Why no protests, no riots, no burning down of my city?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. But the difference is Trump's lies didn't hurt people--especially in the millions.

Would you say that ANYBODY was helped by Obamacare? young, poor, pre-existing conditions?? Remove the fiscal issues for a second, which I completely agree need to be addressed, but do think anybody has been helped as a result of the ACA? If so, how were they helped?

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

Well that is relevant to this conversation. How many were help and HOW were they helped... How many were hurt and HOW were they hurt... Thats pretty important.

If the "help" was life saving care and the "hurt" was higher costs and a financial burden than those are relevant factors. If the help is 10 million and the hurt is 5 million then that makes a difference. So it is worth a conversation.

Okay, then here is what Commie Care was all about: Besides the main goal which was to create as many new government dependents as possible, it was a vote buying scam that gave lower income people (likely Democrat voters) the ability to buy insurance at the cost to middle-income (likely Republican voters) Americans.

If you work part-time or full-time making french fries for a living, Commie Care was affordable because of the huge subsidies. If you are middle-America, Commie Care was unaffordable to you but who cares since you probably vote Republican anyway? Too bad, because you get no or very little subsidies.

On top of that, Democrats realized some employers would drop the benefit to their employees. Health insurance benefits were untaxed, so now that those people have to buy it themselves, they do so with after tax money. Add the billion or so dollars the government collected in fines every year, it was a big windfall for them.

All very fair points and I won't deny that those are the core problems of the law. But you also ignored my questions. Did the law get millions of uninsured people on the rolls? Did that end up saving the lives of many many people? If so then you have to be able acknowledge that as a positive. I get that the regulations had negative effects for businesses and for middle class people who were on the individual exchanges. They caused insurance agencies to drop certain plans which effected many people and the doctors they had access to. I realize that the subsidies are propping up the financing of the system at a time that we can't afford to keep feeding the debt. We can have an economic discussion about it to find better ways to make it affordable. But we can't have that conversation when you take the "Commie Care" approach and can't have a realistic conversation about the WHOLE picture.

The whole picture is we get rid of it period and start something altogether new. I'm sick of worrying about the poor. Every time we have some sort of positive outlook, it's "what about the poor?" Screw the poor. Start working about the working and everybody else since we are the ones that support his country with our money.

 

[Slade3200]

Those were broken promises which were unfortunate and make me question his ability to follow through and efficiently I never execute his policy ideas. Sure that stuff is absolutely worthy of scrutiny. But intentional lies? No. There is a big difference.

What do you mean they were not lies? They were written in Commie Care. If your insurance company adjusted your rates, you lost that insurance company. If your insurance did not meet government standards, you lost your insurance company.

Washington Post catalogues the biggest lies Obama ever told

I see them as broken promises and missed goals, not lies. But if you want to call them lies then fine. Same is true for Trumps statements that I pointed out, correct?

Correct. But the difference is Trump's lies didn't hurt people--especially in the millions.

Would you say that ANYBODY was helped by Obamacare? young, poor, pre-existing conditions?? Remove the fiscal issues for a second, which I completely agree need to be addressed, but do think anybody has been helped as a result of the ACA? If so, how were they helped?

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

You are right it doesn't discount those people. And I think those people and the financial harm they've experienced should be the major focus of our reform efforts. I think both sides would agree with that

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What do you mean they were not lies? They were written in Commie Care. If your insurance company adjusted your rates, you lost that insurance company. If your insurance did not meet government standards, you lost your insurance company.

Washington Post catalogues the biggest lies Obama ever told

I see them as broken promises and missed goals, not lies. But if you want to call them lies then fine. Same is true for Trumps statements that I pointed out, correct?

Correct. But the difference is Trump's lies didn't hurt people--especially in the millions.

Would you say that ANYBODY was helped by Obamacare? young, poor, pre-existing conditions?? Remove the fiscal issues for a second, which I completely agree need to be addressed, but do think anybody has been helped as a result of the ACA? If so, how were they helped?

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

You are right it doesn't discount those people. And I think those people and the financial harm they've experienced should be the major focus of our reform efforts. I think both sides would agree with that

Don't you believe it. Democrats don't do anything without some sort of ulterior motive that helps them or their party. They could care less if every Republican dropped dead because of no healthcare coverage.

 

[Slade3200]

Would you say that ANYBODY was helped by Obamacare? young, poor, pre-existing conditions?? Remove the fiscal issues for a second, which I completely agree need to be addressed, but do think anybody has been helped as a result of the ACA? If so, how were they helped?

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

Well that is relevant to this conversation. How many were help and HOW were they helped... How many were hurt and HOW were they hurt... Thats pretty important.

If the "help" was life saving care and the "hurt" was higher costs and a financial burden than those are relevant factors. If the help is 10 million and the hurt is 5 million then that makes a difference. So it is worth a conversation.

Okay, then here is what Commie Care was all about: Besides the main goal which was to create as many new government dependents as possible, it was a vote buying scam that gave lower income people (likely Democrat voters) the ability to buy insurance at the cost to middle-income (likely Republican voters) Americans.

If you work part-time or full-time making french fries for a living, Commie Care was affordable because of the huge subsidies. If you are middle-America, Commie Care was unaffordable to you but who cares since you probably vote Republican anyway? Too bad, because you get no or very little subsidies.

On top of that, Democrats realized some employers would drop the benefit to their employees. Health insurance benefits were untaxed, so now that those people have to buy it themselves, they do so with after tax money. Add the billion or so dollars the government collected in fines every year, it was a big windfall for them.

All very fair points and I won't deny that those are the core problems of the law. But you also ignored my questions. Did the law get millions of uninsured people on the rolls? Did that end up saving the lives of many many people? If so then you have to be able acknowledge that as a positive. I get that the regulations had negative effects for businesses and for middle class people who were on the individual exchanges. They caused insurance agencies to drop certain plans which effected many people and the doctors they had access to. I realize that the subsidies are propping up the financing of the system at a time that we can't afford to keep feeding the debt. We can have an economic discussion about it to find better ways to make it affordable. But we can't have that conversation when you take the "Commie Care" approach and can't have a realistic conversation about the WHOLE picture.

The whole picture is we get rid of it period and start something altogether new. I'm sick of worrying about the poor. Every time we have some sort of positive outlook, it's "what about the poor?" Screw the poor. Start working about the working and everybody else since we are the ones that support his country with our money.

I applaud your honesty and you have every right to not support not helping the poor. I just completely disagree with you and many other Americans do to. You must realize that the vast majority of crime in this country comes from poverty and desperation, right? Helping the poor gain education, helping them with medical treatments, and instituting measure to help avoid bankrupting families over medical bills are all things that help our community as a whole. Not to mention the middle class individuals that have pre-existing conditions that couldn't get coverage before the ACA. They were a large beneficiary of the law.

 

[Slade3200]

I see them as broken promises and missed goals, not lies. But if you want to call them lies then fine. Same is true for Trumps statements that I pointed out, correct?

Correct. But the difference is Trump's lies didn't hurt people--especially in the millions.

Would you say that ANYBODY was helped by Obamacare? young, poor, pre-existing conditions?? Remove the fiscal issues for a second, which I completely agree need to be addressed, but do think anybody has been helped as a result of the ACA? If so, how were they helped?

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

You are right it doesn't discount those people. And I think those people and the financial harm they've experienced should be the major focus of our reform efforts. I think both sides would agree with that

Don't you believe it. Democrats don't do anything without some sort of ulterior motive that helps them or their party. They could care less if every Republican dropped dead because of no healthcare coverage.

Thats just a stupid partisan statement that takes the conversation into the gutter. You can do better than that Ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure people were helped, but that doesn't discount the people that were harmed.

Well that is relevant to this conversation. How many were help and HOW were they helped... How many were hurt and HOW were they hurt... Thats pretty important.

If the "help" was life saving care and the "hurt" was higher costs and a financial burden than those are relevant factors. If the help is 10 million and the hurt is 5 million then that makes a difference. So it is worth a conversation.

Okay, then here is what Commie Care was all about: Besides the main goal which was to create as many new government dependents as possible, it was a vote buying scam that gave lower income people (likely Democrat voters) the ability to buy insurance at the cost to middle-income (likely Republican voters) Americans.

If you work part-time or full-time making french fries for a living, Commie Care was affordable because of the huge subsidies. If you are middle-America, Commie Care was unaffordable to you but who cares since you probably vote Republican anyway? Too bad, because you get no or very little subsidies.

On top of that, Democrats realized some employers would drop the benefit to their employees. Health insurance benefits were untaxed, so now that those people have to buy it themselves, they do so with after tax money. Add the billion or so dollars the government collected in fines every year, it was a big windfall for them.

All very fair points and I won't deny that those are the core problems of the law. But you also ignored my questions. Did the law get millions of uninsured people on the rolls? Did that end up saving the lives of many many people? If so then you have to be able acknowledge that as a positive. I get that the regulations had negative effects for businesses and for middle class people who were on the individual exchanges. They caused insurance agencies to drop certain plans which effected many people and the doctors they had access to. I realize that the subsidies are propping up the financing of the system at a time that we can't afford to keep feeding the debt. We can have an economic discussion about it to find better ways to make it affordable. But we can't have that conversation when you take the "Commie Care" approach and can't have a realistic conversation about the WHOLE picture.

The whole picture is we get rid of it period and start something altogether new. I'm sick of worrying about the poor. Every time we have some sort of positive outlook, it's "what about the poor?" Screw the poor. Start working about the working and everybody else since we are the ones that support his country with our money.

I applaud your honesty and you have every right to not support not helping the poor. I just completely disagree with you and many other Americans do to. You must realize that the vast majority of crime in this country comes from poverty and desperation, right? Helping the poor gain education, helping them with medical treatments, and instituting measure to help avoid bankrupting families over medical bills are all things that help our community as a whole. Not to mention the middle class individuals that have pre-existing conditions that couldn't get coverage before the ACA. They were a large beneficiary of the law.

I've had preexisting conditions since the age of 25. I've always been insured until Commie Care became the law of the land, and I'm 57 years old today.

I disagree with your assessment totally. I live in a changed neighborhood partly thanks to the US government. I seen what they did to this place. We had good schools, we had a great and safe environment, we had growing property values and safe streets and stores. So what happened when the poor moved in?

My doughnut shop turned into a check cashing place. My movie theater turned into a Baptist Church. My hardware store turned into a Goodwill outlet. My heating and AC place turned into a Manpower outlet. The little mom and pop stores turned into daycare centers, cellphone/ pager stores, or nail salons.

The businesses that didn't move started to close early. Good people quit walking the streets after dark. We had to build an additional fire station because one was no longer enough. Teachers started getting assaulted in our schools every month. We went from one murder every ten years to three per year. Now I have to remove all the trash on my tree lawn before I can even mow the damn thing. My property value is half of what it was worth over two decades ago.

So no, you are wrong. It isn't the schools, it isn't the environment, it's the people, and it's only people that can pull themselves out of poverty and crime. It doesn't take a village. The only good village is one that closes it's doors to poor people so they can't destroy what you have.

If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of sour curdled milk, you only have one thing, and that's one cup of bad milk.

 

[JoeB131]

The only reason the story didn't make headlines is that it wasn't a white police officer killing a black man. Had it been, the story would have played out from the day it happened until today. There would be outrage over the verdict.

You are a dishonest regressive, pure and simple, I tire of the lies.

Guy, there are 1200 cases of cops killing Civilians every year, and most of them don't make the headlines.

 

[JoeB131]

My doughnut shop turned into a check cashing place. My movie theater turned into a Baptist Church. My hardware store turned into a Goodwill outlet. My heating and AC place turned into a Manpower outlet. The little mom and pop stores turned into daycare centers, cellphone/ pager stores, or nail salons.

Oh My god, not a Baptist Church!!!!

Hey, buddy, a lot of those old movie theaters closed down, because they can't compete with the multi-plexes.

 

[Papageorgio]

The only reason the story didn't make headlines is that it wasn't a white police officer killing a black man. Had it been, the story would have played out from the day it happened until today. There would be outrage over the verdict.

You are a dishonest regressive, pure and simple, I tire of the lies.

Guy, there are 1200 cases of cops killing Civilians every year, and most of them don't make the headlines.

First, your number is off. Second, we are talking police officers killing unarmed civilians. Third name the last time a police officer killing an unarmed civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian. Then we can discuss.

 

[SavannahMann]

Cop gets away with killing unarmed citizen? It ain't exactly news, happens all the time .

Cop found guilty would be news !

The only reason the story didn't make headlines is that it wasn't a white police officer killing a black man. Had it been, the story would have played out from the day it happened until today. There would be outrage over the verdict.

You are a dishonest regressive, pure and simple, I tire of the lies.

Nonsense. Half of the people killed by Georgia cops were unarmed or shot in the back. If there was a riot every time, there would be riots every other week at least, and probably more often. That is in Georgia alone.

Maybe there should be, but there aren't. Only someone so shallow as they've nothing but surface would imagine the color of the cop was the sole deciding factor.

 

[Papageorgio]

Cop gets away with killing unarmed citizen? It ain't exactly news, happens all the time .

Cop found guilty would be news !

The only reason the story didn't make headlines is that it wasn't a white police officer killing a black man. Had it been, the story would have played out from the day it happened until today. There would be outrage over the verdict.

You are a dishonest regressive, pure and simple, I tire of the lies.

Nonsense. Half of the people killed by Georgia cops were unarmed or shot in the back. If there was a riot every time, there would be riots every other week at least, and probably more often. That is in Georgia alone.

Maybe there should be, but there aren't. Only someone so shallow as they've nothing but surface would imagine the color of the cop was the sole deciding factor.

Name the last time a police officer killing a civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian.

 

[JoeB131]

First, your number is off. Second, we are talking police officers killing unarmed civilians. Third name the last time a police officer killing an unarmed civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian. Then we can discuss.

first, my number isn't off.

Killed By Police - 2015 (1216)

it was 1216 in 2015 and 1162 in 2016.

Second, I can list a lot of cases of people being killed by police, not only when they were unarmed but in custody.

THird, I can name a lot of cases of white people who were brandishing weapons, and police still took them alive through de-escalation tactics.

 

[JoeB131]

Name the last time a police officer killing a civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian.

Okay... that's an easy one.

Australian woman killed by Minneapolis police officer 'didn't have to die,' says police chief

Black Officer. White woman. Made national news. Just a few weeks ago.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Name the last time a police officer killing a civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian.

Okay... that's an easy one.

Australian woman killed by Minneapolis police officer 'didn't have to die,' says police chief

Black Officer. White woman. Made national news. Just a few weeks ago.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

It didn't make national news because of race, it made national news because it was so suspect. She was unarmed and presented no threat to the officer or his coworker. He is a Muslim to boot, and any senseless death by people of that religion needs to be investigated closely.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nonsense. Half of the people killed by Georgia cops were unarmed or shot in the back.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nonsense. Half of the people killed by Georgia cops were unarmed or shot in the back.

OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia

Waiting on a link from you too. I can produce links to support my statements. Where is yours?

 

[Clementine]

CLEVELAND-- A Cleveland police officer was acquitted of negligent homicide on Friday.

Alan Buford was charged after fatally shooting a burglary suspect outside a Parkwood Avenue store on March 19, 2015.

Buford and his partner confronted Brandon Jones, 18, as he was leaving the Parkwood Grocery with a bag of stolen cigarettes, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office said.

Cleveland police said the officers got into a struggle with Jones when they tried to arrest him. That's when Buford fired his service weapon, killing Jones.

Jones did not have a weapon.

Buford's attorney argued the shooting was justified because a reasonable officer would have feared for his life.

Cleveland officer acquitted in deadly shooting of unarmed burglary suspect

I find it amazing how the media controls our minds and thoughts. Just a question for all of you who don't live in the Cleveland area: did you hear about this story yet? Do you think you will?

Before you liberals chime in responding to the topic and not clicking the link, the police officer that killed this unarmed 18 year old black suspect is also African American. Next question: why did this story not make national media?

I take it the criminal was white so the race baiters just yawned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CLEVELAND-- A Cleveland police officer was acquitted of negligent homicide on Friday.

Alan Buford was charged after fatally shooting a burglary suspect outside a Parkwood Avenue store on March 19, 2015.

Buford and his partner confronted Brandon Jones, 18, as he was leaving the Parkwood Grocery with a bag of stolen cigarettes, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office said.

Cleveland police said the officers got into a struggle with Jones when they tried to arrest him. That's when Buford fired his service weapon, killing Jones.

Jones did not have a weapon.

Buford's attorney argued the shooting was justified because a reasonable officer would have feared for his life.

Cleveland officer acquitted in deadly shooting of unarmed burglary suspect

I find it amazing how the media controls our minds and thoughts. Just a question for all of you who don't live in the Cleveland area: did you hear about this story yet? Do you think you will?

Before you liberals chime in responding to the topic and not clicking the link, the police officer that killed this unarmed 18 year old black suspect is also African American. Next question: why did this story not make national media?

I take it the criminal was white so the race baiters just yawned.

No, the suspect was also black, but they yawned just the same.

 

[Papageorgio]

Name the last time a police officer killing a civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian.

Okay... that's an easy one.

Australian woman killed by Minneapolis police officer 'didn't have to die,' says police chief

Black Officer. White woman. Made national news. Just a few weeks ago.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

And that was because social media moved it, otherwise mainstream media would have been silent.

 

[Papageorgio]

First, your number is off. Second, we are talking police officers killing unarmed civilians. Third name the last time a police officer killing an unarmed civilian made national news, that wasn't a white officer killing a black civilian. Then we can discuss.

first, my number isn't off.

Killed By Police - 2015 (1216)

it was 1216 in 2015 and 1162 in 2016.

Second, I can list a lot of cases of people being killed by police, not only when they were unarmed but in custody.

THird, I can name a lot of cases of white people who were brandishing weapons, and police still took them alive through de-escalation tactics.

Actually it is wrong and using a agenda driven propaganda site is your dishonest style.
Number of fatal shootings by police is nearly identical to last year

Next use a legit site Skippy.