Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No delay is necessary, so your wingnut heroes in Congress ain't gettin' it. Instead, they can have the privilege of sniping from the sidelines, which they're doing anyway.
Guess they better come up with something that doesn't affect the ACA.
If no delay is necessary, why were so many waivers and exemptions granted?
List of health reform waivers keeps growing - The Hill's Healthwatch
Cuz they're politicians, I suppose.
The bulk of this law is gonna go on as scheduled and if the Republicans can successfully make the case next November that it's terrible, they might just get themselves a veto-proof majority. But they're gonna have to rip at it while it's in effect.
The majority of voters in those states voted democrat.I don't think you understand how elections work.
The majority of the voters elected Republicans in the districts that have Republican Representatives. Therefore, the majority of the voters are Republican in those districts. If your beef is with Gerrymandering, you should start by abolishing the Voting Rights Act that deliberately mandates minority districts.
The representatives from those states should reflect that, but they don't.
Because of the fucked up way they redraw the districts.
I didn't say anything about any laws and I posted my citations to back up my claim.The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it. The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.
You may think its bullshit, but you certainly haven't proven it's bullshit.
I told you, as soon as I can remember his name, I'll post the link.So which Congressman represents 10% of his district?
Yeah, but those districts should be evenly proportioned. Not drawn in such a ridiculous way as to manufacture a majority in an area where there isn't one.I don't think you understand how elections work.
We have separate districts inside these states for a reason. If you don't like it you are free to try and enact legislation that fits your tastes.
They did receive more votes. But because of creative gerrymandering in the red states, we got these psuedo-representatives that only represent 10% of the population of their districts. That's the "only" reason these people got in.
Show me a district like that.
10%?
I didn't say anything about any laws and I posted my citations to back up my claim.The point you made is bullshit, that's why you can't show any facts to prove it. The only thing you can prove is that you don't like the current laws.
You may think its bullshit, but you certainly haven't proven it's bullshit.
I told you, as soon as I can remember his name, I'll post the link.So which Congressman represents 10% of his district?
Yeah, but those districts should be evenly proportioned. Not drawn in such a ridiculous way as to manufacture a majority in an area where there isn't one.I don't think you understand how elections work.
We have separate districts inside these states for a reason. If you don't like it you are free to try and enact legislation that fits your tastes.
HR 3590 originally titled: Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was passed by the house, the senate stripped the entire contents of the bill, changed the name and inserted maobamacare. The content of the bill did not originate in the house, therefore the bill raising revenues did not originate in the house. Any questions?
Edit: The penalty for the individual was also found unconstitutional, that's when Roberts decided to resurrect it as a tax.
The bill originated in the House. It was a cheese move...but it was legal.
No, the bill number only originated in the house, the bill contents originated in the senate and there is currently a court case in progress challenging that very fact.
Um yeah those are the NEW conditions because those whiney children you call republicans are making concessions because they aren't getting their way.
Yeah i think Obama has done a terrible job explaining it. I agree with that.
yes they did make a concession, they pulled the defund the ACA codicil they tried first.....so, read that again, they backed off and made it about exactly what it should be, so, let me ask you- when does obama back off or make a concession?
To borrow from someone else form another thread:
so, do you want to discuss this rationally or?
The intent of the VRA was not to make red majorities in blue districts.Take it up with the Supreme Court, enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandating "Minority Majority" districts.
Google Scholar
No, I didn't say that at all.So you claimed that you posted your citations to back up your claim and then said you'd post the link that proves your claim when you can remember his name.
That means you have not posted a citation to prove your claim.
...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it. It is Ted Cruz and his band of douche tea baggers who own this shut down. Say what you want about Obama in general, but it is completely justified for him not to negotiate over this. Why should he? This is extortion of the worst kind.
What's even worst about this is that it doesn't even represent the views of the people. While it is true that ObamaCare is unpopular nationwide (with a populace that knows very little about it anyway), polls show that most Americans do not want this shut down, EVEN WITH OBAMACARE AT STAKE.
Did you know that among the Americans who oppose ObamaCare, 14% want a single payer system as a replacement?
...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it.
...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
There is nothing unconstitutional about trying to repeal a law, even if that law has been ruled constitutional.
For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it.
Yes they are. Can you point out a part of the Constitution which prohibits them from doing so?
it depends on what poll u look at.
this is part of being America. Deal with it
some peoole might not actually like fascism shoved down their throat!
Are you calling ObamaCare fascist? I'm not sure you understand what the word fascist means...
You're missing the point.
I am not against the attempt to repeal the law. What i am against is bratty children like the Tea Party shutting down the country to get their way. This isn't repeal. This is childish extortion.
I never said anything about it being "constitutional". Just because it is it doesn't mean its right.
If republicans and tea baggers find the constitution so sacred...
Obviously you feel ObamaCare shouldn't have been made constitutional but it was, am I right?
No, I didn't say that at all.So you claimed that you posted your citations to back up your claim and then said you'd post the link that proves your claim when you can remember his name.
That means you have not posted a citation to prove your claim.
...then why can't they accept a law that was ruled as constitutional?
There is nothing unconstitutional about trying to repeal a law, even if that law has been ruled constitutional.
For Christ's sakes, just because you don't support a law like ObamaCare, it does not mean it is justified to hold our country hostage over it.
Yes they are. Can you point out a part of the Constitution which prohibits them from doing so?
You're missing the point. I am not against the attempt to repeal the law. What i am against is bratty children like the Tea Party shutting down the country to get their way. This isn't repeal. This is childish extortion.
I never said anything about it being "constitutional". Just because it is it doesn't mean its right. Obviously you feel ObamaCare shouldn't have been made constitutional but it was, am I right?
