Republicans Drowning the Baby called Government as per Norquist.

[emilynghiem]

Well, here's one to stop the nonsense. Enough of this obstructionism.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-petition-to-fight-gop-obstructionism-in-the-u-s-congress

Dear "Hillary for President":
This whole mess makes me wonder
how things could have been different if
health care reform was set up some other way
long before it ever came to this.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee supported Hillary Clinton
before Obama took precedent to get the votes out.

Maybe under Hillary Clinton, who spoke out about historic preservation,
the plans for sustainable housing and health care reform could have been implemented
in SJL home district which is an endangered national historic landmark of African American Civil Rights:
Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

Is the problem coming from MALE leaders guarding their turf and not
being willing to collaborate across political differences?

If WOMEN were in charge of mediating and moderating solutions,
would we see more progress?

Gladys House, who authored the VET HOUSING plans in this historic district
is a BLACK REPUBLICAN but can't get any help because she is either the
"wrong color, party or gender." What if all women came together and helped her?
Would that transcend the racial and political barriers preventing us from moving forward?

What are we doing wrong? How can we fix this?

 

[OKTexas]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

If only it were that simple.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's kind of a question of Semantics.

The provision to pay a penalty was always in the bill.

Personally? While I think this law is better than nothing, I would have preferred the single payer option or Medicare for all.

This is the Republican plan with Democratic provisions to keep the insurers on the up and up.

A. It still does not carry the CONSENT of the people affected by this bill.
So it is not by their "free choice"
Can you explain how you can be "pro choice" but justify
using federal authority to penalize people for wanting
a "free choice" OTHER than 1. buying insurance under federal mandates
2. paying a fine or tax for not "choosing" option 1

WHY are these treated as the only options?
You still haven't explained why you support this and claim to be 'prochoice.'

B. If you would support single payer or Medicare,
then why not require supporters to pay there? Why not add choices
instead of fining people for not buying insurance "as the only other choice"

Why not require/allow people to "fund the option of their choice"
instead of limiting the pallette or ballot to choices they DON'T AGREE WITH

Just because you agreed to the choices offered
you think that means it is fair to people who wanted OTHER CHOICES
TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE

And what if some of my preferences are BETTER AND MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN YOURS. Why don't I have equal choice to fund those but am forced 'by law'
to fund options that COST MORE MONEY AND DON'T CURE THE DISEASE

EX: I believe in spiritual healing which cuts the costs of crime, cancer,
drug addictions, abuses etc. that run up hospital bills and prisons costs in the BILLIONS

Why is this not a choice in the ACA?
simple:
the govt CANNOT REGULATE or mandate spiritual practices
but that is what I found to be the CURE TO EXPENSIVE DISEASES AND TREATMENTS

So unless you give people like me the equal freedom to OPT OUT
and keep paying money into solutions OTHER THAN INSURANCE
you are discriminating against me by my religious beliefs
that science has even proven to be more effective than just medications
alone that may address symptoms but cant prevent or cure some of these diseases

you have left that out of the bill
so money that could go into research for this
is spent fighting an unconstitutional bill that puts money elsewhere
not into sustainable solutions for reducing and preventing excess medical costs in the first place

those methods are by nature chosen by free will
not by force
and are completely precluded by the ACA which gives money to insurance
and to government, thus taking resources away from promoting spiritual healing
and other alternatives to better health OTHER THAN INSURANCE OR FEDERAL GOVT

 

[Spoonman]

ok here's what makes me laugh. read just about any article out there and it starts out Democratic Senate rejects latest House offer. but the headlines read, republicans shut down government. WTF?

 

[kaz]

ok here's what makes me laugh. read just about any article out there and it starts out Democratic Senate rejects latest House offer. but the headlines read, republicans shut down government. WTF?

but the media's not liberal...

 

[emilynghiem]

They are only pro-choice when they approve of the choices.

Dear ZB: thank you for your msg.

I keep hoping and praying for the "AHA" moment,
as when Anne Sullivan finally got Helen Keller to connect
the letters W A T E R with physical water running through her hand.

that "free exercise of religion" "free choice" "free will"
"consent of the governed" ARE ABOUT FREEDOM OF CHOICE
the right of people to CONSENT by choice not by force

Poor Obama. He changed his mind about gay marriage, by FREE CHOICE
NOT BY FORCE OF LAW, then turned RIGHT AROUND and wanted
to lobby to change laws to FORCE THIS ON PEOPLE.

WHAT? That's not how you got there, idiot!
You didn't get there because people made it a law against your will.
You had the FREE CHOICE to decide you supported it.

BIG FAT DUH!!!!

This is so sad. This is why I have better luck explaining prochoice to
prolife people than to prochoice people. I can explain to prolife people
that you believe in prolife by choice, not by laws forcing you to.

Prochoice people want to use govt to enforce or protect their choices?
What? What happened to inalienable rights if they depend on majority rule and funding politicians and parties?

I dunno. I keep hoping and praying more people will have their magical AHA moment
when they get that "pro-gun rights are not for pro-gun violence"
any more than "pro-choice are for pro-abortion."
They both want to keep "govt and politicians from controlling what they deem as sacred ground for individual freedom."
When more people recognize this is the SAME argument in two different contexts,
maybe that AHA moment will happen for more people...that we are arguing for the same thing!

I think Anne Sullivan had better luck with a blind deaf person
than I am having with people who can see and hear fine....

 

[kwc57]

Well, here's one to stop the nonsense. Enough of this obstructionism.

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-petition-to-fight-gop-obstructionism-in-the-u-s-congress

Harry's middle name.

 

[emilynghiem]

ok here's what makes me laugh. read just about any article out there and it starts out Democratic Senate rejects latest House offer. but the headlines read, republicans shut down government. WTF?

but the media's not liberal...

There is also a difference between the commercialized liberal and
the authentic progressives that are cut out of media coverage on the left also.

The media is biased toward the COMMERCIALIZED liberal and the
COMMERCIALIZED conservative, to hike ratings by pitting these against each other.

So the real conservatives will blame the sold out liberal bias making them look bad,
the real liberals will blame the sold out conservative bias making them look bad,
and the media gets billions in campaign money from both groups fighting each other....

 

[kaz]

ok here's what makes me laugh. read just about any article out there and it starts out Democratic Senate rejects latest House offer. but the headlines read, republicans shut down government. WTF?

but the media's not liberal...

There is also a difference between the commercialized liberal and
the authentic progressives that are cut out of media coverage on the left also.

The media is biased toward the COMMERCIALIZED liberal and the
COMMERCIALIZED conservative, to hike ratings by pitting these against each other.

So the real conservatives will blame the sold out liberal bias making them look bad,
the real liberals will blame the sold out conservative bias making them look bad,
and the media gets billions in campaign money from both groups fighting each other....

The mainstream media is solidly liberal. That's why the left hate the "new" media so much, it's an end to their monopoly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He never said anything about drowning babies. That was your own addition.

It was Norquist that talked about shrinking government and drowning it in the bathtub.

It was probably a play on the old expression, "Don't throw the bathwater out with the baby".

In any case..this thread isn't about babies..

It's about the government you conservatives want to kill.

Yes, and you added the analogy of a baby to create an emotional response.

I'm not sure "kill" is the verb I would use, but sure. I doubt there are any conservatives who want to do so, however.

 

[emilynghiem]

but the media's not liberal...

There is also a difference between the commercialized liberal and
the authentic progressives that are cut out of media coverage on the left also.

The media is biased toward the COMMERCIALIZED liberal and the
COMMERCIALIZED conservative, to hike ratings by pitting these against each other.

So the real conservatives will blame the sold out liberal bias making them look bad,
the real liberals will blame the sold out conservative bias making them look bad,
and the media gets billions in campaign money from both groups fighting each other....

The mainstream media is solidly liberal. That's why the left hate the "new" media so much, it's an end to their monopoly.

If you are calling THAT liberal, then what do you call the REAL left?

EX: the liberals in the media depend on govt/politics for "freedom of choice"
but in reality, that's not free choice.

What do you call the LEFTWING media, the KPFT pacifica people who LAUGH
at the Hillary's and Obama's as a FU JOKE.

How do you distinguish these two?

Also, there's me, I'm progressive liberal where I am a Constitutionalist who includes
political freedom of choice for all views equally as protected by law and from biases in law.

Where does that put me?

I barely fit in with the LEFT media because I am too tolerant and inclusive of
the right and not rejecting anybody. And I certainly DO NOT fit in with the
liberal media that has sold out the LEFT.

Aren't there 3 groups then of liberals?
how to distinguish them from each other if you call them all liberal?

 

[emilynghiem]

He never said anything about drowning babies. That was your own addition.

It was Norquist that talked about shrinking government and drowning it in the bathtub.

It was probably a play on the old expression, "Don't throw the bathwater out with the baby".

In any case..this thread isn't about babies..

It's about the government you conservatives want to kill.

Yes, and you added the analogy of a baby to create an emotional response.

I'm not sure "kill" is the verb I would use, but sure. I doubt there are any conservatives who want to do so, however.

That's where I was trying to say
"the baby was already dead in the water"

Democrats killed the Constitution with the ACA.
Judge Roberts gave it last rites.

And now maybe this drowning analogy is the GOP
trying to re-baptize the baby?
bringing it back to life in another form?
???

What are we going to have now? a Zombie baby?

 

[Amelia]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It was Norquist that talked about shrinking government and drowning it in the bathtub.

It was probably a play on the old expression, "Don't throw the bathwater out with the baby".

In any case..this thread isn't about babies..

It's about the government you conservatives want to kill.

Yes, and you added the analogy of a baby to create an emotional response.

I'm not sure "kill" is the verb I would use, but sure. I doubt there are any conservatives who want to do so, however.

That's where I was trying to say
"the baby was already dead in the water"

Democrats killed the Constitution with the ACA.
Judge Roberts gave it last rites.

And now maybe this drowning analogy is the GOP
trying to re-baptize the baby?
bringing it back to life in another form?
???

What are we going to have now? a Zombie baby?

The Constitution was dead long before Obamacare.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and you added the analogy of a baby to create an emotional response.

I'm not sure "kill" is the verb I would use, but sure. I doubt there are any conservatives who want to do so, however.

That's where I was trying to say
"the baby was already dead in the water"

Democrats killed the Constitution with the ACA.
Judge Roberts gave it last rites.

And now maybe this drowning analogy is the GOP
trying to re-baptize the baby?
bringing it back to life in another form?
???

What are we going to have now? a Zombie baby?

The Constitution was dead long before Obamacare.

I believe other things could be fixed by implementing corrections and teaching
how to interpret the laws and bills to correct the flaws.

For this bill, the bill itself needs to be amended to allow all citizens
equal rights to opt in or out without the restrictions given on what
is an exemption to avoid paying the penalty/fine/tax.

If we could magically wave a wand and ALL AGREE to interpret it as optional,
that might work. A lot of the other institutions set up through Govt, from the
Federal Reserve to income taxes would have to be interpreted as optional
participation and compliance in order to be fully Constitutional.

This bill may require splitting up options by party in order to keep provisions
going that "members of certain parties" don't want interrupted. So requiring
members to support the options of their choice without imposing those on
members of other political parties, religious organizations, etc. that have other means
of reforming and providing health care that the federal govt has no authority to
penalize for not fitting their given restrictions and limited exemptions under ACA.