments you have put forward in relation to corporations, incorporation and corporate personhood.

The exception to this is you abashment of those who proposed a "corporate crap" explanation. Yes, the First Amendment is obviously relevant to the issue at hand. It is equally obvious that you were not born yesterday. Despite this fact corporation and incorporation is also relevant to the discussion.

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

I think you have probably answered your own question. The legal argument would probably end up being that it is the 'persona', not the individual that is adhering to the mandate. Therefore, the individual is not being asked to violate their rights. Corporations as a persons in law don't have religious beliefs.

I don't particularly like this argument because I am opposed to the idea of corporate personhood being considered as having some First Amendment. Rights. Nonetheless, SCOTUS has determined otherwise. I also think that their decision has created a rod for your backs.

As I have said many times before, I think that people are forced to go against their religious beliefs, regardless of the legal status of the argument.

Just think of all the food stamps that could have been issued...

Obama Commits $320 Million in Aid for Bankrupt Detroit (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-27/obama-set-to-deliver-320-million-to-restart-bankrupt-detroit)

50 years of progressive policies turned Detroit into a third world territory, turned the country's city with the highest per capita income into a wasteland - and the left is throwing a fit over a food stamp cut that is justified while DC starts pouring more money into their failed experiment so they can start it all over again.

SMH...

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

My previous response to your post was largely hypothetical. However, I would like to look at the actual contraception mandate. I thought religious organizations that had a objection to the mandate could opt out and let the insurance company pay for employee contraception?

That is not an opt out... that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.

that is not an opt out ....that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.


Well, I guess if a person feels the state is forcing them to act against their beliefs then for all intention purposes it is real.

Obviously I am not a lawyer but I see the problem going back as the first corporate personhood rulings made by SCOTUS. Subsequent rulings have strengthened this nonsensical persona.

Corporations are not exempt from government regulations and this is possibly related to the 14 Amendment. In a similar way corporations cannot claim to have a religious objection anymore than it can claim to be able to vote. However, they can claim other 1st Amendment rights.

I see part of the problem being that only a real person can have a religious objection to the mandate, not a corporation. I would imagine that the government would argue it is entitled to regulate healthcare via corporatist definitions.

In the case of health care I think corporate personhood has come back to haunt you.

So your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights ;or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .

You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?

so your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights



An institution of any type cannot have beliefs. Only the people who belong to that institution have beliefs. To say otherwise is to create a fallacy of composition. It is a fiction. However, when it comes to government regulations of corporations it is legal fiction.




or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .

Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia

Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia

I know what you have said tutt is said dirisively in debate but this is no tyranny, in this land you can have medical insurance or you can not have it, those who choose not to have it pay a uniform levy to cover the cost of their care, should they need it and for this they can be treated for free should they choose to do so. The poor and the unemployed pay nothing.The tyranny lies across the Pacific where apparently it is illegal not to have medical insurance and those who don't will pay an increasing percentage of their income year by year, which contributes nothing to their health care costs

I know which tyranny I choose to live under, a truly democratic nation which cares for its people

You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?

If the laws violate rights then yes they are tyrannical. To force religious employers to provide contraceptive coverage ,directly or indirectly ,knowing it violates their doctrine objections is indeed tyranny.

This is a furphy, the use of these contraceptives is not mandated nor is other forms of coverage, it is part of a general policy and what has been done is to say you can't write your own because we want some form of uniformity otherwise you will have people opting out of coverage and then clogging the system

There are religious nutters everywhere and this is one time they are obvious, they should take their new Pope's advice and get focused on important matters

I did not say the use of contraceptive was mandatory .I said the coverage was. I am also not interested in 'uniformity ' of coverage . There is where most of the problems lie. It is all these mandated coverages that drive up the cost in the 1st place.

It's the insurance industry that is mandated to offer contraceptives as a basic part of its health care plans. The premium cost is the same whether you use it, or not. Be aware that insurances are regulated by the states and so are the exemptions a church can get, and every state has there own. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The IRS is the one who gives exemptions for federal tax purposes. No you don't give up your rights by incorporating, but you do fall under a guideline and the laws that affect ALL the corporations. In short it's the insured and the insurer buying and paying for contraceptives, not the church, or the nuns who work for the church or the corporation.

Now some churches have rejected the carve out or accommodation that was recommended by the feds that allowed individuals to deal directly with the providers for contraceptive coverage, I suspect because it made no difference in their premium costs, so it comes down to a corporation suing for a special policy that reflects its religious views, and the insurance companies have already agreed to it. So has the government.

So what are they suing for? And lets be very clear, all religious organizations are not suing as a whole, just some individual religious organizations. My opinion, expanding the rights of religious corporations opens the door for the denial of services and benefits of employees to those organizations. If CEO's can make employees adhere to, or be subject to their religious beliefs through policy, or payment then they themselves are violating the rights of ordinary citizens.

I said the coverage was.So they'll never use them. Why the big stink? Seriously, if this is the biggest issue they face they are doing well - though I can think or other more pressing issues. I'm astounded by the amount of time you spend of this.

I'm astounded you don't get how outrageous it is to force nuns to pay for contraception coverage, which includes abortifacients, two things which are anathema to their beliefs - especially since they'll never use them.

If you frame your argument not around rising costs but religious freedom, you can make the law, and the framers of the law the bad guys. Then you don't have to address the rising costs or where they come from.

I'm astounded you don't get how outrageous it is to force nuns to pay for contraception coverage, which includes abortifacients, two things which are anathema to their beliefs - especially since they'll never use them.

Underwrite their own insurance.

In other words deal with it. How compassionate of you.

By the way, your side is working diligently to kill the self-insurance options as well.

Is the Left's New Attack On Self Insurance Obamacare Sleaze? (http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2013/09/14/is-the-lefts-new-attack-on-self-insurance-an-example-of-obamacare-sleaze-n1700056/page/full)

In other words deal with it. How compassionate of you.

I have to deal with my reality, you deal with YOURS. Live and let live is about as compassionate as it gets. We obviously define our own realities differently and that should be cool.


By the way, your side is working diligently to kill the self-insurance options as well.

Is the Left's New Attack On Self Insurance Obamacare Sleaze?

Medicare for all, OR Fix the business model. I vote for both, how about you?

Underwrite their own insurance.

That is exactly what they were doing before the commissar Sebellius mandated the coverage .

You say live and let live while forcing them to pay for contraceptive coverage? Do you really not see the disconnect there?

No.

Mandating the minimum coverage in no way forces anyone to use coverage they don't need or want, and the price is the same. That goes for all employers regardless of religion, or UNION affiliation. Specific details can be worked out through compromise, or the court, or the next election.

Or all the above.

You have a strange definition of "minimum' .

The minimum doesn't discriminate against females health needs no matter what the pope decrees. That's reality.

Yeah I've heard it all before . Anything short of complete care for "free " discriminates against someone. So does denying care ,which the death panel will be doing .

death panel<sigh> Discussion fail.

Well we already see how the death panels of the insurance company work. People have been denied life saving care. Kicked off their insurance, or capped after reaching a limit.

That's what you want back? Of course you do. If the congress gets off its butt and do their job, then they have oversight and control of the IPAD and can take recommendation by them or reject them. Its called checks and balances. MORE reality for the right wing spin machine.

It was your democratic Congress that gave us an unaccountable IPAD in the first place, and dems that block any attempt to fix anything while your President makes his own rules.

I posted the link some time ago where IPAD is accountable to the congress. So your statement is erroneous. No wonder you don't know what the facts are.

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

Name the person who penned that quote...
Hint... it isn't Sarah Palin.

Howard Dean. Unlike the right we allow for differing views. He is correct in respect that if the congress doesn't do its oversight responsibilities there could indeed be problems. That doesn't mean he is against ACA being implemented.

That's what Obama was re-elected for.

Howard Dean. Unlike the right we allow for differing views. He is correct in respect that if the congress doesn't do its oversight responsibilities there could indeed be problems. That doesn't mean he is against ACA being implemented.

That's what Obama was re-elected for.

Stop the nonsense . You know better... The emperor is allowing his commissars all types of latitude in creating regulation ;and the Dems crafted the law so that the only way to stop it is repeal or defund.
The law gives appointed bureaucrats on the IPAB life and death powers. They can cut essential care when most needed. They can stop or limit expensive treatments. They can make costs for administering them unaffordable.
Appointed bureaucrats that are NOT subject to Congressional oversight decide what's approved, what's not, what's limited, and what care costs.

Appointed bureaucrats that are NOT subject to Congressional oversight

That's not true, they can only recommend, nor will ACA be defunded or repealed by this congress or the next. High hopes, wishful thinking, and delusion, not connected to reality, or fact.

Hello again, tom:

The law gives appointed bureaucrats on the IPAB life and death powers. They can cut essential care when most needed. What's your point?? Insurance companies used to deny coverage all the time... Apparently, THAT'S a death panel you like.

Excon

That's not true, they can only recommend, nor will ACA be defunded or repealed by this congress or the next. High hopes, wishful thinking, and delusion, not connected to reality, or fact.

I will amend my comment . They are subject to Senate confirmation.

Hello again, tom:
What's your point?? Insurance companies used to deny coverage all the time... Apparently, THAT'S a death panel you like.

Excon

From the Slimes.

Most insurance companies have at least a three-level appeals process. Appeals at the first level are usually processed by the company’s appeals staff or by the company’s medical director responsible for the denial. Second-level appeals are reviewed by a medical director not involved in the original claim decision. And the third level usually involves an independent, third-party reviewer, along with a doctor who is board-certified in the same specialty as the patient’s doctor.

If your appeal is elevated to the third level and the insurance company continues to deny the claim, you can then take the appeal to the state level. Processes vary by state; you can contact your state’s insurance department for details.

If you feel too frail or overwhelmed to pursue an appeal yourself, nonprofit groups like the Patient Advocate Foundation can provide guidance for free. Fee-based services like Health Proponent are also an option. The service has been experimenting with different fee structures and is joining with affinity groups, like alumni associations and the American Automobile Association, to broaden its membership.
The difference is that there is no appeal for a IPAB decision.

from the Slimes.

The difference is that there is no appeal for a IPAB decision.

That's for Insurance companies.

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board)


The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1] Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions through supermajority vote.

Beginning in 2013, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine in particular years the projected per capita growth rate for Medicare for a multi-year period ending in the second year thereafter (the "implementation year"). If the projection exceeds a target growth rate, IPAB must develop a proposal to reduce Medicare spending in the implementation year by a specified amount. If it is required to develop a proposal, the Board must submit that proposal in January of the year before the implementation year; thus, the first proposal could be submitted in January 2014 to take effect in 2015. If the Board fails to submit a proposal that the Chief Actuary certifies will achieve the savings target, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a proposal that will achieve that amount of savings. The Secretary must then implement the proposal unless Congress enacts resolutions made to override the Board's (or the Secretary's) decisions under a fast-track procedure that the law sets forth.[1]

There never was an appeal process for the Chief Actuary, only oversight by the congress. That remains intact. And that's only if the costs exceed preset targets. The second part of this that people ignore is Medicaid which some dufus Republican governors are opting out of. I predict though, not for long.

Two more days, whether the government shuts down or NOT!!

Hello again, tom:

Let me see if I understand you... It's BETTER that insurance has a 3 levels appeals process, and to leave 30 MILLION people with NO INSURANCE at all.

Who do those people appeal to?

excon

Who appoints the appeal board for insurance companies? Bet it ain't consumers. Bet it's not up for a vote either, except by insurance companies folks.

Hello again, tom:

Lemme see if I understand you... It's BETTER that insurance has a 3 levels appeals process, and to leave 30 MILLION people with NO INSURANCE at all.

Who do those people appeal to?

excon

I think you may have missed the point. I believe what Tom was saying was about the lack of having the ability to appeal. At least under the old system there was a process that could be had and steps could be taken. Now there will be none.

Another thing that many people don't realize is that the States have been carrying the sick on their own insurance. Ones like medical and tenncare etc. They absorbed the ones that fell through the cracks for getting insurance because the person wasn't able to get it through the normal means. Now under Obamacare they can be deleted from those rolls and sent to insurance companies that can't refuse them. And when they see how much they are actually going to have to pay they are either going to freak out or die because they can't afford the meds nor the deductables that they will now inccur.

How many super majority votes do you think congress is going to have to override IPAB?

The OP says the democrats have an aversion to reality but given the current empasse I would say all parties have a serious aversion to reality. They want to play their petty games without reference to the outcomes. You really do need to get a serious respect for reality over there and do something about the political system that can create these empasses. Whatever you may think it is not democracy in action unless you have a mechanism that can resolve the empasse such as an immediate election in both houses and for the presidency so that you can get everyone on the same page

whatever you may think it is not democracy in action

We have a constitutional republic by deliberate design of the founders . They did not want to be held hostage to the changing whims of majorities.


I believe what Tom was saying was about the lack of having the ability to appeal. At least under the old system there was a process that could be had and steps could be taken. Now there will be none. exactly

Hello again, dad and tom:

At least under the old system there was a process that could be had and steps could be taken. Now there will be none. I understood.. You think it's better that the insured have a good appeal process, instead of everybody HAVING insurance - even if it has NO appeal process.

I DON'T think that's better.

Excon

So the government compels everyone to be covered... and then when they need the care;it can be denied... great plan

Hello again, tom;

and then when they need the care;it can be deniedIn the legal world, EVERYTHING the government does is appealable.

Excon

so the government compels everyone to be covered ...and then when they need the care;it can be denied ... great plan

That not what the law says but the flaw in the plan is it requires congress to act. That's the glitch. Congress acting responsibly.

They might though, after the war between the TParty and rational republicans comes to an end.

One more day guys. Will we celebrate the new law, or the shutdown? One is already here and the other looms large.

Rational republicans?? You mean the 'French Republicans' .

That not what the law says but the flaw in the plan is it requires congress to act. That's the glitch. Congress acting responsibly.

They might though, after the war between the TParty and rational republicans comes to an end.

One more day guys. Will we celebrate the new law, or the shutdown? One is already here and the other looms large.

Depends (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/nations-small-business-owners-split-on-whether-the-government-should-shut-down/2013/09/27/f2530cee-278a-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html) on who you ask...


Researchers at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management conducted the survey, which found that 48 percent of business owners support at least a temporary government shutdown, compared to 42 percent who say policymakers should hurry and strike a deal. Of the poll’s 1,387 respondents, more than 90 percent own businesses with no more than 200 workers.

Half of respondents said they could get behind a shutdown for up to a month, and nearly a third would support shuttering the government for up to three months.

If we have a shutdown, small business owners split the blame equally. Also, 63% of small business owners want a 1 year delay and 47% want full repeal while 24% want it as is. But Dems have a mandate to push on over the cliff!

Hello again,

I don't know what you mean by a "temporary" shutdown. Do you mean that you'll GIVE UP after a few days, or do you think Obama will give up after a few days??

excon

Hello again,
Do you mean that you'll GIVE UP after a few days, or do you think Obama will give up after a few days?? ANYBODY??

Helloooooo... Is anybody there?

Excon

I'd like to think there could be a reasonable compromise.

Interpreting poll numbers is not you sides strong suit, we know that. But I predict small businesses will love the exchange. At least in the states who have been putting the efforts into making them work for their constituents, and not setting up road blocks for the essential job of navigating their citizens through it.

I'd like to think there could be a reasonable compromise.

A clean bill to fund the government for 60 days for now and we keep arguing our points and see what else we could come up with. Reasonable enough for now??

How about the Democrats stop being obstructionists and let the bill go through AS-IS, exactly who died and appointed them rulers of the universe anyway.

Interpreting poll numbers is not you sides strong suit, we know that. But I predict small businesses will love the exchange. At least in the states who have been putting the efforts into making them work for their constituents, and not setting up road blocks for the essential job of navigating their citizens thru it.

I love this thread, the examples just keep rolling in.

Mimi is still in denial. Even if the website doesn't work in December she sees no reason to delay Obamacare...


At a Thursday afternoon press conference, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi was asked by THE WEEKLY STANDARD if Obamacare should be delayed in whole or in part if healthcare.gov still isn't working in November or December.

"No, no," Pelosi replied. "It has nothing to do with the programatic part. It's about technology."

But some experts have warned that if the technology isn't working weeks or months from now, Obamacare's federal insurance exchange could be thrown into a "death spiral." To function, the exchange needs enough young and healthy people to sign up, and if the healthcare.gov website isn't working, the people most likely to take the additional time and effort to sign up will be old and sick.

On Thursday, Pelosi dismissed concerns about the continued failure of healthcare.gov causing a health insurance "death spiral," saying, "No, no, I don't think so."

It isn't entirely clear how long the administration has to fix the website without causing serious problems. "For now, the failure [of healthcare.gov] has mostly been a PR nightmare for the administration. But it has the potential to cascade into a crisis for real people if challenges continue too long," Politico reported Wednesday. "Some industry officials point to Nov. 1 as a potential test for the system. That’s the day when the federal exchange is due to transfer thousands of Medicaid applications to state agencies."

House speaker John Boehner has cited the website's failure as a reason to delay the individual mandate. Under Obamacare, Americans who don't have health insurance will be fined or 1 percent of their income, whichever is higher, if they don't purchase it by February 15.

As Bonehead asked...


“How can we tax people for not buying a product from a website that doesn't work?”.

A reasonable question. Considering they're at maybe 20 percent of their target for October, it's an even better question.

Richard Fernandez observes that the Emperor instead of being forward thinking is in fact leading a course to 'back to the future'.


The relations of power in the world are constantly changing. Good managers know this and are always looking for a wave to catch and ebbs to avoid. Timing in statecraft is very important, but it is something the president seems to lack. What has kept Obama from catastrophe is the unexpected success of everything he discounts, from the tactical skill of the US military to the resilience of all sectors he considers back numbers. He proceeds instead from a kind of fixed idea.

President Obama's policies have from the beginning been dogged by a curious kind of obsolescence, as if he were planning the future on the basis of trends which were new fifty years ago. He held up Spain as the model for Green Jobs at a time when that country was already beginning to collapse. He pushed Obamacare with the fervor of a 1950s socialist even as the welfare state model of the EU teetered from demographic rot, held up only by the printing presses of the Federal Reserve.

He became enamored of Muslim Brotherhood only to discover that the populations of the Middle East had passed them by. His Secretary of State, John Kerry, is even now trying to solve the puzzle of peace in the Middle East by brokering an irrelevant agreement between Palestine and Israel, as if the world were back in 1947. And now, after finding the Saudis have left his wagon train, almost while he wasn't looking, the president has hitched his wagon to Teheran a decade late and a trillion dollars short.

He's right on schedule to implement Obamacare in about 3 years time, when the website finally comes online, just in time to realize the government can't afford it, and neither can its members. He seems to live, not in time nor even in eternity, but in the stagnant pool he imagines is timeless. Perhaps in ten years president Obama's mind will arrive at the present day and belatedly rediscover the possibilities of his own country, which he had written already off as being in terminal decline. Until then it's Back Full and Back Emergency.

Obama sold himself to the voters as the candidate of the future. His real talent however, apparently lies in missing every opportunity that history presents. It has been said that “generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it”. With Obama it's different. He always fights the last war and can't even remember who won it, except to remain confirmed in his conviction that the future is some other country's past.

Belmont Club » Lagged (http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/18/lagged/#more-32550)
He concentrates on the emperor's bungling of foreign policy... but also uses domestic energy and Obamacare as examples of backward thinking by the emperor.. who still believes he's ahead of the curve.

More conservative website opinions?

The source is irrelevant. What part of the op-ed do you disagree with ?

Hello tom:

He became enamored of Muslim BrotherhoodIt's CRAP. Pure CRAP. I didn't have to read very far in this screed to find CRAP.

excon

Oh so you think he isn't enamored with the Muslim Brotherhood ? Why is it that he was willing to supply Egypt with military hardware when the Brotherhood was ruling ,but is now planning on suspending aid now that the military lead a revolt against the Brotherhood.

Hello again, tom:

Why is it that he was willing to supply Egypt with military hardware when the Brotherhood was ruling Enamored IS birther crap.. I never thought I'd have to explain foreign policy to you...

He's doing it for TWO reasons... (1) The military is the ONLY counter force TO the Muslim Brotherhood, as has been born out by recent events, and (2) Egypt IS an ally that we PROMISED to support when they signed the peace treaty with Israel.

We DO want them to adhere to the treaty, don't we?

excon

We DO want them to adhere to the treaty, don't we?

excon

Why, are they militarily strong. Only now that the brotherhood has been removed are they honouring their obligations

Hello again, tom:
Enamored IS birther crap.. I never thought I'd have to explain foreign policy to you...

He's doing it for TWO reasons... (1) The military is the ONLY counter force TO the Muslim Brotherhood, as has been born out by recent events, and (2) Egypt IS an ally that we PROMISED to support when they signed the peace treaty with Israel.

We DO want them to adhere to the treaty, don't we?

excon

So again... why is he considering suspending aid to Egypt ? And why was he willing to send aid to Egypt when the Brotherhood was in charge ? I think he's got it backwards. Nahh enamored is not birtherism.. not even close .One of his 1st moves as the President was to go to Cairo and stir up popular revolt .

Why, are they militarily strong. Only now that the brotherhood has been removed are they honouring their obligations

You have it backwards too.

Vote for Glenn Beck then. Or any of the Fox News failures.

Juan Williams, bless his soul, blamed the healthcare.gov disaster on GOP opposition to Obamacare. Only in liberal la la land can the embarrassingly ridiculous failure of the launch of a massive overhaul passed with no Republican support and executed and managed by a Democratic administration be the fault of Republicans. GOP pressure was so great they had to roll out an untested site and lie about it's awesomeness.

J5com32mKPo

Vote for Glenn Beck then.He is a republican messiah.

He is a republican messiah.

Unlike Dems we don't elevate people to Messiah status.

He is a republican messiah.

So is Obama, the wingers here have called him that repeatedly. We call Beck a right wing loony in contrast.

So is Obama, the wingers here have called him that repeatedly. We call Beck a right wing loony in contrast.

That was a perfect post for this thread, a perfect example of aversion to reality.When you show us all the examples of any conservative elevating Beck, a Libertarian I believe by the way, to a god-like status we can talk. Otherwise, the examples of lefties singing the praises of The One will never be forgotten (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3566793-post318.html).


"We have an amazing story to tell," she said. "This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light."

-- Michelle Obama

"Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus."

-- Politiken (Danish newspaper)

"No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don't expect, like Jesus being born in a manger."

--Lawrence Carter

"Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama."

-- Dinesh Sharma

"We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra."

-- Chicago] Sun-Times

"A Lightworker -- An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being"

-- Mark Morford

"He communicates God-like energy..."

-- Steve Davis (Charleston, SC)

"I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."

-- Halle Berry

"A quantum leap in American consciousness"

-- Deepak Chopra

"He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century."

-- Gary Hart

"Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence."

-- Eve Konstantine

"This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament." | "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event."

-- Chris Matthews

"We're here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth."

-- Oprah Winfrey

Juan Williams, bless his soul, blamed the healthcare.gov disaster on GOP opposition to Obamacare. Only in liberal la la land can the embarrassingly ridiculous failure of the launch of a massive overhaul passed with no Republican support and executed and managed by a Democratic administration be the fault of Republicans. GOP pressure was so great they had to roll out an untested site and lie about it's awesomeness.

J5com32mKPo

When are you going to learn that progressives are a coalition of ideas, and opinions and are not just stuck on one idea, or opinion.

The TParty hates everything and everybody who doesn't completely agree with them and hell bent on destroying what and who they don't like.

They should rename themselves the TParty POOPERS. That would be accurate at least.

When are you going to learn that progressives are a coalition of ideas, and opinions and are not just stuck on one idea, or opinion.

The TParty hates everything and everybody who doesn't completely agree with them and hell bent on destroying what and who they don't like.

They should rename themselves the TParty POOPERS. That would be accurate at least.

Wow, 2 in a row. The post had nothing to do with the Tea Party.

The TParty runs the republican party doesn't it? I cut out the middle man.

The TParty runs the republican party doesn't it? I cut out the middle man.

George Soros runs the Democrat party. In fact he OWNS Obama.

George Soros runs the Democrat party. In fact he OWNS Obama.

Well at least you have someone to blame, the Republicans can't seen to decide who to blame

Nugent threatens death if Obama wins in November – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/nugent-threatens-death-if-obama-wins-in-november/)

He is neither dead or in jail, after we did our part, the hypocrite liar!

Ted Cruz's Father Suggested His Son Is 'Anointed' to Bring About 'End Time Transfer of Wealth' | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/cruz-father-suggests-ted-cruz-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer-wealth)

| Ted Cruz Worked With Religious Right Founder Paul Weyrich, To Elect George W. Bush (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/10/8/132658/236/)

Now this is the REAL aversion from reality.

Nugent threatens death if Obama wins in November – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/nugent-threatens-death-if-obama-wins-in-november/)

He is neither dead or in jail, after we did our part, the hypocrite liar!

And all the liberal wackos that threatened to move to Canada if Bush was reelected are still here. What's your point?

Ted Cruz's Father Suggested His Son Is 'Anointed' to Bring About 'End Time Transfer of Wealth' | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/cruz-father-suggests-ted-cruz-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer-wealth)

| Ted Cruz Worked With Religious Right Founder Paul Weyrich, To Elect George W. Bush (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/10/8/132658/236/)

Now this is the REAL aversion from reality.

Yes, the once again resurrected liberal Dominionist conspiracy is definitely an aversion to reality.

Nugent threatens death if Obama wins in November – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/nugent-threatens-death-if-obama-wins-in-november/)

He is neither dead or in jail, after we did our part, the hypocrite liar!You do know that they did pay him a visit and they asked about it as if it were a threat right?

CNN never got the coverage right on the first gulf war or anything since.

You do know that they did pay him a visit and they asked about it as if it were a threat right?

You don't think a loony with GUNS should be checked out after he talks CRAZY?

You don't think a loony with GUNS should be checked out after he talks CRAZY?

Did he threaten anyone directly ?

You don't think a loony with GUNS should be checked out after he talks CRAZY?

Nobody has checked out Durbin, Reid, Biden or Obama yet... and everything that comes out of their mouths is crazy and deranged.

Did he threaten anyone directly ?

Dead or in jail is a veiled threat to me coming from a loony talking crazy with a bunch of guns. They would have been derelict in their duty not to check it out. Nugent fan back in the day maybe?


Nobody has checked out Durbin, Reid, Biden or Obama yet... and everything that comes out of their mouths is crazy and deranged.

Look whose talking.

Dead or in jail is a veiled threat to me coming from a loony talking crazy with a bunch of guns. They would have been derelict in their duty not to check it out. Nugent fan back in the day maybe?



Look whose talking.

Right now it is you...

You believe EVERYTHING your messiah tells you... when nothing he has ever told anyone has been found to be factual or truthful. In fact Obama makes Bill Clinton look Honest.

I am confident having thrived and survived many presidents, I will survive this one. Next one too, God willing. Why live in fear the world will end? Why holler when you can relax and enjoy the fruits of your labor?

Just because you work with lefties all day every day why holler at me with your assumptions? Relax and get ready for Hillary to take over.

I am confident having thrived and survived many presidents, I will survive this one. Next one too, God willing. Why live in fear the world will end? Why holler when you can relax and enjoy the fruits of your labor?


I was thinking similar thoughts in the Bush years with all those libs coming unhinged, wishing death on the regime and even making movies fantasizing about assassination.

I am confident having thrived and survived many presidents, I will survive this one. Next one too, God willing. Why live in fear the world will end? Why holler when you can relax and enjoy the fruits of your labor?

Just because you work with lefties all day every day why holler at me with your assumptions? Relax and get ready for Hillary to take over.

I work close to lefties every day... they tend to be the most self deluded imbiciles on the planet. Like true cult members believe what they are told to believe and discount every shred of proof to the contrary they are faced with...

And like Jehovahs Witnesses... still go door to door aggressively trying to convince everyone else to not look at the man behind the curtains... but take their word for it. THey are right and everyone else is wrong... trust them on it.

Being dumb and uneducated is one thing...but when educated people ignore hard evidence to trust a known liars words (Obama in this case)....there is no excuse for that.

all those libs coming unhingedProbably due to their kids dying overseas.

Probably due to their kids dying overseas.

Then they should have told their congressmen to vote no, but you know that's not what I'm referring to.

It matters not what the citizens tell their congressmen to do, they will do the bidding of whoever pays them the most.

Being dumb and uneducated is one thing...but when educated people ignore hard evidence to trust a known liars words (Obama in this case)....there is no excuse for that.

So what is your excuse for ignoring me? My evidence not convincing enough?

It matters not what the citizens tell their congressmen to do, they will do the bidding of whoever pays them the most.

I don't think the truth of that is known south of the Canadian border

So what is your excuse for ignoring me? My evidence not convincing enough?

Not ignoring you... and nope your evidence isn't convincing enough.

Anyone can post anything on the internet... doesn't make it factual.

Google up Alien Abduction sometime... see what I mean. Look at how many people blieve in Bigfoot, the Abominable snowman.. etc.

Hell, just look at the Paranormal forum.......lots of people there in need of medications to stop the things they are seeing and voices in their heads.

It matters not what the citizens tell their congressmen to do, they will do the bidding of whoever pays them the most.

And the point goes right over your head.

And the point goes right over your head.It might. Explain the point for us please.

It might. Explain the point for us please.

The vote on both wars was passed with strong bipartisan support, it was never all Bush's fault, he sought congressional approval and got it.

How does that prove that I missed the point about the pointlessness of citizens trying to get their congressmen to vote a certain way? That political vote you speak of had nothing to do with what US citizens wanted.

How does that prove that I missed the point about the pointlessness of citizens trying to get their congressmen to vote a certain way? That political vote you speak of had nothing to do with what US citizens wanted.

Nothing at all really, again you missed the point.