# If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history



## JimH52 (Mar 31, 2014)

There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!


----------



## Crystalclear (Mar 31, 2014)

No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.


----------



## natstew (Mar 31, 2014)

If the ACA succeeds, America loses.


----------



## rdean (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



Hardly, remember, the GOP was against Social Security and Medicare.  While they will spend trillions to turn Iraq from an enemy into a deadly enemy, they are afraid American helping American will make us a (gasp) "socialist nation".

The "dirty little secret" here is that no one has told Republicans that Social Security and Medicare are "government programs".


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 31, 2014)

rdean said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...



I heard a caller on the radio slamming the Federal Government and the ACA this morning.  The DJ asked him where he worked....and you guessed it.  For the Government.  Another GOP Hypocrite....


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



Troll spray time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



The ACA IS succeeding.

And, whether they like it or not, that's good for Americans.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 31, 2014)

rdean said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...



There were Republicans who voted for both programs.

NONE for ACA.

Does that teach you anything?

Probably not.

Neither of those programs were an attempt to enslave Americans.

ACA is.

Neither of those two programs put Americans out of work or cost them, personally, thousands of dollars to implement.

Neither of those two programs resulted in life threatening decisions having to be made by individuals and families just to stay alive.

Neither of those two programs was created and passed through the use of underhanded, sneaky, manipulative games by lawmakers in collusion with the President of the United States.

Neither of those two programs forced businesses to lay off employees or cut their employees' hours.

You aren't just ignorant or stupid. You are a tool being used to effect the downfall of America.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 31, 2014)

For Obamacare to succeed Obama have to be something other than a total failure.

No worries there.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

Dear Luddly: if the ACA is developed by voluntary participation and funding, yes that is good for America.
it reinforces the idea that people should be responsible for our own health care decisions and financial stability, independent of govt.

If the ACA is pushed as a political ploy against the Republicans, the Constitution, and
against free market choices to pay for health care coverage for more people in more sustainable ways,
NO it is not good for America. it is politically discriminatory and divisive, and promotes dependence on govt to force funding and regulate programs that limit natural freedoms
and PUNISH business development, instead of promoting Constitutional govt where the citizens enforce limitations on govt in order to handle responsibilities directly.

Again Luddly I ask you to consider what if this was a prolife program,
that announced a "victory" in saving the lives of more babies at the expense of free choice
(and any women who would die of illegal abortions, since that number is less than the lives saved in comparison).

Would you be cheering on a victory if a prolife program succeeded 
in "saving more lives" than were lost, at the expense of "freedom of choice"?



Luddly Neddite said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...



This reminds me when Democrats were against the Iraq War and blamed Bush.

And regardless of cost, waste, or political conflicts overridden, 
as long as the war supporters could rally for victory, they smeared it in the faces
of opponents, calling them names and denouncing their objections as fake and politically
motivated against Bush, since "they were benefitting from the war" and "voted for it."

This sounds like equal and opposite karma, coming full circle.
And I can't wait for both sides of this dirty storm to pass!


----------



## driveby (Mar 31, 2014)

If a frog had wings.......


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 31, 2014)

If obama could fly, he'd be able to drop his own turd bombs.  obamacare has already been a massive failure.  The boat has sailed.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 31, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.



I think you have been led to believe this is all just tit 4 tat and politics as usual.

It isn't.

This is a struggle to determine whether America will continue to be a free, strong and prosperous land. Whether we will have government for the people, of the people and by the people you grew up in or whether it will become a totalitarian nation with all Americans toeing the Government line as subjects.

The Democrat party no longer leans toward democracy except as democracy helps them maintain or gain power over us.

That is not what I ever believed the Democrat party was about.

The Democrats today have as their unwritten goal the elimination of any significant opposition and please do not take my word for it.

Find out for yourself whether what I'm saying has any validity.

I love America and I respect our two party system of government.

But today's Democrats are anti-American and want totalitarianism to result from the struggles we are seeing in Washington and reflected here on the pages of USMB.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



That is like saying if the ION didn't fail then Saturn would still be around here!

The ACA has been an utter failure and it has NOTHING to do with the GOP! It has everything to do with shit piece of legislation!


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

rdean said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...



Dear Rdean: Maybe your problem is you don't work with enough Republicans to find out the solutions they would support.

The conservatives and Republicans I know OPPOSED medicare and social security for leading to more and more of this govt controls of medical care, because it promoted more unconstitutional dependence on govt.

That was their whole argument, that by opening the door to this, it would get worse.
And ACA proved their worst fears came true. That's why they were opposed in the first place,
and wanted to limit or replace govt welfare with private systems with more financial accountability.

Social Security was supposed to be a TEMPORARY program.
Welfare could be replaced with microlending so there is financial accountability.

Even Obama believes in microlending as a solution to poverty.
So why not turn this whole system into microlending, where people borrow and lend through their party, and anything done through govt is PAID BACK.

Woudn't that satisfy both parties?
And where they disagree over right to health care, right to life or right to choose,
the parties can fund their own separate health care networks, so members can
fund the policies of their choice.

Why not push for both for parties recognize and protect these political beliefs equally?

Wouldn't they be better at collecting taxes or managing loans toward their own programs,
where they both have vested interest in making sure programs SUCCEED instead of FAIL?


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 31, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Luddly: if the ACA is developed by voluntary participation and funding, yes that is good for America.
> it reinforces the idea that people should be responsible for our own health care decisions and financial stability, independent of govt.
> 
> If the ACA is pushed as a political ploy against the Republicans, the Constitution, and
> ...



You have been around awhile. Long enough to have seen and noticed a real shift in the national political tenor which you call a "dirty storm."

I have found what may well be the smoking gun behind this dirty storm.

Bill Ayers and people like him have corrupted the educational process in America to the point where new teachers are (and have been for some time now)  being indoctrinated into anti-American beliefs and principles. 

And, in turn, these teachers, who have become infected with this anti-American propaganda, have accepted this belief system and are turning out thousands upon thousands of new students in America's classrooms who are quite different from how we were raised and taught.

They are undermining America by way of our youngest citizens. And now that these youngsters have started to reach the age of majority they're coming into their own and into our valued institutions: The news media - to reflect their skewed perspectives; America's boardrooms - to affect business policies there; In our movies, TV shows and in the music we listen to - to affect our young people's attitudes and morality.

And closer to home, they are showing up on the pages of USMB and are acting as though THEY are right and we America loving patriots are the perverse extremists. 

The dirty storm isn't going to pass unless we stop them from further infecting Americans with this fatal disease of anti-American Progressivism or until we succumb or surrender.

And if the latter comes to fruition all will be lost.

America as we know it...America as our Founding Fathers created it, will be just history.

And then, expect that page of history to be erased by these anti-Americans so that no one in the future will ever get the idea of creating a new American revolution based on our founding principles.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 31, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...


I will agree on this. A healthcare reform that succeed would be good for America. Obaminationcare is not that.
(1) More people have LOST their coverage than gained coverage.
(2) The decrease in the number of uninsured Americans is marginal
(3) Premium, co-pays and deductibles have SKY-ROCKETED, while other benefits have decreased
(4) The vast majority of doctors and hospitals refuse to take policies off the Obaminationcare exchanges
(5) The exchanges have been a disaster
(6) The youth enrollment, who needed to sign up to make the program work, have not signed up for the program.
(7) It's squeezing small business. The once under 50 with policies are either dropping them or paying a ton to keep them putting them at another disadvantage against the big corps. The ones above 50 are cutting back to 50 and dropping coverage or they are getting squeezed also.

It's been a disaster and by design. They want to destroy the private insurance industry and achieve their true end-game (Single Payor)!


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



So not only are the new rules from Republicans that you need a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, unless you can get a Republican to vote for a law it is not valid


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Unless you can provide a link verifying your claims I will assume it is your opinion


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 31, 2014)

I hope it does, than I hope your alls kids, grandkids and great grandkids hate you for life for saddling them with that and the irs around their NECKS for life


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Dear Rightwinger:
If I were ever accused of consenting to sex when I reported being raped,
I hope you wouldn't expect me to "provide links" to prove I never consented.

The fact people SAY they do NOT believe in nor consent to these terms of paying for health care through federal insurance mandates is enough to prove this is not constitutional.

Do you really need people to prove all the points and reasons for WHY they object?

Isn't their express objection enough to prove this is "taxation without representation"
or "involuntary servitude" to force law-abiding citizens to pay their labor to govt under terms they never agreed to, never voted on, and never signed their names to this contract?
=============================
NOTE: I can understand if you fault Republicans for doing similar, and dismissing the valid Constitutional objections of Democrats against Iraq war and spending under Bush.

How does dishing the same back solve either problem, of overriding consent based on political arguments and interests? Doesn't it double the problem and make things worse?

Isn't there a better way of conducting business and running govt,
instead of "taking turns" with political coercion and exclusion back and forth?


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

I can foresee some kind of public resolution, referendum or agreement on a truce, calling to separate the two parties as separate but equal "political religions", and quit imposing the ideologies on each other.

If the Democrats cannot resolve these issues, and quit abusing govt to push their political beliefs/religion, I could see the party getting sued for conspiring to violate civil rights.
For the Republicans, I can see pushing for a system to collect restitution to taxpayers for illicit war contracts and other corporate abuses of govt welfare on that side of the problem. If taxpayers were reimbursed for the costs of fraud of either social or corporate welfare, for all past cases of abusing govt funds for private profit, corruption or other conflicts of interest, we could pay for programs without adding more and more tax burdens and debts than what citizens have already been paying.

Not sure if it will take the third parties uniting and suing both the major parties for monopolizing and abusing govt, democratic process, and public institutions that violate equal protection and free exercise of religion for people of minority parties or beliefs. And forcing all political candidates and leaders to redress grievances caused by their party members and policies, including restitution for wrongdoing at taxpayer expense.

But this is downright dangerous to have any party gaining and maintaining power because of a voter base that is not trained, educated or experienced in laws of business or government so they can be enslaved financially and politically, especially if they are poor and/or stuck in a cycle of dependence on prison or welfare.

Instead of the days of keeping "house slaves" and "field slaves" divided against each other to keep them BOTH enslaved,
today we have whole classes of rich and the poor "divided and blaming each other" 
while crooks cost taxpayers more and more money for abuse of EITHER corporate welfare or social welfare.

Instead of going after the actual wrongdoers, and holding them responsible for paying back their costs to taxpayers,
if we stay divided by party, then they keep getting away with it, charged at our expense.  Divided, we fall. Into greater debt.



Mojo2 said:


> You have been around awhile. Long enough to have seen and noticed a real shift in the national political tenor which you call a "dirty storm."
> 
> I have found what may well be the smoking gun behind this dirty storm.
> 
> ...



OK if this is so, why not hold Obama and such anti-Americans to their own principles?

Look at Hawaii which was taken over by the same evil colonization and imperialism
that Obama denounces so much. 

He wouldn't even be president right now if Hawaii wasn't a state, based on militant overthrow of the sovereign natives under the Kingdom of Hawaii, and forced annexation even President Cleveland recognized was against international law.

If this is so "evil" then they should denounce Obama's presidency as illegitimate along with it!


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Save me your drama

Healthcare does not equate to rape and you should be ashamed for saying so. 

It is a done deal, it is working and was found to be Constitutional


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 31, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> I hope it does, than I hope your alls kids, grandkids and great grandkids hate you for life for saddling them with that and the irs around their NECKS for life



Steph, the bell it tolling my dead...the bell is tolling.  The GOP better get on the train or it will be left at the station.....again.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I hope it does, than I hope your alls kids, grandkids and great grandkids hate you for life for saddling them with that and the irs around their NECKS for life
> ...



Am I suppose to care
I'm not a sheep/slave/subject to a party like you

I have a State government...You want a party and the Federal government in your beds/at your doctors/in your restaurants/ grocery stores/housing/ etc...have at it


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



what lies?

who needs to make things up when the horrid truth is horrid?

aside from yet another obama fluffer thread


The aca will succeed b/c the dems will borrow any amount, ANY Amount of money to keep it funded.

the predicted debt, not counting on how much the aca will cost us, is $20 Trillion, by 2018

The aca website, alone, cost Maryland $125 million in 4 months

but hey, it's only money, and it's more important for your party to win than keep the country solvent.



hmm, wonder if we will have our credit down graded, again, under obama.


----------



## B. Kidd (Mar 31, 2014)

The desperation by the LW'ers in this thread for Democrap Care to be a success is obvious. We're not even at halftime yet in the rollout of D-crap Care.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



???

No, I didn't say that at all RW

I was talking about the importance of CONSENT.

CONSENT makes the difference between giving and THEFT.

CONSENT makes the difference between sex and RAPE.

CONSENT makes the difference between representation and involuntary servitude.

is that more clear?

CONSENT of the governed is the basis of civil law, social contracts, and Constitutional govt.
Without CONSENT you have political oppression and censorship.

And yes, RW, that attitude of overriding or dismissing the DISSENT or OBJECTIONS
of people IS the same attitude behind rape or 'war on women.'

I guess you have to commit the same fault, of the people you criticize,
in order to walk in their shoes.

if you don't like when conservative Republicans try to force prolife legislation
on you when you don't consent, why do you think it is fair to force prohealth
mandates and fines on others who don't consent?

RW why does your consent matter politically, but others do not count?

Do you believe in equality of persons or not?


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 31, 2014)

At least I can sleep peacefully at night and tell my children, grandchildren, great grand daughter I didn't vote to hang this around their necks...and make them SLAVES for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

that's all I care


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Do you understand our Constotution at all?

Our constitutionally elected representatives passed the bill.....that is your consent

Stop comparing it to rape. You embarrass yourself


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

B. Kidd said:


> The desperation by the LW'ers in this thread for Democrap Care to be a success is obvious. We're not even at halftime yet in the rollout of D-crap Care.



If they truly believe in providing health care for all people,
why aren't they offering to pay for the costs themselves?

Reminds me of a friend who complained about the conservatives,
saying if they really believed in war, why not make them and their family serve
on the front lines?

If party members were held directly responsible for the programs they promote,
how much would they push everyone to join in support? 
Or would they focus instead on reducing the costs if they had to cover those themselves?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 31, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> At least I can sleep peacefully at night and tell my children, grandchildren, great grand daughter I didn't vote to hang this around their necks...and make them SLAVES for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> 
> that's all I care



First rape and now slavery

Do you guys have any more hyperbole?  You haven't mentioned Hitler in a while


----------



## B. Kidd (Mar 31, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > At least I can sleep peacefully at night and tell my children, grandchildren, great grand daughter I didn't vote to hang this around their necks...and make them SLAVES for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> ...



Hillary has debs on the Hitler word.......


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 31, 2014)

Hi Rightwinger
I noticed you totally avoided the issue of 
CONSENT
and
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Is it because you don't believe that government authority is based on that?



rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > At least I can sleep peacefully at night and tell my children, grandchildren, great grand daughter I didn't vote to hang this around their necks...and make them SLAVES for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
> ...



Yes, people who ignore the "consent or dissent" of people,
that is how slavery was justified, and how rape is dismissed as consensual,
when you dismiss people as not counting or unequal to yourself.

Rightwinger are you deliberately trying to
misrepresent my statement to "dismiss" it as irrelevant?

Or do you really not see that the 
issue I was focused on is
CONSENT?

Do you use a different term besides CONSENT?
What do you call it, freedom of choice? 
Separation of church and state authority?

RW when you object to the political agenda or beliefs of another party
pushed through govt, what do 
YOU call it when such a policy
violates YOUR beliefs?

Sorry I used the term CONSENT if this does not matter or mean anything to you.
Can you please tell me what term you DO USE instead?

Do you call it equal representation or protection of the laws from discrimination?
Anti-bigotry? What do you call when you don't believe in some opposing person or group
pushing their views, beliefs or agenda on you, especially abusing laws or govt to do so?

What do YOU call it then? I'm happy to use your terms if you can't understand mine.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Mar 31, 2014)

if the aca keeps going, there will be no limit to the tyranny the Fed can foist upon us.

So many things are now excused b/c something like it was excused in the past

Next we will need government funded (us) graves, life ins, all schooling, housing, etc, etc

Then we can all be equally miserable, but we will get free meds for that condition.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 31, 2014)

Calling it "ACA" is simply allowing Democrats an opportunity to weasel and confuse victimized Americans.

Call it "_OBAMACARE_" so they don't forget who laid it on 'em.  Demand every Democrat tell you personally why their anointed one told you that you could keep the insurance plan you liked; keep the doctor you liked and how they plan to challenge Him for His lies.

Don't let 'em off the hook!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 31, 2014)

*If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history *

Not anymore than when the civil rights blew up the Dem's conservative wing'

Not anymore than when Medicare and Medicaid blew up the GOP's reactionary far right wing

The GOP will adjust and live with it.

That's how it works in America.


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



If the bear wouldn't have topped to take a crap, the dogs wouldn't have caught him, Comrade.


----------



## rdean (Mar 31, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Yea, it tells us that in 50 years, the Republicans have gone from mildly anti middle class to rabid mouth foaming tards.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 31, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.



Funny how the biggest liars accuse everyone else of lying.  Party before country, as always, Jim



> It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



It won't, so they've got nothing to worry about.


----------



## BobPlumb (Mar 31, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare



So, what does it mean now that the democrats have stoped calling it Obamacare?


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 31, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare
> ...



It means they want you to forget who birthed it so they can start blaming it on Bush.

But answer this, Obamacrats:

If a program designed to fail fails then is that a failure or a success?

Somehow we're gonna find that out and the day is growing closer, daunted only by illegal Executive Orders demanding laws passed by Congress NOT be enforced.


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!
> ...



Americans are going to get what's good for them (according to Luddly and his insurance pals) whether they want it or not!


----------



## Grandma (Apr 1, 2014)

The wingnuts' raging fear in this thread amuses me.


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 1, 2014)

rdean said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You are a waste of space and time.


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 1, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.
> ...



What we have to worry about is the unexamined (by ACA supporters) downside to its full acceptance in America.

We will all rue the day we bought Obama's promises at the cost of our freedom.

And we will have a long time to regret our failure to safeguard such a precious gift as was given to us by those men and women who have given life and limb for our freedom.

And we give it all up for what?


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 1, 2014)

Grandma said:


> The wingnuts' raging fear in this thread amuses me.



Look Grandma, don't wade into this unless you want what's cookin.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
to be laughed at is either sick for revenge or woefully uninformed
on the Constitutional objections and conflicts with this bill.

I can't imagine you are that sick to laugh at someone's pain,
and don't mean to be cruel. if you don't get that the objections are real
please know that they are. All my friends who are conservative are
truly concerned this is destroying constitutional integrity
of govt, and it is stressing me out twice as much because
I have as many friends on the left, and this is tearing me apart. not funny at all.



Grandma said:


> The wingnuts' raging fear in this thread amuses me.



I'm a liberal prochoice progressive Democrat.
And I oppose the ACA mandates on Constitutional grounds.

I worry every day I cannot keep paying for the community projects I committed to before Democrats added this, and deal with the implications introduced by ACA added on top.

It is constantly stressing me out; my govt reform proposals call for unity with members of different parties, but conflicts with this ACA bill have weakened if not killed the ability to collaborate. so it puts more stress on me to pay the costs while these issues drag out.

It is very sad ppl see this as a political game you can afford to laugh at
as entertainment to see ppl suffer.
my ability to save a national historic site depended on organizing
resources that nobody can focus on because of problems added by this bill.
i committed to working two jobs and put over 60,000 on credit
to cover costs until the project could raise funds to pay back the debts.
all to save a national landmark.
but i can't do that and work under the federal terms of this ACA 
that violate my conscience and constitutional beliefs on govt.
to me it is involuntary servitude to work this hard
only to watch govt abused further in ways i don't agree to pay for.

i am stressed out until this gets resolved
and dont think its funny at all. i think it is tragic
to watch ppl disrespecting and dismissing
each others views as if they dont matter.

what kind of country have we become
to laugh at other ppl suffering as if it isnt real


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 1, 2014)

.

The ACA is a ridiculous freaking pig of a law, but the *FACT *is that it is now *OUR* ridiculous freaking pig of a law because *that's the kind of thing that happens* when you (a) lose elections, (b) fail to provide the American electorate with a good, clear alternative, and (c) refuse to accept electoral loss and choose not to participate in the formation of a massive new law *that you can't stop.*

It would be *worse* for *everyone* if this pig fails, it's too far engrained in the system now, unwinding it would be a freakin' mess.

Now we'll see how long it takes the GOP to figure this out.

Just another self-inflicted wound.

.


----------



## dblack (Apr 1, 2014)

Grandma said:


> The wingnuts' raging fear in this thread amuses me.



That makes sense. I've always seen a sadistic streak in the statist mindset.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 1, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



the republicans then, verses the republicans now, two different creatures ... how they forget what they were once for ...


SENATE	      YEA   NAY     NOT VOTING
Democrats	      57      7        4
Republicans    13      17       2
HOUSE	     YEA    NAY     NOT VOTING
Democrats	      237  48        8
Republicans     70    68        2


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 1, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
> to be laughed at is either sick for revenge or woefully uninformed
> on the Constitutional objections and conflicts with this bill.
> 
> ...



ecincola, why do you keep posting other writers material an call it yours ??? there isn't anything unconstitutional about the ACA ... many of you delusional republicans have tried to empty it is ... so far you've lost every time ... its not you who gets to decide what is constitutional or whose right or wrong its the supreme court that does ... so far you've lost that debate every time


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The ACA is a ridiculous freaking pig of a law, but the *FACT *is that it is now *OUR* ridiculous freaking pig of a law because *that's the kind of thing that happens* when you (a) lose elections, (b) fail to provide the American electorate with a good, clear alternative, and (c) refuse to accept electoral loss and choose not to participate in the formation of a massive new law *that you can't stop.*
> 
> ...



Since "right to life" is treated as a political belief outside of govt, can't "right to health care" be recognized also as a political belief that can't be forced on people either?

If so, can't the ACA regulations and mandates be shifted onto the Democrat Party and supporters as a political religious movement based on the belief in Singlepayer.

Why can't this be made optional, and allow equal freedom for Right to Life and free market
health care plans under the Republican party that meets Constitutional ideals they believe in?

if the point is to make sure people pay for their health care, why not empower and reward people and parties for setting up the best systems that work for them? why this issue over penalizing people if they don't agree with the other party's system.

Is it really impossible to separate?
I looked up the names of the 39 Democrat Congress reps who opposed the ACA in November. I thought there was one more Democrat from WV who came out for repeal.

I will try to write a letter of petition URGING the party leaders to agree to SEPARATE the taxation and systems by PARTY so both the right to life, right to health, and free choice beliefs are accommodated and protected equally. People will pay for their own health care if it is under the system they believe in; it would not have to be forced on anyone, that's only happening because we are not given equal choices we believe in investing in.

If the Singlepayer and lower income groups who can't afford insurance except through govt need to be forced by penalty of law to sign up, that can still be done through the current system; that if they want the low cost insurance plans under ACA they are required to go through it.

Maybe it is like setting a system by which entire groups such as the Libertarian Party or Republican Party can set up their own health care system or exchange, and it qualifies as an exemption because it covers all the participating members under terms they negotiate as an equal option under the ACA.

Something like that. Where it respects free choice and right to life, and other political beliefs equally as how the Democrat Party system would recognize and respect "right to health care" as a protected belief. It just can't be forced on people against their beliefs or that's why it is so contested as unconstitutional.

Maybe these Democrat Congress reps can understand this point, so I am not the only one pushing for such a correction to this lopsided legislation that is biased by political beliefs.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Rightwinger
> I noticed you totally avoided the issue of
> CONSENT
> and
> ...



This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do


----------



## dblack (Apr 1, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rightwinger
> ...



Nope. Majority rules ain't it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

Dear BR: Yes, it is the people who decide what is constitutional or not.
Our government authority is derived from CONSENT of the governed, and is responsible for representing ALL people.
So all branches of government are supposed to REPRESENT and be checked by the people, not tell us what to believe.
So where we are excluded and aren't represented, that is unconstitutional to abuse govt to impose beliefs on people against our consent.

We are not a theocracy where the Supreme Court invokes divine authority to dictate interpretation like a Pope on the Bench to the masses.
Remember the Reformation that rebelled against that in the church?
We are going through this same stage in the state, because it goes against natural laws to dictate to people against their beliefs.
People are taking back authority directly by enforcing the Constitution, the same way Luther went back to the Bible and revoked authority from the church elders not following it.

If we disgree we retain the right to dissent; that is our responsibility for our own government, to make sure it represents all of us equally.
That is just natural law, and no govt on earth can override the right of people to consent or dissent. it goes against human nature.

Interpretation of law is part of religious freedom. There is no way around that, because we are all human beings.
If we have a religious bias, it is going to affect our interpretation of law; that is why consensus is legally necessary
to prevent from imposing a religious bias through govt as is happening now and causing all manner of disruption and protest.
Without consensus on law, we run the risk of imposing a religious or political bias, that unconstitutional excludes some people who have the right to be equally protected.

Up to now, we have put up with less than consensus, because we compromised and were willing to lobby to fix the problems.
here, we do not agree on the policies, we do not agree to compromise, so it becomes absolutely essential to resolve conflicts and reach a consensus.
people are no longer agreeing to sacrifice their beliefs for govt to impose one interpretation for all people that doesn't include us all equally.

We no longer consent to these rulings as unconstitutional.

I think you take this for granted, since most of the time people generally agree to follow government.

On religious issues, however, of life and health care, guess what: people DON'T agree because our religious beliefs are different;
and are either being violated or threatened with violation, so people on both sides are rallying to defend their views.

So yes, we have the right and responsibility to CHANGE LAWS so they ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
by not excluding anyone's religious beliefs as with the ACA that doesn't even recognize them as existent at all.

That is how gross the bias is, people are so entrenched with their own political beliefs and biases
they can't even see the other people's views are even valid beliefs. They both think the other position is fake, for political argument.

If you don't even believe these views are real which are excluded under penalty of law through ACA,
THAT is the religious discrimination the govt is endorsing and enforcing. That is why it is unconstitutional.



billyerock1991 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
> ...



Hi BillyRock: No I am NOT "ecincola"
I thought it was clear nobody else posts the stuff on church and state issues that I do.

Seriously BR do you really know any other Constitutionalist Democrats like me who
will go to bat to defend right to choice, right to life, right to health care, right to free market health care, right to limited govt, right to big govt EQUALLY?

Who is this ecincola person?

I seriously doubt this person could even conceive of the political equality I believe in.
If this person is rightwing, I seriously doubt it.

If you bothered to check my links, I am the only "EmilyNghiem" posting constitutional solutions online to this extent.

Nobody WANTS to be me, believe me!
Thanks Billy but No thanks. whoever this ecincola person is, we are not the same person.

I can only answer for myself, as a progressive prochoice Democrat -- into liberal inclusion to a fault, where I include far right and extreme views and opposing beliefs as diversity.

I believe natural laws are all inclusive, the Constitutional principles are universal.
So we establish them and apply them to US citizens, but the concepts apply to all people.

I don't see a lot of "rightwing" people including the left as I do people of all parties.

Here are my links, so you see I am not someone else:
http://www.houstonprogressive.net
ethics-commission.net
Isonomy
Earned Amnesty
http://www.freedomenstown.com
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
Juliet & Romeo: A Play on Life in America
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

If that is not enough I will send you more.
Please let me know if it is. Thanks, Billy!


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Constitution of the United States - Official


----------



## dblack (Apr 1, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You'd do well to read that.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I did...

_This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do   _


Next!


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Hi Rightwinger: Thank you for following up where Luddly gave up and bailed out. I hope you can help us with that, sorry.

I agree this is more than Majority rule.

Majority rule does not give anyone the right to abuse govt
to impose religiously held political beliefs against the consent of others to exclude them.

In order to respect beliefs on sides of the ACA and Singlepayer/Free Market issue,
I believe a consensus can be reached by going through Party and setting up
"separate but equal" systems. Keep the parts of the laws that all people and parties agree on as federal programs and jurisdiction, while the parts people disagree on religiously, manage by separate networks without infringing or dictating each other's systems.

The IRS needs to be reformed and internally checked anyway, so perhaps working out separation of taxation on health care plans by Party can lead to much needed separation on similar issues, from the death penalty, war and vet program funding, immigration and welfare support, and legalization policies where people don't agree what to fund and might resolve the political conflicts faster by separating their taxes to fund different approaches.

We need this reform anyway, might as well start looking into the best way to get there.
This is long overdue, and all these conflicts along similar lines could be resolved this way.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I have no problem...go for it

Set up your separate but equal insurance program and get a majority of the House and 60 Senate votes and a President to sign it

That is the way our government works


----------



## Mojo2 (Apr 1, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There should be NO COMPROMISE on ACA.

Scrap it.

Start over.

The Dems' strategy which has resulted in getting the country moving to the point where we'd elect an extreme radical for POTUS is as follows:

Start with an outrageous goal and then get the Conservatives to go through the roof in outrage.

Squabble.

Then get the GOP to compromise.

Repeat until America is no longer America the strong, America the free, America the prosperous and America the proud. 

And now they are talking about doing the same with ACA.

This is unacceptable.

If you don't understand their strategy, let me reframe it for you.



> Let's imprison ALL the Progressives and Liberals and Radicals and Left Wingers and Democrats on some bullshit charge.
> 
> Then when they hit the roof in outrage let's squabble about it.
> 
> ...



That's why the NRA is so effective.

They look at any and every gun bill as unreasonable and refuse to compromise and allow our 2nd A rights to fall victim to the LW's slippery slope strategy.

Ted says we should repeal every word of ACA.

Ted Cruz.


----------



## Meister (Apr 1, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who dismisses rightwing opposition or outrage as something
> ...



The only thing the that court has heard was if the ACA was mandate.  That was legislated from the bench by Roberts to be a tax.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thanks RW
I think it will be a more effective approach to say YES to all the things people want
rather than fight over saying NO to each other's ideas.

why not let each party set up their own, so everyone gets what they believe in.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 1, 2014)

Yes, for those who oppose ACA at all, it is the same thing as voiding it, for them.

For those who want a Singlepayer type system,
pushing ACA into the Democrat camp as a choice for their members to opt in and pay for,
it is getting them what they are asking for, and holding them responsible for paying for it.

Everyone is free to set up their own systems,
and can even compete to be the most effective and appealing to consumers.

Just saying no isn't enough to get a consensus.
What about saying yes to all people and parties getting their way and paying for it.



Mojo2 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 1, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No compromise on Obamacare?
Republicans have already gotten that. Your take no prisoners approach has gotten you a healthcare plan without the tax incentives, tort reform and interstate sales you wanted
Your constant attempts at repeal at all costs, even shutting down the government has gotten you nothing
Now, the best you can get is to live with Obamacare......that is all you ended up with for your histrionics


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 1, 2014)

dblack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



with SCOTUS on board, yep, it does.


----------



## rdean (Apr 1, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Did I say something that wasn't true?  Come on, this GOP would never build the Interstate highway system or found NASA.  In fact, only a very tiny few scientists want to be in any way associated with this Republican Party.  

Birtherism?  

Anti Science?  

Let him die?  

Poor children are better off hungry?  

Feed the poor and they will breed?  

Don't put you government hands on my Medicare?

This is the party of tards and they are proud of it:


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 2, 2014)

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA.  Will they ever give up?


----------



## Rozman (Apr 2, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare



When?

Barbara Boxer has already called it a huge success...   
Obama has already taken his victory lap...


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 2, 2014)

If that is true, 


> First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare


then a slew of you cult members can finally get off your knees and instead bow in silence to your shine of him

and repeat three all hail Obama's

gawd you people are sick in your worship of some man


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > That's why the NRA is so effective.
> ...



Hi RW:
This isn't entirely accurate.

The GOP leaders in Congress DID orchestate a very fair compromise to pass the budget with only two changes to ACA (liberal Democrats supported these two points more than the conservatives who opposed all ACA but AGREED to limit it to these two concessions to get the budget passed)
* delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was also
(NOTE that Obama kept changing the rules himself, which isn't constitutional, but opposed anyone in Congress changing it which was constitutional)
* remove the tax on medical devices as members of BOTH parties agreed should be changed

I thought this was a very good solution. I checked around, and people from both parties, both for and against Obama and ACA AGREED to these two points.

Yet Obama REFUSED to sign any budget that had any changes at all to ACA,
only to change the ACA later himself.

So how can you blame the GOP for the shutdown when they did offer solutions
but OBAMA refused to compromise for political reasons?


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

Rozman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > First thing.....when ACA succeeds, Republicans will stop calling it Obamacare
> ...



I will believe they really believe this,
when Democrats agree to fund and run the program themselves
by voluntary participation through their own party
because it works so well for them.

Anything else tells me it doesn't work the way it was set up.
Even if it works 100%, it is still imposing tax and business regulations
against the consent of law abiding citizens penalized who haven't committed any crimes.

Any business or charity can "work wonders" and do wonderful things to help people in need, but if it is forced onto people by federal govt to pay into it against their will and violating Constitutional procedures and principles, it is still unlawful.

You might as well be teaching people that it's okay to steal the money or labor of
other people, by bullying theft or fraud, 
"as long as the program is successful and helps more people."

It's still unlawful to force people against their will this way, spelled out as
"involuntary servitude" which is against the law.

The Constitution set up procedures to pass amendments in order to expand the duties of federal govt, and to ensure representation before imposing taxes.

If this many people are protesting on Constitutional grounds, that means they are not represented. So it is unlawful to enforce taxes or fines against the public, but all grievances should be redressed so there is representation and protection of interests.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 2, 2014)

Hi Rdean:
I also have been pushed to the limit as a prochoice progressive Democrat.
It's not just Republicans who are fed up with unconstitutional government.

And yes, the problems have grown worse and worse, so that's why all people I know are 
increasingly disgusted with politics, on all sides.



rdean said:


> Yea, it tells us that in 50 years, the Republicans have gone from mildly anti middle class to rabid mouth foaming tards.



here, Rdean, you can change your avatar to this if you want to be more accurate:






If you don't respect conservative media for skewing biases against Martin,
I would not play into the hands of liberal media railroading Zimmerman either!
Both men had backgrounds, and both got into a fight. They are both responsible for what happened.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 2, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA.  Will they ever give up?



^^^Fail^^^

Paul Ryan on Sunday said that the GOP House budget was tailored to *assume that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.*

"Are you saying, as part of your budget, you assume the repeal of Obamacare?," asked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

"Yes," said Ryan, adding that, *"we're going to propose replacing Obamacare with patient-centered health care, with a better health care system for everybody."*

Ryan defended his opposition to the law.

"We don't want to push more people into a failing program," he said. "We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work. We believe Obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away."

Paul Ryan: GOP Budget Assumes Obamacare Repeal


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 2, 2014)

"The GOP leaders in Congress DID orchestate a very fair compromise to pass the budget with only two changes to ACA (liberal Democrats supported these two points more than the conservatives who opposed all ACA but AGREED to limit it to these two concessions to get the budget passed)
* delay the individual mandate for one year since the employer mandate was also
(NOTE that Obama kept changing the rules himself, which isn't constitutional, but opposed anyone in Congress changing it which was constitutional)
* remove the tax on medical devices as members of BOTH parties agreed should be changed"

*This was only after ACA was passed and our GOP in 2012 and 2013 were trying to force changes in return for the debt ceiling and the budget.

*BHO's EOs concerning the program are certainly constitutional.

The point here is: tails don't wag the dog.  The GOP helping get the Civil Rights Act is exactly how a minority party should act.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Apr 2, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> There has to be a reason the GOP is lying so much about the ACA.  It has to be if this becomes a popular law and it succeeds, the GOP is toast.  WOW!



Yet, you haven't shown any evidence proving they lied. In fact, they were proven correct.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The Canadian has every right to voice his opinion...in Canada.


----------



## Truthbetold (Apr 4, 2014)

My personal opinion is the GOP is already in trouble.  Im a lifetime republican trying to protect what I have been earning since the age of 10 on my paper route.  

The reason I believe the GOP is in trouble is two fold:

1) the GOP is fractured into 2 groups now.  Tea Party and Moderate Republicans.  The dems however stick together all throughout the spectrum.  

2) the unproductive majority have realized they can vote themselves money.  This of course will be paid for by the middle class and rich who won't be able to keep up with the forever increasing taxes.  Eventually there won't be enough money to fund those increases and America will become a dictatorship.  

Ive never taken a cent in any form of welfare.  Ive paid into it my whole life.  I was brought up to manage my money in the exact opposite way the government does.  I buy to needs not wants.  I pay myself first so I can invest.  If I can't afford it cash guess what IM NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE IT!  My only exceptions are my homes and a car.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 4, 2014)

It's so endearing that Jim has a well developed fantasy life...and it will likely give him comfort when the Dems lose big in November.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 4, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA.  Will they ever give up?
> ...



^ Ryan fluffer. Figures. 

Whats the name of GObP's plan?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2014)

If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history

LOL

Dems are totally fucked


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dems are totally fucked



You may be right, but I would not count your McCarthys before they hatch.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 4, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



 
Google, it works for you.

Fluffer!


----------



## HenryBHough (Apr 4, 2014)

"*If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history"

*_And, should pigs learn to fly, one might shop for bacon with a shotgun._


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rightwinger
> ...


rightwinger
REGARDLESS if you get a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports THAT view
and pass Supreme Court challenges,

NO it is still unconstitutional by Amendment 1, 10 and 14 to enforce ACA mandates that violate and discriminate on the basis of creed:

* Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof

* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See Also AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1:
* . . . *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

rightwinger and JakeStarkey
if you believe your interpretation is so correct that you are willing to work with Obama, Pelosi and all Democrats who signed onto and endorse and enforced these ACA Mandates to PAY ALL COSTS and complaints of damages it caused,
then do so -- pay for your own beliefs just like Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims pay for their own programs,
and don't pass them by majority-rule to force the entire public to fund as a nationalized religion!

But if you are not willing to pay for the implications and ramifications of this ACA,
then I assume you only support it because of the Democrats who passed it and forced it.

So those are the people who should pay, and the enforcement of ACA should be limited to who those people can cover with their political religion they wrote out the rules for.

I didn't consent to these rules, and don't see how I can be made to pay for a contract I didn't sign.
Much less a religious belief that the ACA is the law of the land, and all these things in it justify giving up liberty for.

If Atheists are not required to put up with a simple Cross or Bible in the public domain that doesn't impose tax fines on them, but can sue to have such removed on the basis of conflicting beliefs, then why not apply the same standards to people with conflicting Constitutional beliefs that ACA offends and penalizes?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2015)

Emily, you are still wrong, but drive on girl.


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 2, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



*"Let em die"*


----------



## rdean (Mar 2, 2015)

Crystalclear said:


> No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.


Look at CPAC.  It was a contest on who hates Obama the most.  No policies.  Nothing "smart".  Nothing "new".  Just white people hating the first black president.


----------



## JimH52 (Mar 2, 2015)

I thought this thread was dead?  You know, like the GOP health insurance plan.....


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Emily, you are still wrong, but drive on girl.



JakeStarkey I am right on principle.
If the laws are not written LITERALLY enough to argue and prove that discrimination by creed is unconstitutional,
then I am seeking to correct that in the written laws so it IS clearly unconstitutional to override political beliefs that way.

I will post another link to more letters I am writing to try to prevent
from having to go on a hunger strike to make this point.

Surely there are other Constitutional and legal scholars with the same understanding of political beliefs.
I cannot be the only one making this argument. Hold on, let me post my letter on my ACA Petition thread and then I will link it here: Petition Separate ACA by Party Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

Crystalclear said:


> No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.



Dear Crystalclear I can't even find Democrats who want to pay for the ACA.

I found some who want to pay their taxes, but didn't really agree to these costs, and just feel they have to by law.
When I started talking about changing the laws, most of them were intrigued by the idea of reforming prisons
by state, saving those resources, and using that funding for health care instead of charging working citizens more on top of what we are already paying. They just didn't believe the politicians would do the work to change the prison system.

But compared with paying more for health care, most people I talk with would rather health care reforms come out of money we are already spending but the govt is wasting. Why not make the states fix that, and put pressure on politicians to do so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2015)

ACA will not finish off the GOP anymore than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Emily, your opinion is not principle, but drive on!


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.
> ...



Hi rdean and JimH52 
Your comments above equating opposition to the President based on race only
are exploiting and furthering endemic harm, by dividing people by race and party.

This has continually damaged the rights of Black citizens and leaders to know and enforce their rights under laws without imposing and enforcing divisive mindsets and segregation of power keeping them from uniting.

I know you must mean well, but this has caused more and more damage to the Black community and to our nation as a whole.

I have been trying to work with Black leaders and voters to understand their Constitutional laws and rights as citizens.

And your comments implying that Constitutional attempts to check Govt are only "white people against black"
and insinuating this is "all about race" are the VERY type of propaganda that dissuades and discourages 
some of the most vulnerable citizens from uniting and empowering themselves with knowledge of the laws.

I am a prochoice Asian American Democrat who has been volunteering to save a national Black historic district
from being completely destroyed by such divisive politics.

The key issue is enforcing Constitutional protections equally for all citizens.
Making everything a race issue causes more division that has destroyed our nation, our economy, our democratic system.

We need to unite if we are going to rebuild our economy and country, and save our historic legacy and landmarks for future generations to build upon.

Please reconsider the impact of your accusations, and what it will really take to resolve objections to govt problems.
Making divisive remarks about race does nothing to encourage working together to solve problems, but makes them worse.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> ACA will not finish off the GOP anymore than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
> 
> Emily, your opinion is not principle, but drive on!



How is equal protection of the laws not a principle?

It's not my opinion, you can even see how people religiously disagree by beliefs on the ACA.

The numbers speak for themselves. the votes in Congress split in half along PARTY LINES.

I have not found anyone on either side willing to change their beliefs.

So these beliefs exist, that is not my opinion, and anyone can see that.
I am just looking for people intellectually honest enough and objective enough to
call a political belief for what it is. We know these differences exist, but just like Atheists
are willing to override the beliefs of Christians, and Christians of Atheists, they aren't always objective about it.

But we can't deny the differences in belief don't exist. That's all I have ever run into since this ACA was passed.
People on both sides unwilling to compromise their beliefs for the other side.

Because these are their inherent BELIEFS so of course those won't change.
The most that I can find is people willing to change their PERCEPTIONS of how
their beliefs can co-exist without conflicting.  

Their beliefs remain intact and protected, but how we MANAGE and work with beliefs EQUALLY,
is what we can change.

And that depends on finding other Constitutionalists who are unbiased enough to enforce true equality.
I can't be the only one.

Because it's not my opinion, the LAW calls for "Equal Justice Under Law" and "Equal Protections of the Laws."

It wasn't just "people's opinions" that slavery didn't treat people equally,
or that bans on churches from performing gay marriage abridge religious freedom.

People either agree or don't agree that their beliefs and Constitutional values are "equally included."
I am just reporting what everyone has seen going on, with conflicts between people's political beliefs.

Clearly people with these beliefs DON'T AGREE with each other
and don't agree to compromise their beliefs either. So there needs to be a better solution, that doesn't impose on
one belief or another, even if it means transferring the issue to the States and people to work out.

JakeStarkey a solution does not have to be proven to exist first
to argue that the current conflict is unconstitutionally imposing on beliefs on people against their will.

When Roe V Wade was overturned, there was not an "alternative solution required first,"
before that law was struck down.  Sad how the people who insist on providing and proving an "alternative solution"
didn't prove the ACA worked first, before passing it as law! So that is more discrimination by excusing the
burden of proof on one side, but requiring it on the other. More proof that the bill was biased 
to favor political beliefs on one side while penalizing and burdening the other unequally.


----------



## Zander (Mar 2, 2015)

Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state" 

Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2015)

Your opinion on the 14th is your opinion, not a principle.

SCOTUS opines on whether matters constitutional are principle or not.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

Zander said:


> Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state"
> 
> Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post



Twist in Obamacare Supreme Court case Weak plaintiffs - Yahoo News

Dear Zander
My concern is that the plaintiffs can be argued as having weak cases or no standing.

By making  letter of the


Zander said:


> Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state"
> 
> Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post



Twist in Obamacare Supreme Court case Weak plaintiffs - Yahoo News

Dear Zander 
The plaintiffs can still be denied to have standing based on weak cases or not showing they are harmed or affected.
That's one problem with making letter of the law arguments, they can be dismantled by similar letter of the law arguments.

If arguments are based on principles first, that the people arguing for and against ACA have equal standing, equal protections and equal rights to their beliefs, then they don't HAVE to AGREE 
because that is the whole argument -- the fact they DON'T agree shows that political beliefs are involved
and people don't agree to change them.

If people choose to bow to govt, like an Atheists chooses NOT to sue over a Cross or mention of God in a pledge, then that's the person's free choice, but it can't be forced by govt.

So why aren't we treating political beliefs equally as we do religious beliefs.
where the least restrictive option is upheld that allows the free exercise of both sides' beliefs.

So give people and states free and equal choice to determine their own health care programs and how to pay for them.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your opinion on the 14th is your opinion, not a principle.
> 
> SCOTUS opines on whether matters constitutional are principle or not.



Yes and JakeStarkey the beauty of the argument is that if we disagree
that further proves there is a difference in political beliefs. So you cannot get away from that.

Clearly if people keep dissenting because they cannot compromise or change their beliefs,
then consensus on law is needed to either reconcile or separate those beliefs so both are treated equally.


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 2, 2015)

The ACA is designed to fail.

No chance of it succeeding.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 2, 2015)

No one cares if there is a disagreement in our constitutional republic.

What we agree on is that we follow the law until it is changed.

The beauty of the law is no necessity to conciliate a minority exists "so both are treated equally" unless SCOTUS finds a constitutional violation.

The argument over ACA is not constitutional, merely procedural. And that can be easily fixed Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you get to opt out of it.


----------



## regent (Mar 2, 2015)

It sounds like the Social Security arguments all over again, but I think Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security was the Republican's last ditch effort to kill SS. If that time-line is any guide Republicans will accept ACA in about 75 years, and then in another five years, Republicans will be saying it was really their program all along.


----------



## dblack (Mar 2, 2015)

What will it mean for the ACA to "succeed". The overt goal is to cement the insurance industry as a permanent fixture in our health care. Is that success?


----------



## regent (Mar 2, 2015)

dblack said:


> What will it mean for the ACA to "succeed". The overt goal is to cement the insurance industry as a permanent fixture in our health care. Is that success?


Too late to exclude the insurance companies; they had to be in on the deal; it's the American way.


----------



## Zander (Mar 2, 2015)

Obamacare is not health care, it's insurance. Shitty, overpriced insurance. Bravo Democrats. You rewarded your corporate masters while pretending to be for "the people".


----------



## regent (Mar 2, 2015)

Zander said:


> Obamacare is not health care, it's insurance. Shitty, overpriced insurance. Bravo Democrats. You rewarded your corporate masters while pretending to be for "the people".


So what was the Republican health plan?


----------



## dblack (Mar 3, 2015)

regent said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What will it mean for the ACA to "succeed". The overt goal is to cement the insurance industry as a permanent fixture in our health care. Is that success?
> ...



No, it's not. There didn't need to be a 'deal'.


----------



## dblack (Mar 3, 2015)

regent said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is not health care, it's insurance. Shitty, overpriced insurance. Bravo Democrats. You rewarded your corporate masters while pretending to be for "the people".
> ...



Obamacare WAS the Republican plan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 3, 2015)

Zander said:


> Obamacare is not health care, it's insurance. Shitty, overpriced insurance. Bravo Democrats. You rewarded your corporate masters while pretending to be for "the people".


Then it was not socialism?


----------



## rdean (Mar 3, 2015)

emilynghiem said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...


When you have a party that is 90% white and the meager 10% that's left over is black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American and anyone else who doesn't see themselves as white, then you have an enormous divide among the nation.  Pretending it doesn't exist or that pointing it out is "overblown" plays right into the hands of racist haters.  The GOP leadership has referred to the president again and again in the most base racist terms.  Tar baby, boy, man child, Kenyan, mulatto,  uppity and so on.  Worse, even Republicans admit to voter suppression.  I would rather Republicans come right out and be honest with their racism than pretend it doesn't exist.  You need to know America's enemies to defend against them.  

As far as the constitution, perhaps you should spend time doing a little research.  Start here:

Google

There has been a reoccurring joke since early in Obama's presidency.   If you want Republicans to hate a policy, even one of their own, Obama only needs to say he likes it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 3, 2015)

rdean said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Sweetheart: why do you insist on using race to divide instead of to unite?
The Constitution protects ALL beliefs, so ALL groups can organize by interest, and invest resources
into building their own programs without FEAR of competing with each other.

The most successful schools, businesses and programs serving in the Black community
focus on empowering and building their own base.

It sounds to me you are suffering under "SCARCITY" mentality of the worst kind.

Look up "Abundance" mentality and that's where people are no longer victims.
Abundance mentality is what has empowered former victims to rise above and be equal as anyone else!

rdean, the "poor Black public housing residents" in my district
WROTE UP THEIR OWN PLANS AND PASSED THEM AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
http www.houstonprogressive.org

How empowering is that? To pass historic legislation, renovating public housing
as a sustainable campus model for breaking the cycle of poverty and ending dependence on welfare?

Oh, wait. It was the Black Democrats who tore down the buildings and evicted the residents
to censor their plans. It was the Democrats in office who went along with corporate developers to keep their offices.

It wasn't race alone, but it was class and party politics, selling out to corporate interests.

People were so used to blaming whites or blacks, nobody fixed the problem
so the history continues to get destroyed.

This political division has to end that is handicapping the Black leaders by keeping them from uniting.

Either use race to unite, or don't play that card at all.  
It isn't helping but just destroying the nation.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 13, 2016)

I don't like the GOP...but they are not history.


----------

