11-14-2013 07:34 PM
749 ... 1718192021 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Ok...lol...all he had to do was sign an executive order or bypass congress. ..as he usually does.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    So you're saying that the strategy of the ultra-conservatives isn't to blame for the Republican's botching this situation and coming out looking like the bad guy in the end?

    Still, 3 and 1/2 years to get it right. Poor oversight at least. Something that important to them and they can't make sure it's ready? Obamacare is a hefty program in need of oversight and they couldn't make sure it was ready? Wow...just watch it crumble

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    This sure would be the first case of poor oversight of any Presidency, right? Remind me again when the intrusive surveillance programs started, and how well the oversight has been for them. Blaming "oversight" works for a lot of things, and this is no exception. So try again please.

    I wish someone was "overseeing" the people that are responsible for the budget.

    I have a theory on the ACA site. I have no doubt something is up. A website, script and bandwidth is easy to fix. The President of the United States could bring in the best geeks in the U.S. and have it fixed in a day. I think it's under some type of DDOS attack and the Feds won't say anything about it because they want the people who are doing it to continue to do it, so they can nail them and they won't act until they know everyone who is behind the attack. That's the way the Feds work.

    Just my theory. You heard it here first.
    I'm all for a good theory, but I'd like some proof first.
    10-17-2013 08:25 PM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    I'm all for a good theory, but I'd like some proof first.
    If there's proof, then it's not a theory.



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-17-2013 08:59 PM
  3. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    So you're saying that the strategy of the ultra-conservatives isn't to blame for the Republican's botching this situation and coming out looking like the bad guy in the end?



    This sure would be the first case of poor oversight of any Presidency, right? Remind me again when the intrusive surveillance programs started, and how well the oversight has been for them. Blaming "oversight" works for a lot of things, and this is no exception. So try again please.

    I wish someone was "overseeing" the people that are responsible for the budget.



    I'm all for a good theory, but I'd like some proof first.
    Believe it or not, some people actually believe the ACA is a harmful law. Believe it or not I've seen it first hand. No, I'm not naive enough to believe the republicans did what they did because they care about the american people. I do believe that a "few" of them believe it is a bad law and is why "some" of them stood as they did. Many of us believe that the effects of this law once fully implemented will be so bad that it was at least worth a try. As I said, I'm already seeing it personally. Just because it hasn't hit you yet, doesn't mean it will not. Agree 100% that oversight is terrible within government. My point was merely that this administration is terrible with oversight, more so than others. I think it's important to note though I didn't vote for Obama, the moment he was elected I hoped he would succeed in turning the country to its former glory. I never wish for the man running the country to fail, that's not good for any of us. Nor am I a racist. I would have voted for Allen West or Hermain Cain before Romney. I feel our country is much weaker today than it was when he took office in every way. And no, I don't think bush did a good job either.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-17-2013 09:06 PM
  4. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Believe it or not, some people actually believe the ACA is a harmful law. Believe it or not I've seen it first hand. No, I'm not naive enough to believe the republicans did what they did because they care about the american people. I do believe that a "few" of them believe it is a bad law and is why "some" of them stood as they did. Many of us believe that the effects of this law once fully implemented will be so bad that it was at least worth a try. As I said, I'm already seeing it personally. Just because it hasn't hit you yet, doesn't mean it will not. Agree 100% that oversight is terrible within government. My point was merely that this administration is terrible with oversight, more so than others. I think it's important to note though I didn't vote for Obama, the moment he was elected I hoped he would succeed in turning the country to its former glory. I never wish for the man running the country to fail, that's not good for any of us. Nor am I a racist. I would have voted for Allen West or Hermain Cain before Romney. I feel our country is much weaker today than it was when he took office in every way. And no, I don't think bush did a good job either.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I'm not saying that people don't believe the ACA is a bad law. This thread is about the shutdown, though, and it's pretty clear that was caused by Republican strategy (and the Dems and President calling them on it). The strategy was orchestrated by the extreme right wing of the Republican party (otherwise known as the Tea Party). Boehner himself didn't like the strategy, but folded to the pressure of the ultra conservatives. They need to play a smarter game if they want to get what they want. Oh, and Boehner and Obama need to learn to bargain with each other.

    Why did you feel the need to point out that you're not a racist? Yes, that always sticks out to me, especially since nothing that I've ever said would lead you to believe that I thought that about you.
    10-17-2013 09:19 PM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I'm not saying that people don't believe the ACA is a bad law. This thread is about the shutdown, though, and it's pretty clear that was caused by Republican strategy (and the Dems and President calling them on it). The strategy was orchestrated by the extreme right wing of the Republican party (otherwise known as the Tea Party). Boehner himself didn't like the strategy, but folded to the pressure of the ultra conservatives. They need to play a smarter game if they want to get what they want. Oh, and Boehner and Obama need to learn to bargain with each other.

    Why did you feel the need to point out that you're not a racist? Yes, that always sticks out to me, especially since nothing that I've ever said would lead you to believe that I thought that about you.
    I didn't feel as though you accused me of such. Just put it out there because often times its brought up sooner or later. As far as the republican strategy, terrible strategy if you aren't willing to ride it out. Many of them feel as I do, the law is so bad, it was worth a try. Honestly, no one knows just how good or bad the republican strategy was and I don't believe we will know until obamacare fully takes hold. How obamacare performs will determine how republicans are viewed. If it succeeds, major blow to them. If it fails, rebirth. (If the republicans can decide what they stand for). I myself am not party affiliated, I support the constitution and who I feel more closely aligns with that.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-17-2013 09:38 PM
  6. craZDude's Avatar
    I myself am not party affiliated, I support the constitution and who I feel more closely aligns with that.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Why do people feel such devotion towards a document that is hundreds of years old? It has been amended many times over the years, but that doesn't mean everything that is there is perfect. Blind devotion to a document without thinking about its implications in modern day society is just as bad as blind devotion to a particular political party, religious group, or any particular politician. Just because it was instrumental in establishing America many years ago doesn't mean that it applies perfectly to the current political, social, and economic climate. It is always important to think critically before supporting something.

    I do, however, appreciate your dedication to a certain set of beliefs. Just remember that the Constitution itself might not always be the perfect supporter of what it symbolizes to people
    Fairclough and palandri like this.
    10-18-2013 01:56 AM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    +1 on Crazdude, if you took it for original face value you would still be supporting slavery which is plain wrong.
    10-18-2013 03:37 AM
  8. llamabreath's Avatar
    Why do people feel such devotion towards a document that is hundreds of years old? It has been amended many times over the years, but that doesn't mean everything that is there is perfect. Blind devotion to a document without thinking about its implications in modern day society is just as bad as blind devotion to a particular political party, religious group, or any particular politician. Just because it was instrumental in establishing America many years ago doesn't mean that it applies perfectly to the current political, social, and economic climate. It is always important to think critically before supporting something.

    I do, however, appreciate your dedication to a certain set of beliefs. Just remember that the Constitution itself might not always be the perfect supporter of what it symbolizes to people
    Maybe we should rip up that old rag, throw it out, start all over again and try to get back all the benefits that you enjoy today from the old one. Let's see how that goes.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    cdmjlt369 and mrsmumbles like this.
    10-18-2013 03:39 AM
  9. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Maybe we should rip up that old rag, throw it out, start all over again and try to get back all the benefits that you enjoy today from the old one. Let's see how that goes.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    That's what they want. People never seem to realize what they have until it's gone. Rights are much harder to regain than maintain. I fear we are about to be reminded of that, the hard way.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    plumbrich and mrsmumbles like this.
    10-18-2013 06:18 AM
  10. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    +1 on Crazdude, if you took it for original face value you would still be supporting slavery which is plain wrong.
    This kinda proves my point. Slavery is wrong. People being forced to live a certain way against their will. The ACA is being forced on people. People who do not want it and do not share its beliefs are being mandated to participate in insurance. And I know most people in here don't seem to care but it also infringes on a Christians rights to not support something that goes against their belief system.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    plumbrich and mrsmumbles like this.
    10-18-2013 07:01 AM
  11. plumbrich's Avatar
    Very sad indeed to see them fold but I expected that in my subconscious but wanted to believe it wasn't so. It has been my belief since the beginning of the Obama care scam it was all about Marxist beliefs from the current and past administrations backed by many Marxist citizens in the U.S. ( And No just because you support it doesn't automatically make you a Marxist)

    By creating universal health care it creates high prices in the free market so one is forced to depend on the government for their health care causing more people to depend on Government. There will still be private insurance companies but they will play more of a subsidies role giving the illusion we still have private health care.

    "if you took it for original face value you would still be supporting slavery which is plain wrong."
    The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution.

    The Constitution did however prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years.
    Slavery was used way before the Americas was even found and common practice during the signing of the Constitution.

    The civil war was not about slavery until after some of the states left the union and was not until the industrial revolution did it disappear for the most part from America. Australia did not pass into law banning slavery until 1901. Slavery in parts of the world is alive and well but instead of joining causes to help these modern day slaves it fits most to concentrate on forgetting all the countries that had slavery before and after America because to them it is sooo much better to just concentrate on the bashing of Americans past of slave use.

    Those that bash and harp on the American PAST of slavery should Google "Estimated number of slaves in the world 2013" Then ask themselves what have they done in the past year to help or bring light to this problem?

    Re-reading Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto while highlighting allot of today's citizens common beliefs you may be amazed to find that it is scary seeing so many paragraphs highlighted throughout the book. It does make the Constitution of the U.S. even more needed today and the near future than some years past. Does Obama care and the shut down fall more in-line with the Constitution or Marxism? This question could easily fill 100's of pages of a new post that's for sure.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-18-2013 07:03 AM
  12. Fairclough's Avatar
    Bit difficult for Australia to ban slavery prior to 1901 when it only independent nation on 1 January 1901 :P as that its when my state officially choose to become part of the nation (we have a few times almost left the federation due to our state in peaks have providing about 50% of national income and receiving 20% ish back as we only account for 20% of the pop - however when we have had lows we have been assisted).

    I don't see how my post supports your view of going for the constitution - as it has been amended and if you went for the pure form there would steal be slavery and probably the KKK (it actually still excists but no where near its original power) which is bloody horrible.
    10-18-2013 07:22 AM
  13. alexlam24's Avatar
    Can we shut down capitalism?

    Sent from the last HTC device with a removable battery on T-Mobile
    10-18-2013 07:30 AM
  14. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Can we shut down capitalism?

    Sent from the last HTC device with a removable battery on T-Mobile
    We will see. Act 1, the ACA. Government just took over 1/6 of the economy.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-18-2013 07:42 AM
  15. palandri's Avatar
    Despite all the scare words being flung around, the root is still Public ownership vs Private ownership. My city owns the Water Department (Public Works) and somehow this throws some people into a frenzy.
    10-18-2013 07:54 AM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    Very sad indeed to see them fold but I expected that in my subconscious but wanted to believe it wasn't so. It has been my belief since the beginning of the Obama care scam it was all about Marxist beliefs from the current and past administrations backed by many Marxist citizens in the U.S. ( And No just because you support it doesn't automatically make you a Marxist)

    By creating universal health care it creates high prices in the free market so one is forced to depend on the government for their health care causing more people to depend on Government. There will still be private insurance companies but they will play more of a subsidies role giving the illusion we still have private health care.

    "if you took it for original face value you would still be supporting slavery which is plain wrong."
    The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution.

    The Constitution did however prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years.
    Slavery was used way before the Americas was even found and common practice during the signing of the Constitution.

    The civil war was not about slavery until after some of the states left the union and was not until the industrial revolution did it disappear for the most part from America. Australia did not pass into law banning slavery until 1901. Slavery in parts of the world is alive and well but instead of joining causes to help these modern day slaves it fits most to concentrate on forgetting all the countries that had slavery before and after America because to them it is sooo much better to just concentrate on the bashing of Americans past of slave use.

    Those that bash and harp on the American PAST of slavery should Google "Estimated number of slaves in the world 2013" Then ask themselves what have they done in the past year to help or bring light to this problem?

    Re-reading Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto while highlighting allot of today's citizens common beliefs you may be amazed to find that it is scary seeing so many paragraphs highlighted throughout the book. It does make the Constitution of the U.S. even more needed today and the near future than some years past. Does Obama care and the shut down fall more in-line with the Constitution or Marxism? This question could easily fill 100's of pages of a new post that's for sure.


    EXCELLENT post.



    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-18-2013 08:09 AM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Very sad indeed to see them fold but I expected that in my subconscious but wanted to believe it wasn't so. It has been my belief since the beginning of the Obama care scam it was all about Marxist beliefs from the current and past administrations backed by many Marxist citizens in the U.S. ( And No just because you support it doesn't automatically make you a Marxist)

    By creating universal health care it creates high prices in the free market so one is forced to depend on the government for their health care causing more people to depend on Government. There will still be private insurance companies but they will play more of a subsidies role giving the illusion we still have private health care.

    "if you took it for original face value you would still be supporting slavery which is plain wrong."
    The word "slave" does not appear in the Constitution.

    The Constitution did however prohibited Congress from outlawing the Atlantic slave trade for twenty years.
    Slavery was used way before the Americas was even found and common practice during the signing of the Constitution.

    The civil war was not about slavery until after some of the states left the union and was not until the industrial revolution did it disappear for the most part from America. Australia did not pass into law banning slavery until 1901. Slavery in parts of the world is alive and well but instead of joining causes to help these modern day slaves it fits most to concentrate on forgetting all the countries that had slavery before and after America because to them it is sooo much better to just concentrate on the bashing of Americans past of slave use.

    Those that bash and harp on the American PAST of slavery should Google "Estimated number of slaves in the world 2013" Then ask themselves what have they done in the past year to help or bring light to this problem?

    Re-reading Karl Marx The Communist Manifesto while highlighting allot of today's citizens common beliefs you may be amazed to find that it is scary seeing so many paragraphs highlighted throughout the book. It does make the Constitution of the U.S. even more needed today and the near future than some years past. Does Obama care and the shut down fall more in-line with the Constitution or Marxism? This question could easily fill 100's of pages of a new post that's for sure.
    Re: slavery - everyone else jumping off a cliff makes it ok for you to do it?

    Are you saying that people should focus more on worldwide problems and not the issues we have here? Or are you saying that if we still had slavery it would be ok because it still exists in other parts of the world?

    The Constitution didn't explicitly allow slavery, but neither did it abolish it. It's a living document that can be changed to adapt to the current way of living. People, technology, and the world are very different now than when it was written. I'm glad it has the flexibility to be adapted to those changes.

    If society as a whole starts becoming more "liberal" then so will the laws that govern us.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    msndrstood and craZDude like this.
    10-18-2013 08:22 AM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Despite all the scare words being flung around, the root is still Public ownership vs Private ownership. My city owns the Water Department (Public Works) and somehow this throws some people into a frenzy.
    There is reason that a monopoly is not a good thing. One entity having control over any one element is a terrible idea. Your water department analogy is flawed. If you believe that the ACA is a fair and just law then by that same premise other people should have to pay part of my water bill even though they do not reside where I do.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-18-2013 09:00 AM
  19. craZDude's Avatar
    Maybe we should rip up that old rag, throw it out, start all over again and try to get back all the benefits that you enjoy today from the old one. Let's see how that goes.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    I in no way said or implied that that was the only course of action. That's what amendments are for; the founding fathers put in the ability to change it over time as the nation sees fit because they knew that even if it was the right document at the time for them, times would likely change. Just because the Constitution is one way now does not mean it necessarily always has to be this way.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    10-18-2013 09:01 AM
  20. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Re: slavery - everyone else jumping off a cliff makes it ok for you to do it?

    Are you saying that people should focus more on worldwide problems and not the issues we have here? Or are you saying that if we still had slavery it would be ok because it still exists in other parts of the world?

    The Constitution didn't explicitly allow slavery, but neither did it abolish it. It's a living document that can be changed to adapt to the current way of living. People, technology, and the world are very different now than when it was written. I'm glad it has the flexibility to be adapted to those changes.

    If society as a whole starts becoming more "liberal" then so will the laws that govern us.

    Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
    But it wasn't changed to allow the ACA. It was bypassed. And before anyone says it , the ACA was not ruled unconstitutional, granted. However the mandate is unconstitutional because the supreme court said it was constitutional as a tax only. Problem is they never rewrote the bill to be approved in this way. This would have had to be done in the house and it wasn't.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-18-2013 09:04 AM
  21. llamabreath's Avatar
    I in no way said or implied that that was the only course of action. That's what amendments are for; the founding fathers put in the ability to change it over time as the nation sees fit because they knew that even if it was the right document at the time for them, times would likely change. Just because the Constitution is one way now does not mean it necessarily always has to be this way.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    You're right. As the NATION sees fit. NOT a few politicians.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    10-18-2013 09:06 AM
  22. craZDude's Avatar
    This kinda proves my point. Slavery is wrong. People being forced to live a certain way against their will. The ACA is being forced on people. People who do not want it and do not share its beliefs are being mandated to participate in insurance. And I know most people in here don't seem to care but it also infringes on a Christians rights to not support something that goes against their belief system.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    I think it is a little extreme to compare the ACA to slavery, and I don't think it is a totally apt comparison. Slavery forced people into unpaid servitude for hundreds of years and treated them as less than human, while the ACA is meant to ensure that everyone is the nation has basic health care.

    I also don't think that it is just the Christians who have the the right to not support things that go against their belief system, however, I don't think health care goes against Christian beliefs.
    msndrstood likes this.
    10-18-2013 09:07 AM
  23. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    There is reason that a monopoly is not a good thing. One entity having control over any one element is a terrible idea. Your water department analogy is flawed. If you believe that the ACA is a fair and just law then by that same premise other people should have to pay part of my water bill even though they do not reside where I do.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Pretty sure one guy has control over the entire Military. One body of government has control over the entire budget. There are plenty of "monopolies" to speak of by your definition.

    ACA is regulating healthcare and requiring coverage, not controlling the entire industry. Whether or not the regulation is a good thing is what the debate is over.

    No way will anyone ever go and try to compare the ACA to a monopolistic corporation (or other entity) as a way to get it repealed.
    10-18-2013 09:08 AM
  24. craZDude's Avatar
    You're right. As the NATION sees fit. NOT a few politicians.

    Signatures, shmignatures...
    When did this become about a few politicians? No one has been changing the Constitution.
    10-18-2013 09:14 AM
  25. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I think it is a little extreme to compare the ACA to slavery, and I don't think it is a totally apt comparison. Slavery forced people into unpaid servitude for hundreds of years and treated them as less than human, while the ACA is meant to ensure that everyone is the nation has basic health care.

    I also don't think that it is just the Christians who have the the right to not support things that go against their belief system, however, I don't think health care goes against Christian beliefs.
    Everyone in the nation won't have basic health care . It was meant to be affordable and it is not . And yes it does go against many Christian beliefs as they will have to support abortion through this bill. And I never said only Christians have the right to not support things.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    10-18-2013 09:15 AM
749 ... 1718192021 ...

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