11-14-2013 07:34 PM
749 ... 89101112 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    Have to disagree. There are no less than 8 bills sitting on Harry Reids desk with legitimate proposals. The president has said he want even consider a bill that contains the word obamacare. In his own words, I don't have to negotiate. The only president whose ever said that.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    How many passed a full vote in both houses? That's what it takes.

    XT1060. Through spacetime.
    10-14-2013 08:01 AM
  2. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Have to disagree. There are no less than 8 bills sitting on Harry Reids desk with legitimate proposals. The president has said he want even consider a bill that contains the word obamacare. In his own words, I don't have to negotiate. The only president whose ever said that.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    He believes that should be a separate issue. Funding the government should be about more than one specific law, so I'm inclined to agree. Fund the government, then go back and fix what you have issues with.

    Pretty sure Harry Reid isn't just "taking orders" from Obama, either.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    10-14-2013 08:04 AM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    He believes that should be a separate issue. Funding the government should be about more than one specific law, so I'm inclined to agree. Fund the government, then go back and fix what you have issues with.

    Pretty sure Harry Reid isn't just "taking orders" from Obama, either.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    The bills are being passed by the house and refused to be put up for a vote in the senate. Votes are always tied to something else. Always have been. This is not new, the dems crying about it is what's new.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-14-2013 08:36 AM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The bills are being passed by the house and refused to be put up for a vote in the senate. Votes are always tied to something else. Always have been. This is not new, the dems crying about it is what's new.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    That's also gone the other way, too. Bills being passed by the Senate and not getting a vote in the House.

    They're all whining too much. If they were my children they'd get a time out AT LEAST.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    10-14-2013 08:39 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    10-14-2013 09:12 AM
  6. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    That's also gone the other way, too. Bills being passed by the Senate and not getting a vote in the House.

    They're all whining too much. If they were my children they'd get a time out AT LEAST.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    True...but no one has ever outright refused to negotiate. They all need to be reminded they work for the people. We let them all get away with too much. In my opinion, all public office should be limited to 8 years and done in 4 , 2year terms. Only receiving pay for time served. I believe this would help, some.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-14-2013 09:52 AM
  7. craZDude's Avatar
    I have to admit, this has been quite an interesting thread to read through. I disagree with a lot of what has been said, but I'd like to start joining in (in the few spare moments I'll have this week).

    First, I've seen both sides of University funding, an expensive private institution, and a public state university. I will agree that it was made remarkably easy to accept a loan while my financial were being sorted out with the public University; at times it felt they were almost forcing me into a loan. Fortunately my program guarantees funding for everyone in it, and I was not forced into taking out a loan.

    The private institution very much relied heavily on the eyes gained from the students attending. Perhaps Harvard, Yale, and Stanford can afford to rely solely on their eye-bogglingly large endowment, but smaller private schools simply don't have enough of a endowment to subsist off of that alone. Many schools have had to switch from need-blind (they accepted people without looking at their financial situation) before the recession to need-aware afterwards. The rising costs of a quality education are rising, for both the students and the universities that provide that education.

    As for the government shutdown, it has been awful, and many people I know personally are being forced to work without pay, and are not allowed to accept outside work, or they will lose their positions. These people are in AmeriCorps, and many of them have rent to pay and will soon run out of money for food. It is incredibly selfish of all parties involved in keeping the government closed to do so based on trying to get the other side to change certain laws. Putting the people in your own country at risk because you don't like a single law is simply unacceptable, and I feel ashamed on the national and international levels to be an American right now.

    I can't believe how selfish the people in the American government are being right now, that they would put their own agenda over the health and well-being of the citizens of the nation they are supposed to represent.
    10-14-2013 09:59 AM
  8. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    True...but no one has ever outright refused to negotiate. They all need to be reminded they work for the people. We let them all get away with too much. In my opinion, all public office should be limited to 8 years and done in 4 , 2year terms. Only receiving pay for time served. I believe this would help, some.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Two year terms would be too short. Nobody would ever get anything done because they'd only be worrying about re-election.

    Yes, they work for the people. That doesn't mean that they need to cave to demands if they don't agree with them. Both sides need to realize that they can't get everything they want. Find a common ground, get things up and running, and then address the major concerns with things you have issues with.

    Some things, like the debt ceiling and a government shutdown, should take precedence over anything else.
    10-14-2013 10:01 AM
  9. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Two year terms would be too short. Nobody would ever get anything done because they'd only be worrying about re-election.

    Yes, they work for the people. That doesn't mean that they need to cave to demands if they don't agree with them. Both sides need to realize that they can't get everything they want. Find a common ground, get things up and running, and then address the major concerns with things you have issues with.

    Some things, like the debt ceiling and a government shutdown, should take precedence over anything else.
    Two ways of looking at that I guess. Shorter terms also means they can be voted out of office sooner for not doing a good job. Agree that both parties have done a terrible job. However, the dems want a blank check.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-14-2013 11:09 AM
  10. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Two ways of looking at that I guess. Shorter terms also means they can be voted out of office sooner for not doing a good job. Agree that both parties have done a terrible job. However, the dems want a blank check.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Didn't Obama basically come out and say "open the government and anything you want to talk about is on the table"? Both sides (or all three sides?) want to reopen the government, but some want conditions attached to it in the form of legislation. So no, it's not a blank check as far as my understanding goes. They want the government reopened unconditionally. Then have talks about the rest of it.

    As far as the specifics of the health care plan, anything having to do with that will surely reach the same exact deadlock that we're in now, so why hold up reopening the government over it?
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-14-2013 11:53 AM
  11. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Didn't Obama basically come out and say "open the government and anything you want to talk about is on the table"? Both sides (or all three sides?) want to reopen the government, but some want conditions attached to it in the form of legislation. So no, it's not a blank check as far as my understanding goes. They want the government reopened unconditionally. Then have talks about the rest of it.

    As far as the specifics of the health care plan, anything having to do with that will surely reach the same exact deadlock that we're in now, so why hold up reopening the government over it?
    Saying reopen and THEN talk about the rest is the same as saying give me your only barging chip and then lets barter. They have not budged on a single part of the ACA(or really anything else) so far. Why should they suddenly be trusted to negotiate on nothing but good faith? They say they will now, but the minute a budget is passed with everything they want in and don't want out, they will cease negotiations of any kind. They complain about a gun being held to their head, but that is the only way to get these people's attention it seems.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-14-2013 01:20 PM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    Saying reopen and THEN talk about the rest is the same as saying give me your only barging chip and then lets barter. They have not budged on a single part of the ACA(or really anything else) so far. Why should they suddenly be trusted to negotiate on nothing but good faith? They say they will now, but the minute a budget is passed with everything they want in and don't want out, they will cease negotiations of any kind. They complain about a gun being held to their head, but that is the only way to get these people's attention it seems.
    The problem is the Tea Party mandate to destroy the ACA. All Republicans are afraid of losing Tea Party votes. If they lose Tea Party support, they will lose their next election. It's that simple.
    10-14-2013 01:57 PM
  13. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The problem is the Tea Party mandate to destroy the ACA. All Republicans are afraid of losing Tea Party votes. If they lose Tea Party support, they will lose their next election. It's that simple.
    The problem is the ACA mandate to destroy America as we know it.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-14-2013 02:42 PM
  14. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The problem is the Tea Party mandate to destroy the ACA. All Republicans are afraid of losing Tea Party votes. If they lose Tea Party support, they will lose their next election. It's that simple.
    The tea party is the last openly conservative part of the Republican party. The party as a whole is nothing but Democrat-light these days. If they loose the last stand of their conservative base, they will eventually cease to exist. The conservatives will either reform the current party or create a new one all together. No one wants to be misrepresented by a party of moderates that do nothing but try to please everyone while pleasing no one.

    The Republicans have good reason to fear the loss of the Tea party.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    10-14-2013 02:52 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Saying reopen and THEN talk about the rest is the same as saying give me your only barging chip and then lets barter. They have not budged on a single part of the ACA(or really anything else) so far. Why should they suddenly be trusted to negotiate on nothing but good faith? They say they will now, but the minute a budget is passed with everything they want in and don't want out, they will cease negotiations of any kind. They complain about a gun being held to their head, but that is the only way to get these people's attention it seems.
    The counterpoint is that the law as written has been upheld by SCOTUS. So even being willing to talk about it is kind of a big deal that gets overlooked. "Hey, yeah, that law that was passed by everyone, and upheld by SCOTUS, sure, we'll talk about changing it."

    The problem is the ACA mandate to destroy America as we know it.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Show me where it says that anywhere in the written law. :P It hasn't even fully taken affect yet, and in other countries that have enacted similar legislation they didn't suddenly explode. I know because they still exist.

    The tea party is the last openly conservative part of the Republican party. The party as a whole is nothing but Democrat-light these days. If they loose the last stand of their conservative base, they will eventually cease to exist. The conservatives will either reform the current party or create a new one all together. No one wants to be misrepresented by a party of moderates that do nothing but try to please everyone while pleasing no one.

    The Republicans have good reason to fear the loss of the Tea party.
    Creating a new party is an option. A three (or four) party system would be better than two (or three), right? I'm afraid that people are so stuck on what it means to be "Republican" or "Democrat" that they won't bother to look at things any other way than how their party says to. As evidenced by the current fractures in the Republican party because of all of these "unbreakable" pact/deals/mandates/whatever you want to call them.
    10-14-2013 03:04 PM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I have actually been surprised that there has not been something like the Tea party defect from the Democrats yet. The Democrats used to be the party of moderates. The representative of the average practical American. It's why my grandparents have voted Democrat most of their lives. But now they are the party of the far left wing. I wonder when someone will get fed up and splinter like the Tea party has with the Republicans.
    10-14-2013 03:38 PM
  17. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    The supreme court, justice Roberts did not rule ACA was constitutional. Read carefully what he ruled and what congress never did to make it right. Because they knew it would never pass.

    We are being played as fools. Chief Justice Roberts did not say obamacare was Constitutional read his RULING! He said that the mandate was NOT Constitutional and that the ONLY WAY THAT the federal government could enforce obamacare is to enforce it as a tax.... here is where the obamacare mandate is unConstitutional: Right when Justice Roberts made that ruling the ACA should have gone BACK to congress and should have been VOTED ON BY EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS AS A TAX .. IT WAS NOT..! The House did NOT pass obamacare as a tax!! They said that it was NOT a tax..!! DO NOT BE FOOLED PEOPLE - OBAMACARE IS ILLEGAL!! THE ACA originated in the SENATE and a tax can NOT originate in the Senate!! PLUS.. OBAMA has unlawfully changed the law by giving exemptions and HE CANNOT DO THAT!! They are trying to make us all believe that Obamacare is legal AND IT IS NOT LEGAL...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-14-2013 04:04 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    So... open the government and introduce a bipartisan bill that fixes any and all issues, get it passed by a full vote in both houses and send it to the president for enactment.

    The majority of members of the House, nearly all members of the Senate, the President and most of the public seem to be in favor of exactly that chain of events.

    Nexus. Through spacetime.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-14-2013 04:21 PM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    So... open the government and introduce a bipartisan bill that fixes any and all issues, get it passed by a full vote in both houses and send it to the president for enactment.

    Nexus. Through spacetime.
    EDIT -
    nevermind


    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-14-2013 04:35 PM
  20. llamabreath's Avatar
    lol, cdmjlt369 -

    I think the forum app misplaced your post -
    http://forums.androidcentral.com/sho...t Hangin'?




    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    10-14-2013 04:43 PM
  21. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The supreme court, justice Roberts did not rule ACA was constitutional. Read carefully what he ruled and what congress never did to make it right. Because they knew it would never pass.

    We are being played as fools. Chief Justice Roberts did not say obamacare was Constitutional… read his RULING! He said that the mandate was NOT Constitutional and that the ONLY WAY THAT the federal government could enforce obamacare is to enforce it as a tax.... here is where the obamacare mandate is unConstitutional: Right when Justice Roberts made that ruling the ACA should have gone BACK to congress and should have been VOTED ON BY EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS AS A TAX .. IT WAS NOT..! The House did NOT pass obamacare as a tax!! They said that it was NOT a tax..!! DO NOT BE FOOLED PEOPLE - OBAMACARE IS ILLEGAL!! THE ACA originated in the SENATE and a tax can NOT originate in the Senate!! PLUS.. OBAMA has unlawfully changed the law by giving exemptions and HE CANNOT DO THAT!! They are trying to make us all believe that Obamacare is legal AND IT IS NOT LEGAL...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Read and learn:

    Explaining the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare - The Daily Beast

    TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T HELP PROVE YOUR POINT.

    That was the first result in a Google search for "obamacare supreme court decision" Here are a few more:

    The Supreme Court's Obamacare Decision: Full Text - The Editors - The Atlantic

    And the link when you click on the one plain-English paragraph version:

    The Health Care Decision, Explained in 1 Paragraph on SCOTUSblog - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

    Just in case, here's Fox News' article:

    Supreme Court upholds individual mandate, ObamaCare survives | Fox News

    And in case you think someone uploaded a fake to scribd on my second link, here it is from the source:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf


    No, I haven't read the entire decision. It's long, and in lawyer-speak, which I'm not fluent in.
    10-14-2013 04:47 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    If we were going to prioritize things that need attention by our Federal Government, obviously #1 would be open the government, #2 would be raise the debt ceiling, #3 is obviously election process reform, specifically campaign finance, #4 might be figuring out what's going on with our "relationship" with Pakistan, #5 might be navigating Syria, etc. Approximately #200th or so would be revisiting old tired legislation that shows opportunity for minute budget savings. We're trying to solve #200 before #1. Not only is it wasteful to do things like that, but it's wildly destructive and the things that ARE more important are being scarified and becoming larger problems because of the lack of focus.

    When your house is on fire, it's not a good time to boot up the Nintendo and try to get a slightly better best lap time on Mario Cart. You get everyone to safety, put the fire out, start repairing damage and THEN go to the low priority items.
    craZDude likes this.
    10-14-2013 05:06 PM
  23. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So... open the government and introduce a bipartisan bill that fixes any and all issues, get it passed by a full vote in both houses and send it to the president for enactment.

    The majority of members of the House, nearly all members of the Senate, the President and most of the public seem to be in favor of exactly that chain of events.

    Nexus. Through spacetime.
    I could buy into this, but when we have a system that is dependent on 2 parties it will never happen.

    The Democrats have viewed the ACA as the big gold nugget they stole when they hadI complete control of the government. The leadership of the party will not allow any changes to it and the party members will follow protocol even if they like the changes. And it's very hard to threaten reelection when the media will just demonize any changes as an attempt by the mean old Republicans to destroy our perfect president's baby.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-14-2013 05:13 PM
  24. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    lol, cdmjlt369 -

    I think the forum app misplaced your post -
    http://forums.androidcentral.com/sho...t Hangin'?




    Sent via a pay phone at the gas station.
    Slightly...lol...didn't know what happened.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    10-14-2013 05:15 PM
  25. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I could buy into this, but when we have a system that is dependent on 2 parties it will never happen.

    The Democrats have viewed the ACA as the big gold nugget they stole when they hadI complete control of the government. The leadership of the party will not allow any changes to it and the party members will follow protocol even if they like the changes. And it's very hard to threaten reelection when the media will just demonize any changes as an attempt by the mean old Republicans to destroy our perfect president's baby.
    You do know that as far as "big media" goes Fox has the most viewers by a large margin. They don't think Obama is perfect.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    10-14-2013 05:23 PM
749 ... 89101112 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Changing battery's better to shutdown the S4?
    By Nuno Mota in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-02-2013, 12:15 PM
  2. 4.3 random shutdown
    By talsi_st in forum Google / Samsung Galaxy Nexus
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 12:45 AM
  3. samsung s4 shutdown "help"
    By Shatha816 in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 07:46 AM
  4. Government Notifications & the Skyrocket
    By SpringCTIL in forum Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 05:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD