Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

But but but...we were told it would save the average family $2500 per year!! Obama and the dems are for the poor and the middle class!

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

To many people make this about race, this has nothing to do with the Presidents skin color- it has to do with his failed polices and the lies and more lies.

 

[irishog77]

This is the biggest scam ever....go look at the new taxes for 2014. smh

NDFANnSouthWest is one of my favorites on here. He bought me gift and welcomed me on here when I finally quit lurking and actually joined this site.

And he keeps bringing a smile to my face with many of posts...particularly the often included, "smh." Reps to you.

This has nothing to do with politics, just thought I'd share. Carry on.

 

[RyCo1983]

I hope that wasn't directed at me. I'm actually a bit of a mixed bag (years registered as a democrat or republican are roughly split; card carrying member of NRA, pro-choice, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, etc., etc.).

I just think all the media at both extremes are shameful (as in if you don't think so, what the fuck is wrong with you).

EDIT: With the marijuana comment (which is probably not appropriate, but certainly not uncalled for due to aforementioned candor), it's most likely GoIrish41.

In the spirit of IrishHog's previous post...Andy sounds like a dude I could sit down and have 50 beers with. You speak my mind. REPS

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

To many people make this about race, this has nothing to do with the Presidents skin color- it has to do with his failed polices and the lies and more lies.

Don't tell GoIrish41 that.And MSNBC. And EJ Dionne. Joan Walsh. Robert Reich. Paul Krugman. Eugene Robinson. The only reason obstructionist Republicans oppose him is because of skin color.

 

[phgreek]

Don't tell GoIrish41 that.And MSNBC. And EJ Dionne. Joan Walsh. Robert Reich. Paul Krugman. Eugene Robinson. The only reason obstructionist Republicans oppose him is because of skin color.

...I'm amazed at the tenacity of some of these folks...

BUT, it is pavlovian when you consider these folks have been rewarded for following unsubstantiated claims they are called on by INSANE emotional tirades. Won't stop until a few of them are hung with the rope with which they are flogging the rest of us.

They exist in a world where audacity is a suitable substitute for deliberation, discussion, and truth...it needs to end

 

[RallySonsOfND]

and the hits just keep coming...

A US federal judge has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans' laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check.

No warrant boys and girls...We officially have a DMZ, well really a DCZ ...De-constitution Zone...WTF??? how long before we do the same to Chicago? Anybody got an issue with that?

I have to go to El Paso for work at least monthly, and everytime I leave I already have to go through an Inspection station where they ask my citizenship status, and depending on the guy working it other questions like where my final destination is, how long I was in El Paso, what for, etc...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

...I'm amazed at the tenacity of some of these folks...

BUT, it is pavlovian when you consider these folks have been rewarded for following unsubstantiated claims they are called on by INSANE emotional tirades. Won't stop until a few of them are hung with the rope with which they are flogging the rest of us.

They exist in a world where audacity is a suitable substitute for deliberation, discussion, and truth...it needs to end

I despise the modern progressives who've taken over the Democrat party, but when it comes to this stuff ya gotta tip your hat. Their tactics are what they are and it's never enough. Saul Alinsky would smile.

 

[connor_in]

Alec Baldwin Subtweets MSNBC And Melissa Harris-Perry, Wondering If Crying Would Have Helped Him » The Right Scoop -

 

[connor_in]

Ed Driscoll » The Right as ‘The Other’

Really interesting article left about how each side views their opponent and what it means.

 

[phgreek]

I despise the modern progressives who've taken over the Democrat party, but when it comes to this stuff ya gotta tip your hat. Their tactics are what they are and it's never enough. Saul Alinsky would smile.

...indeed he might be....if only because his methods continue to work, even at the highest levels...and to me, that's the problem

...those employing those tactics aren't fighting for humane treatment of laborers...they are using Alinsky tactics with no beneficiaries but their own political careers...I don't think even Alinsky would approve...

Saul Alinsky himself was a hater of ideologues...he'd dislike and distrust Harry Reid and Barrack Obama IMHO.

 

[connor_in]

Rachel’s Show | National Review Online

 

[GoIrish41]

Don't tell GoIrish41 that.And MSNBC. And EJ Dionne. Joan Walsh. Robert Reich. Paul Krugman. Eugene Robinson. The only reason obstructionist Republicans oppose him is because of skin color.

Yes because I so often say that Republican obstructionists are motivated by the president's skin color. They opose him because they opose him -- thier philosophy (however misguided and hurtful to the majority of working Americans) of the Republicans is not the same as those of the Dems. And while I don't doubt that some of them are motivated by race (just as some who support the president), I don't assign any motivation other than they care more about big business interests and money than they do the American people.

 

[ACamp1900]

Yes because I so often say that Republican obstructionists are motivated by the president's skin color. They opose him because they opose him -- thier philosophy (however misguided and hurtful to the majority of working Americans) of the Republicans is not the same as those of the Dems. And while I don't doubt that some of them are motivated by race (just as some who support the president), I don't assign any motivation other than they care more about big business interests and money than they do the American people.

Bigot

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes because I so often say that Republican obstructionists are motivated by the president's skin color. They opose him because they opose him -- thier philosophy (however misguided and hurtful to the majority of working Americans) of the Republicans is not the same as those of the Dems. And while I don't doubt that some of them are motivated by race (just as some who support the president), I don't assign any motivation other than they care more about big business interests and money than they do the American people.

1) Dem policies have crushed the middle class and working Americans over the past 5 years.

2) Motivated by race: does that include minorities who hated Bush? Or is racism only one way?

3) Big business interests: GM, Solyndra, banks, education are all big business. Hellllooo?

 

[phgreek]

1) Dem policies have crushed the middle class and working Americans over the past 5 years.

2) Motivated by race: does that include minorities who hated Bush? Or is racism only one way?

3) Big business interests: GM, Solyndra, banks, education are all big business. Hellllooo?

YUP!

 

[phgreek]

I have to go to El Paso for work at least monthly, and everytime I leave I already have to go through an Inspection station where they ask my citizenship status, and depending on the guy working it other questions like where my final destination is, how long I was in El Paso, what for, etc...

This seems like intrusion that could be avoided...not extended...

sounds like it could back things up a bit...no fun.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Finally, someone steps up to the plate.

I'm Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions for Congress
If the president wants to change the health-care law, he must ask Congress to do it.

By RON JOHNSON
Jan. 5, 2014 6:06 p.m. ET

On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans' throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president's Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans "created under" ObamaCare or "offered through an Exchange" established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law's benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That's when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.

Sen. Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin.

 

[phgreek]

Finally, someone steps up to the plate.

I'm Suing Over ObamaCare Exemptions for Congress
If the president wants to change the health-care law, he must ask Congress to do it.

By RON JOHNSON
Jan. 5, 2014 6:06 p.m. ET

On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans' throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president's Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans "created under" ObamaCare or "offered through an Exchange" established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law's benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That's when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.

Sen. Johnson is a Republican from Wisconsin.

Man...I don't care what party he is...he intends to restore order...this is awesome...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Man...I don't care what party he is...he intends to restore order...this is awesome...

You got it. I'd support this if he had a D behind his name too.

 

[ACamp1900]

Just wait until the right passes some massive leftist nightmare of a bill, selectively enforces it, blocks legislation to impact it and does it all with an overly antagonistic attitude... Fun times.

 

[phgreek]

Just wait until the right passes some massive leftist nightmare of a bill, selectively enforces it, blocks legislation to impact it and does it all with an overly antagonistic attitude... Fun times.

I'll be on here with Nah Uh defense just to bring things full circle...

 

[connor_in]

Rachel’s Show | National Review Online

Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line

 

[phgreek]

Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line

...I'm sure she is the most intelligent talent they have...EASILY, and she is sarcastic and funny, and generally entertaining. However, she is this odd mix of Olberman Humor and Joe Mccarthy on conservatives...

...when its all over you realize she is Glenn Beck's sister...entertaining, intelligent...but not someone you trust with your own credibility by quoting them...because they are indeed bat shit crazy.

 

[connor_in]

MSNBC's Al Sharpton mentions 'race,' 'racist' 215 times on TV in 2013 | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[ACamp1900]

MSNBC's Al Sharpton mentions 'race,' 'racist' 215 times on TV in 2013 | WashingtonExaminer.com

What the heck else is he supposed to mention??? You don't put that guy on TV for any other valid reason... ever.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Serious question for the leftists: how is it possible that we need to extend unemployment insurance for some 23 million people AND grant amnesty to some 12-15 million illegal immigrants?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Serious question for the leftists: how is it possible that we need to extend unemployment insurance for some 23 million people AND grant amnesty to some 12-15 million illegal immigrants?

When you pay your tax bill you will know the answer.

 

[GoIrish41]

Serious question for the leftists: how is it possible that we need to extend unemployment insurance for some 23 million people AND grant amnesty to some 12-15 million illegal immigrants?

Because if you don't, you will never win another national election again.

 

[phgreek]

Because if you don't, you will never win another national election again.

...doesn't that really just mean the word "NO" as relates to funding anything liberal?