The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Argh, curse you Republicans!
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5175
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Argh, curse you Republicans!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6180330/repealing_the_jobkilling_health_care.html?cat=9

Really? You named it the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"? God, I hate that ****. I was almost ready to forget about the "Patriot Act". Next, we'll hear about new educational reforms titled "Think About The Children Act".

aaaaaarrrrrgggggh.

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yup. Acting like a bunch of spoiled children. Not that I'm surprised really.

I had to turn off MPR this morning because they were interviewing Bachmann. I can only handle so much batshit crazy before 9am.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Argh, curse you Republicans!

Sadface

Author:  Jeryn [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

If they're going to lay it on thick, I'm disappointed they didn't go all-out and work seal clubbing in there somehow.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Aizle wrote:
Yup. Acting like a bunch of spoiled children. Not that I'm surprised really.
You really did not say this, did you? I mean, this is not an exact quote of something you said regarding Congress Critters given your blatant preference for the Democrats and sitting President right?

Author:  Hannibal [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

LOL they actually named it that? No wonder MSNBC has been quiet on it.

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Khross wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Yup. Acting like a bunch of spoiled children. Not that I'm surprised really.
You really did not say this, did you? I mean, this is not an exact quote of something you said regarding Congress Critters given your blatant preference for the Democrats and sitting President right?


I honestly have no idea what your second sentence means.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argh, curse you Republicans!

It's me being extremely sarcastic and over-the-top in conveying my surprise you'd post something so patently hypocritical, Aizle. You did watch C-SPAN and follow Congressional news during the month of December, right? Regardless of who or what you support politically, the party acting like spoiled children since November has been the Democrats. They called back to back special sessions of Congress; attempted to pass every piece of failed Democratic agenda legislation they could; outright lied to people about the tax cuts and unemployment benefits; and they even tried to amend procedural rules in both houses to make things more difficult for the succeeding Congress.

Also, since you couldn't substantiate the bat-shit crazy part about Bachman last time, seeing as how it took the Glade all of 5 minutes to discredit Politico on their reporting about her, let's not just call Bachman crazy, insult the Republicans, and totally ignore what the Democrats have been doing for the last 60 days.

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ah, well I'm less confused now. Carry on with your rant.

Enjoy the color of the sky in your world.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argh, curse you Republicans!

Aizle:

The only person posting anything politically delusional of late happens to be you. While I have little, if any, support for the Republicans, I simply cannot fathom how you are so willing to slobber the collective Democratic wang on a regular basis. You insult the Republican Party on a regular basis, continue to insist that Michelle Bachman is crazy without substantiating it, and continue to defend Barack Obama without specifically saying why you're defending him. And when you are challenged with facts, you call the rest of is delusional and start slinging insults at us.

So ...

1. Who called the two special sessions of Congress since the November 2010 Election?

2. Which party made rules changes in both houses during those special sessions of Congress?

3. Which of the following unpopular and politically controversial bills were sent back to the House and Senate floors during the two special sessions of Congress that ended 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell; The DREAM Act; The Cap and Trade Tax Bill; Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act; The SAFE Act; The PRO-IP Act.

Oh, and while we're at it, since you think the Republicans are acting like Children ...

What, exactly, is Childish about a political party collectively honoring a widespread campaign promise for the time in memory history? I mean, well, oh ... now I get it ...

They're being childish because they might actually attempt to do at least one thing they said they'd do; and they might actually make that attempt in good faith. I get it. I think the word you were looking for is naive ...

Author:  Screeling [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

I will admit this is pretty lame. I find it incredibly hilarious, though, to hear liberals complain about it.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

The deafening silence of the liberals the last couple of years, in the face of all the pandering in Congressional law-naming, makes their outrage kind of hard to take seriously.

Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.

Author:  Khross [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Xequecal wrote:
The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office isn't exactly a dependable source on anything anymore ...

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

You mistake my post Khross.

I'm not interested in debating with you. It became quite obvious to me some time ago that you are quite firmly entrenched in your political world view. One, which differs quite drastically from mine. Obviously each of us feels that we are right, and have our various evidence that proves our point. Evidence that the other finds false or misleading. We are not going to change that fact, and I grow weary of the exchanges.

So again, enjoy your world view and I wish you well.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Xequecal wrote:
The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.


I'm sure the CBO numbers accurately reflect what the Dems gave them to work with, based on 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services, the non-inclusion of the $200+ billion "doc fix", double counting Medicare cuts..., the CBO had no choice but to come up with the numbers they did. An accurate accounting of the bill would reflect reason and logic; you can't give entitlements to 30+ million people and spend less money, it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Author:  Nitefox [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Aizle wrote:
It became quite obvious to me some time ago that you are quite firmly entrenched in your political world view.



And you aren't? Dude, if the questions get too hard, you run and hide.

Author:  Xequecal [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Vindicarre wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.


I'm sure the CBO numbers accurately reflect what the Dems gave them to work with, based on 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services, the non-inclusion of the $200+ billion "doc fix", double counting Medicare cuts..., the CBO had no choice but to come up with the numbers they did. An accurate accounting of the bill would reflect reason and logic; you can't give entitlements to 30+ million people and spend less money, it just doesn't pass the sniff test.


I always thought the idea was to pass the cost on to the rest of the country through higher insurance rates, which technically would save the government money.

Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

while trying to find a record of all special sessions I came across this tidbit. I LOL'd.

Turnip Day Session
The Turnip Day Session (or the "Turnip Day" session) was a special session of Congress called on July 26, 1948, "Turnip Day" according to Missouri folklore, by United States President Harry Truman.

With fewer than four months remaining before the 1948 election day, Truman's public approval rating stood at only 36 percent. Two years earlier, Congress had come under Republican control for the first time in 15 years. His opponent, Thomas Dewey, seemed already to be planning his own move to the White House. In search of a bold political gesture, the president turned to Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, which provides that the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses [of Congress], or either of them." On rare occasions, presidents have called both houses into extraordinary session to deal with urgent matters of war and economic crisis.

On July 15, several weeks after the Republican-controlled Congress had adjourned for the year leaving much business unfinished, Truman took the unprecedented step of using his presidential nomination acceptance speech to call both houses back into session. He delivered that speech under particularly trying circumstances. Without air conditioning, delegates sweltered in the Philadelphia convention hall's oven-like atmosphere. By the time the president finally stepped before the cameras in this first televised Democratic convention in 1948, organizers had lost all hope of controlling the schedule.

At 1:45 in the morning, speaking only from an outline, Truman quickly electrified the tired delegates. In announcing the special session, he challenged the Republican majority to live up to the pledges of their own recently concluded convention to pass laws to ensure civil rights, extend Social Security coverage, and establish a national health-care program. "They can do this job in fifteen days, if they want to do it." he challenged. That two-week session would begin on "what we in Missouri call 'Turnip Day,'" taken from the old Missouri saying, "On the twenty-fifth of July, sow your turnips, wet or dry."

Republican senators reacted scornfully. To Arthur Vandenberg, it sounded like "a last hysterical gasp of an expiring administration." Yet, Vandenberg and other senior Senate Republicans urged action on a few measures to solidify certain vital voting blocs. "No!" exclaimed Republican Policy Committee chairman Robert Taft. "We're not going to give that fellow anything." Charging Truman with abuse of a presidential prerogative, Taft blocked all legislative action during the futile session. By doing this, Taft amplified Truman's case against the "Do-nothing Eightieth Congress" and arguably contributed to his November victory.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Xequecal wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.


I'm sure the CBO numbers accurately reflect what the Dems gave them to work with, based on 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services, the non-inclusion of the $200+ billion "doc fix", double counting Medicare cuts..., the CBO had no choice but to come up with the numbers they did. An accurate accounting of the bill would reflect reason and logic; you can't give entitlements to 30+ million people and spend less money, it just doesn't pass the sniff test.


I always thought the idea was to pass the cost on to the rest of the country through higher insurance rates, which technically would save the government money.


Then why the need for the accounting tricks?

Author:  TheRiov [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

I thought the savings were largely based on economies of scale, and the (possibly false) assumption that those without insurance coverage previously also dont use health care that often so are 'winning bets' for the insurance industry.

Author:  shuyung [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argh, curse you Republicans!

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Really? You named it the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"? God, I hate that ****.

Inorite? RJKHCLA doesn't spell anything.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Xequecal wrote:
The Republicans also made a campaign promise not to further increase the deficit, and the CBO says repealing the health care law will cost the government an extra $220 billion.


Yes because they won't generate income for the bill for more years than the cost of the survey of the bill was done for.

Hell if I tax the nation for 200 years before I launch the SPEND ALL THE MONEY ON HOOKERS AND BLOW and only spend 150 years worth well of course its going to "cost" the government 50 years of income if that plan gets shot down.

Author:  Stathol [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well I know what *my* platform in 2012 is going to be, now.

Author:  Rynar [ Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Stathol wrote:
Well I know what *my* platform in 2012 is going to be, now.


inorite?

Elmo just turned me into a liberal.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/