|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
|
On January 01 2014 08:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant.
Because DEB said that its easy to attack Ted Cruz for doing the shutdown for personal gains but rarely true.
Yet we know from Republicans themselves that Cruz had no plan. Which makes it more likely it was done for personal gain.
|
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah took its fight against gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the high court to suspend same-sex unions that became legal when a judge struck down the state's voter-approved ban.
The heavily Mormon state wants the marriages to stop while it appeals a judge's decision, which said banninggay couples from marrying violates their right to equal treatment under the law.
In papers filed Tuesday, the state asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to overturn a decision that has led to more than 900 gay marriages in Utah. Sotomayor handles emergency requests from Utah and other Rocky Mountain states.
Sotomayor responded by setting a deadline of by noon Friday for legal briefs from same-sex couples. She can act by herself or get the rest of the court involved.
"Numerous same-sex marriages are now occurring every day in Utah," Utah lawyers complain in the filing. "Each one is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels, but also to this court's unique role as final arbiter."
Also Tuesday, the Utah Attorney General's Office advertised a formal bid request to outside law firms for help preparing the appeals.
Source
|
On January 01 2014 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 08:46 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. Because DEB said that its easy to attack Ted Cruz for doing the shutdown for personal gains but rarely true. Yet we know from Republicans themselves that Cruz had no plan. Which makes it more likely it was done for personal gain.
ending all federal government except the defense is a plan.
|
On January 01 2014 10:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 08:46 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. Because DEB said that its easy to attack Ted Cruz for doing the shutdown for personal gains but rarely true. Yet we know from Republicans themselves that Cruz had no plan. Which makes it more likely it was done for personal gain. ending all federal government except the defense is a plan.
that'd be pretty embarrassing
|
On January 01 2014 10:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 08:46 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. Because DEB said that its easy to attack Ted Cruz for doing the shutdown for personal gains but rarely true. Yet we know from Republicans themselves that Cruz had no plan. Which makes it more likely it was done for personal gain. ending all federal government except the defense is a plan.
That's more like a goal than a plan. His plan is probably something like:
1. Get on TV
2. SHUT IT DOWN SHUT IT ALL DOWN
3. Win the Iowa caucus; lose every other primary election
4. ???
5. Get a job hosting an hour-long Fox News program
|
On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true.
If you wish to remain consistent within the premise stated you can't end with "It's also rarely true" as you can be refuted with your own "reasoning". The best you can do here, while remaining consistent, is "It's not something we can know".
Unless of course you want to imply that you have access to information on unavailable to the general public. Perhaps you're an actual mind reader while others only pretend to be?
|
On January 01 2014 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2014 08:46 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2014 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:On December 31 2013 13:15 zlefin wrote:
getting serious would be good. Ted cruz was not serious. He was a narcissist focusing on his own political career rather than the good of the country or responsible governing.
Admittedly most of congress is like that. Throw em all out and bring in wholly new people. I'm tempted to say we should pull people from the federal jury pool to serve in congress; I really think they'd do better than the people in there now. How do people know things like this? Did you read Ted Cruz's mind? It's an easy, cheap, and very common attack to make to accuse a politician of grandstanding to further his ambitions "at the cost of the country." It's also rarely true. How about the Republicans themselves who came out saying Cruz had no plan for the shutdown? He was pretty isolated within his own party. Unless it came from Rand Paul or Jeff Sessions, chances are that they never really thought the shutdown was a good idea and were pulled into it by constituent anger or Boehner's half-hearted support. It's no big secret that the Tea Party holds a minority of Senate and House Republican seats. I don't see how what you're saying is relevant. Because DEB said that its easy to attack Ted Cruz for doing the shutdown for personal gains but rarely true. Yet we know from Republicans themselves that Cruz had no plan. Which makes it more likely it was done for personal gain.
Do you have some link to his shrink? Or some intimate confessions? This still sounds like the very Republicans opposed from the start, seeking his diminishment, talking to reporters and assuring them he had no plan. You would be just as well off asking Obama if he thought Cruz had a plan, then parroting that line about. It's no great secret Cruz faces great opposition within his own party. Consider your sources.
|
I'm a little confused.
Shouldn't we be applauding Cruz if his motivations were entirely selfish? Isn't that the foundation on which his ideology is based? Everyone does the best they can to help themselves and then we get eden again? Surely any other motivation would make him a hypocrite.
|
On January 01 2014 22:06 Dapper_Cad wrote:
I'm a little confused.
Shouldn't we be applauding Cruz if his motivations were entirely selfish? Isn't that the foundation on which his ideology is based? Everyone does the best they can to help themselves and then we get eden again? Surely any other motivation would make him a hypocrite.
No you don't understand. The Tea Party and the American Right are True Americans first and Randians second.
|
Over 2 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans through the federally run HealthCare.gov and state healthcare websites since enrollment began in October, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
While the numbers of enrollees fall short of the 3.3 million enrollees the Obama administration was hoping for by the end of year, the number is a dramatic improvement from the early weeks of the program when barely 150,000 signed up for coverage through HealthCare.gov because of a series of technical problems.
HealthCare.gov covers 36 states; another 14 states have their own websites.
Sign-ups for what has become known as "Obamacare" picked up during December as the website's performance improved, and as more Americans focused on getting coverage by the new year.
Many of the newly insured under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" enrolled just ahead of a Dec. 24 deadline to receive benefits on Jan. 1, giving health insurers a tight framework to create accounts that can be accessed by doctors. The Obama administration was alerted to HealthCare.gov's problems as early as March, and the site crashed soon after its launch on Oct. 1, as millions of visitors entered the site, and remained balky for much of the ensuing weeks.
Source
|
On January 02 2014 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Over 2 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans through the federally run HealthCare.gov and state healthcare websites since enrollment began in October, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
While the numbers of enrollees fall short of the 3.3 million enrollees the Obama administration was hoping for by the end of year, the number is a dramatic improvement from the early weeks of the program when barely 150,000 signed up for coverage through HealthCare.gov because of a series of technical problems.
HealthCare.gov covers 36 states; another 14 states have their own websites.
Sign-ups for what has become known as "Obamacare" picked up during December as the website's performance improved, and as more Americans focused on getting coverage by the new year.
Many of the newly insured under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" enrolled just ahead of a Dec. 24 deadline to receive benefits on Jan. 1, giving health insurers a tight framework to create accounts that can be accessed by doctors. The Obama administration was alerted to HealthCare.gov's problems as early as March, and the site crashed soon after its launch on Oct. 1, as millions of visitors entered the site, and remained balky for much of the ensuing weeks. Source
They're getting closer to the 4.5mil-6mil that have lost their insurance as a result of Obamacare. I'm guessing they didn't hit their goal of circa 40% young people since they have doggedly refused to release those statistics just like their refusal to say how many of their "enrollees" have paid their first months premium (as the industry usually calls an enrolled member). I don't blame them grasping for straws. This is the administration that advocated a smarter, not bigger, government prior to becoming the government. I haven't been hearing that line lately, no surprise.
|
On January 02 2014 17:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Over 2 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans through the federally run HealthCare.gov and state healthcare websites since enrollment began in October, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
While the numbers of enrollees fall short of the 3.3 million enrollees the Obama administration was hoping for by the end of year, the number is a dramatic improvement from the early weeks of the program when barely 150,000 signed up for coverage through HealthCare.gov because of a series of technical problems.
HealthCare.gov covers 36 states; another 14 states have their own websites.
Sign-ups for what has become known as "Obamacare" picked up during December as the website's performance improved, and as more Americans focused on getting coverage by the new year.
Many of the newly insured under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" enrolled just ahead of a Dec. 24 deadline to receive benefits on Jan. 1, giving health insurers a tight framework to create accounts that can be accessed by doctors. The Obama administration was alerted to HealthCare.gov's problems as early as March, and the site crashed soon after its launch on Oct. 1, as millions of visitors entered the site, and remained balky for much of the ensuing weeks. Source They're getting closer to the 4.5mil-6mil that have lost their insurance as a result of Obamacare. I'm guessing they didn't hit their goal of circa 40% young people since they have doggedly refused to release those statistics just like their refusal to say how many of their "enrollees" have paid their first months premium (as the industry usually calls an enrolled member). I don't blame them grasping for straws. This is the administration that advocated a smarter, not bigger, government prior to becoming the government. I haven't been hearing that line lately, no surprise.
Lost implies that they didn't get another plan from same company within a day for about the same price with more benefits. I know someone who got that notice and she basically got the notice and included were alternative plans she could pick she picked one and moved on. The fact that absolutely nothing changed for her and she gets included in those 4.5M makes me chuckle every time.
|
On January 02 2014 18:20 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 17:10 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2014 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Over 2 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans through the federally run HealthCare.gov and state healthcare websites since enrollment began in October, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
While the numbers of enrollees fall short of the 3.3 million enrollees the Obama administration was hoping for by the end of year, the number is a dramatic improvement from the early weeks of the program when barely 150,000 signed up for coverage through HealthCare.gov because of a series of technical problems.
HealthCare.gov covers 36 states; another 14 states have their own websites.
Sign-ups for what has become known as "Obamacare" picked up during December as the website's performance improved, and as more Americans focused on getting coverage by the new year.
Many of the newly insured under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" enrolled just ahead of a Dec. 24 deadline to receive benefits on Jan. 1, giving health insurers a tight framework to create accounts that can be accessed by doctors. The Obama administration was alerted to HealthCare.gov's problems as early as March, and the site crashed soon after its launch on Oct. 1, as millions of visitors entered the site, and remained balky for much of the ensuing weeks. Source They're getting closer to the 4.5mil-6mil that have lost their insurance as a result of Obamacare. I'm guessing they didn't hit their goal of circa 40% young people since they have doggedly refused to release those statistics just like their refusal to say how many of their "enrollees" have paid their first months premium (as the industry usually calls an enrolled member). I don't blame them grasping for straws. This is the administration that advocated a smarter, not bigger, government prior to becoming the government. I haven't been hearing that line lately, no surprise. Lost implies that they didn't get another plan from same company within a day for about the same price with more benefits. I know someone who got that notice and she basically got the notice and included were alternative plans she could pick she picked one and moved on. The fact that absolutely nothing changed for her and she gets included in those 4.5M makes me chuckle every time. And enrolled implies that they've started their first month paying for their plans, but the Obama administration conflates that with just signups. The last data released showed that only 5-15% of those the administration considered enrolled had actually ... enrolled. Your anecdotal evidence is more than matched with every single report on citizens with cancelled plans that only have more expensive alternatives. In 49 states the average increase in plan cost is 41%. Worst Hit: Young and Healthy. They aren't similarly laughing at the minority that experienced similar costs or lesser costs after Obamacare.
|
On January 02 2014 18:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2014 18:20 Adreme wrote:On January 02 2014 17:10 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2014 12:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Over 2 million people have enrolled in health insurance plans through the federally run HealthCare.gov and state healthcare websites since enrollment began in October, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.
While the numbers of enrollees fall short of the 3.3 million enrollees the Obama administration was hoping for by the end of year, the number is a dramatic improvement from the early weeks of the program when barely 150,000 signed up for coverage through HealthCare.gov because of a series of technical problems.
HealthCare.gov covers 36 states; another 14 states have their own websites.
Sign-ups for what has become known as "Obamacare" picked up during December as the website's performance improved, and as more Americans focused on getting coverage by the new year.
Many of the newly insured under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" enrolled just ahead of a Dec. 24 deadline to receive benefits on Jan. 1, giving health insurers a tight framework to create accounts that can be accessed by doctors. The Obama administration was alerted to HealthCare.gov's problems as early as March, and the site crashed soon after its launch on Oct. 1, as millions of visitors entered the site, and remained balky for much of the ensuing weeks. Source They're getting closer to the 4.5mil-6mil that have lost their insurance as a result of Obamacare. I'm guessing they didn't hit their goal of circa 40% young people since they have doggedly refused to release those statistics just like their refusal to say how many of their "enrollees" have paid their first months premium (as the industry usually calls an enrolled member). I don't blame them grasping for straws. This is the administration that advocated a smarter, not bigger, government prior to becoming the government. I haven't been hearing that line lately, no surprise. Lost implies that they didn't get another plan from same company within a day for about the same price with more benefits. I know someone who got that notice and she basically got the notice and included were alternative plans she could pick she picked one and moved on. The fact that absolutely nothing changed for her and she gets included in those 4.5M makes me chuckle every time. And enrolled implies that they've started their first month paying for their plans, but the Obama administration conflates that with just signups. The last data released showed that only 5-15% of those the administration considered enrolled had actually ... enrolled. Your anecdotal evidence is more than matched with every single report on citizens with cancelled plans that only have more expensive alternatives. In 49 states the average increase in plan cost is 41%. Worst Hit: Young and Healthy. They aren't similarly laughing at the minority that experienced similar costs or lesser costs after Obamacare.
It's just a projection made by a specific institute (the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank).
|
Shh WhiteDog, don't let the actual content of a citation get in the way of a grandstanded point. Those are all the followers of conservative think tanks have.
|
To be fair the enrollment has been a mess. And there will probably will be a lot of people who are going to end up without an insurance without there knowledge and that is a problem.
|
No one has suggested that the enrollment hasn't been really shitty, as to do so is to practically ignore reality irregardless of political inclination. The part where informative sleight of hand comes in deals in how big the mess is, how its cleanup is going, and whether or not we'll ever get the stain out. If you happen to think that groups like Cato and the Manhattan Institute are actual good sources of unbiased information, then oh my God, better remove the carpet because shit is leaking into the baseboard. Everyone else, however, realizes (or desperately ought to) that quoting estimates as already instantiated facts is the work of a carpet salesmen with no interest in saving what might be a very cleanable piece of flooring that guarantees coverage for those who previously had slept on concrete their entires lives 
|
On January 03 2014 01:11 farvacola wrote:No one has suggested that the enrollment hasn't been really shitty, as to do so is to practically ignore reality irregardless of political inclination. The part where informative sleight of hand comes in deals in how big the mess is, how its cleanup is going, and whether or not we'll ever get the stain out. If you happen to think that groups like Cato and the Manhattan Institute are actual good sources of unbiased information, then oh my God, better remove the carpet because shit is leaking into the baseboard. Everyone else, however, realizes (or desperately ought to) that quoting estimates as already instantiated facts is the work of a carpet salesmen with no interest in saving what might be a very cleanable piece of flooring that guarantees coverage for those who previously had slept on concrete their entires lives
What would this thread be without long and complicated analogies. 
Anyway, I always saw the website problems as a technical failure, not a policy one. Somebody didn't properly test that the website worked, and maybe they should be fired, but that doesn't mean that the ACA is a bad idea.
|
A New Jersey politician investigating a scandal involving Gov. Chris Christie (R) and the George Washington Bridge said this week that orders to close several lanes on the bridge in September came from outside the agency that runs it.
But Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D) investigating the scandal stopped short in an interview published Wednesday in the Bergen Record newspaper of implicating Christie, who has repeatedly denied he had anything to do with the closures that caused days of gridlock in Fort Lee, N.J.
“There are documents that we’ve received that would indicate that there was somebody else who initiated this,” Wisniewski told the newspaper. “There are words that are used that would imply an improper motive.”
Some Democrats have alleged Christie or his allies at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees the bridge, ordered the lanes closed because Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich declined to endorse Christie's re-election bid last year.
Already, Christie's top appointees at the agency, Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, have resigned over the scandal. Both have said the closures were the result of a traffic study.
Wisniewski has been leading a legislative investigation of the scandal and recently subpoenaed communications between Christie's appointees and the governor's office.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
