Letter from my employer concerning Obamacare/Obamatax

[PratchettFan]

The GOP's trying, but the Dem-controlled Senate and Obama won't let them. So it looks like power is more important to Democrats than the nation is.

Meanwhile, removing Obama from power so he can't do any more damage is the first step to repairing the damage he's done.

Yeah sure, the Republicans alone are trying to work co-operatively with the other side in the best interests of the country.

Not what I said. But considering the Democrats are refusing to allow GOP bills to come up for Senate debate because one of them might work and the GOP would get the credit, it's plain that the Dems are putting politics ahead of the nation.

I agree. However, I disagree with the implication that the GOP is not doing the exact same thing. Neither side is putting the nation ahead of politics. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, you mean health care debate like "we have to pass it before we can know what's in it"? That kind of debate?

NOTE: Telling the truth about liberals is not a lie, no matter how much you stamp your feet.

Thank you for parroting right wing propaganda on cue.

Telling the truth about liberals is not right wing propaganda, although I understand you've been programmed to say that.

No, I mean THIS:

What do you call what Republicans have done since Obama was elected President?

• What about Republican leaders and officials who got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs—including the cost to the country?

• What about what Republicans did during the health care debate later revealed by George W. Bush's former speechwriter?

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

• What about the use of INSURGENCY by House Republicans?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

You seem to be confused. You actually think the GOP is obligated to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.

The GOP works for their constituents, not for the President.

The GOP is working for themselves and against Obama. The American people are clearly not their concern. There is a huge difference between a loyal opposition and what Republicans are doing. If you need it explained to you, go ask an adult.

 

[daveman]

Yeah sure, the Republicans alone are trying to work co-operatively with the other side in the best interests of the country.

Not what I said. But considering the Democrats are refusing to allow GOP bills to come up for Senate debate because one of them might work and the GOP would get the credit, it's plain that the Dems are putting politics ahead of the nation.

I agree. However, I disagree with the implication that the GOP is not doing the exact same thing. Neither side is putting the nation ahead of politics. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

Both are complicit, but IMO, the Dems are worse.

History shows that their policies, both here and abroad, are failures...yet they keep doing the same things.

Conservative policies are far more successful.

 

[daveman]

The GOP is working for themselves and against Obama. The American people are clearly not their concern. There is a huge difference between a loyal opposition and what Republicans are doing. If you need it explained to you, go ask an adult.

Oh, good Gaea, you leftists are a childish lot.

Obama is not the nation. The nation is not Obama. You seem incapable of understanding that.

The GOP is loyal to the nation. One more time for the thinking-impaired, they don't have to be loyal to Obama.

Sheesh, what do you want, loyalty oaths?

 

[Ernie S.]

Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:17 AM
To: *General Announcement
Subject: Update - Health Care Reform and **** Insurance Program



Admin: Please post for those without email. Thanks!



Good morning,



There may be some questions about the recent Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform. Here is a summary from *****, **** insurance broker, regarding the decision and any impact to **** insurance program.

“In a complex 193 page ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ‘individual mandate’ in the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care law is legal as long as it is an imposed tax for not obtaining health insurance. At this point the **** benefit program complies with all aspects of the PPACA law. The new tax will only impact those individuals that choose not to purchase health insurance and not until 2014. Employer provided benefits, like the **** program, are not subject to employee taxation, unless the benefit qualifies as a ‘Cadillac Plan’ and then not until 2018. The potential taxation of the plan as income to employees in 2018 is an area we will address as the concern becomes more prevalent.”



We’ll keep you posted if and when developments impact our insurance program.



Please call if you have any questions,

****

The reason I post this, is because every time I hear a moron liberal who claims you wont be affected at all unless you do not have a plan, I want to throw something at the TV, radio, or computer screen.
I've been around the block a few times, and you cannot sit there and tell me I wont be affected no matter what. This is a whole new entitlement program that will have it's own burecracy of the federal government. Ever know one of those that do anything but grow ?

Wont affect me or you my ass ! Just wait a few years dumbasses !

Actually, that letter says that you're not affected by the law, as far as they know right now.

Except that they don't say that covering your colleague for his pre-existing prostate cancer, and your boss's 25 year old son's rehab for video game addiction will raise the premium the company pays 20%, so no raises this year, you schmucks.

 

[Ernie S.]

Thank you for parroting right wing propaganda on cue.

Telling the truth about liberals is not right wing propaganda, although I understand you've been programmed to say that.

No, I mean THIS:

What do you call what Republicans have done since Obama was elected President?

• What about Republican leaders and officials who got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs—including the cost to the country?

• What about what Republicans did during the health care debate later revealed by George W. Bush's former speechwriter?

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

• What about the use of INSURGENCY by House Republicans?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

You seem to be confused. You actually think the GOP is obligated to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda.

The GOP works for their constituents, not for the President.

The GOP is working for themselves and against Obama. The American people are clearly not their concern. There is a huge difference between a loyal opposition and what Republicans are doing. If you need it explained to you, go ask an adult.

The PEOPLE gave the GOP the majority in the House and a much tighter minority in the Senate expressly to work against obama. The fact that you don't like it may suck to you, but in the words of President obama, "We won."

 

[Bfgrn]

The GOP is working for themselves and against Obama. The American people are clearly not their concern. There is a huge difference between a loyal opposition and what Republicans are doing. If you need it explained to you, go ask an adult.

Oh, good Gaea, you leftists are a childish lot.

Obama is not the nation. The nation is not Obama. You seem incapable of understanding that.

The GOP is loyal to the nation. One more time for the thinking-impaired, they don't have to be loyal to Obama.

Sheesh, what do you want, loyalty oaths?

Childish? That would be the polarized argument you always resort to. I never said Obama is the nation. But you are implying that the only people Republicans represent is the people who vote Republican. That is not how our government works.

The GOP is loyal to their party and ideology. And it is fine to stand up for your beliefs, but there must be negotiation and compromise. But the GOP instead made a collective decision to throw a temper tantrum and resort to insurgency. That is childish and dangerous.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not what I said. But considering the Democrats are refusing to allow GOP bills to come up for Senate debate because one of them might work and the GOP would get the credit, it's plain that the Dems are putting politics ahead of the nation.

I agree. However, I disagree with the implication that the GOP is not doing the exact same thing. Neither side is putting the nation ahead of politics. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

Both are complicit, but IMO, the Dems are worse.

History shows that their policies, both here and abroad, are failures...yet they keep doing the same things.

Conservative policies are far more successful.

Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. The last 40 years have been the conservative era. It has brought us government deficits and the resulting accumulated debt exploded, while our defunded government has since been unable to maintain the infrastructure and public structures (laws, courts, regulations, protections, schools, etc...)

 

[daveman]

The GOP is working for themselves and against Obama. The American people are clearly not their concern. There is a huge difference between a loyal opposition and what Republicans are doing. If you need it explained to you, go ask an adult.

Oh, good Gaea, you leftists are a childish lot.

Obama is not the nation. The nation is not Obama. You seem incapable of understanding that.

The GOP is loyal to the nation. One more time for the thinking-impaired, they don't have to be loyal to Obama.

Sheesh, what do you want, loyalty oaths?

Childish? That would be the polarized argument you always resort to. I never said Obama is the nation. But you are implying that the only people Republicans represent is the people who vote Republican. That is not how our government works.

If Democrats can't convince enough people to vote for them, then usually Republicans are elected.

Are you saying the winning candidate should vote according to the wishes of the minority of voters? Let me guess -- only when a Republican is elected, right?

Too bad. Work harder to get your guy elected next time.

The GOP is loyal to their party and ideology. And it is fine to stand up for your beliefs, but there must be negotiation and compromise. But the GOP instead made a collective decision to throw a temper tantrum and resort to insurgency. That is childish and dangerous.

What's childish is calling people who disagree with you "insurgents".

It's that kind of childishness that allows this Administration to label people "domestic terrorists" when they disagree with the President.

 

[daveman]

I agree. However, I disagree with the implication that the GOP is not doing the exact same thing. Neither side is putting the nation ahead of politics. Both sides are equally guilty of this.

Both are complicit, but IMO, the Dems are worse.

History shows that their policies, both here and abroad, are failures...yet they keep doing the same things.

Conservative policies are far more successful.

Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. The last 40 years have been the conservative era. It has brought us government deficits and the resulting accumulated debt exploded, while our defunded government has since been unable to maintain the infrastructure and public structures (laws, courts, regulations, protections, schools, etc...)

News flash, Skippy: The government may have been defunded, but that didn't keep the idiots from spending money, did it?

Government of this size is unsustainable. The Democrats' solution? Make it even bigger!

Here's some logic and truth you'll find menacing: It won't last. It CAN'T last. You're running out of other people's money, and printing it like Obama has been just hastens the collapse.

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh, good Gaea, you leftists are a childish lot.

Obama is not the nation. The nation is not Obama. You seem incapable of understanding that.

The GOP is loyal to the nation. One more time for the thinking-impaired, they don't have to be loyal to Obama.

Sheesh, what do you want, loyalty oaths?

Childish? That would be the polarized argument you always resort to. I never said Obama is the nation. But you are implying that the only people Republicans represent is the people who vote Republican. That is not how our government works.

If Democrats can't convince enough people to vote for them, then usually Republicans are elected.

Are you saying the winning candidate should vote according to the wishes of the minority of voters? Let me guess -- only when a Republican is elected, right?

Too bad. Work harder to get your guy elected next time.

The GOP is loyal to their party and ideology. And it is fine to stand up for your beliefs, but there must be negotiation and compromise. But the GOP instead made a collective decision to throw a temper tantrum and resort to insurgency. That is childish and dangerous.

What's childish is calling people who disagree with you "insurgents".

It's that kind of childishness that allows this Administration to label people "domestic terrorists" when they disagree with the President.

WOW, are you that willfully blind? Did you READ what Republicans did and said???

Let me recap for you.

1) Republican leaders and officials got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs.

2) Republicans made a collective decision how they would handle the health care debate. It was revealed by David Frum, a Republican, and George W. Bush's former speechwriter.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

3) What would YOU call people who use insurgency? Because THIS is what a Republicans Congressman SAID, not a Democrat:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Republican Congressman Pete Sessions

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[HomeInspect]

Bottom Line is... when ever government gets involved ... things go to shit. If private industry ran any operation half as bad as any government program, they would go belly up in 3 months. Unfortunately, the mindless can't learn from history, and anything that makes them more dependent government, they will be for it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bottom Line is... when ever government gets involved ... things go to shit. If private industry ran any operation half as bad as any government program, they would go belly up in 3 months. Unfortunately, the mindless can't learn from history, and anything that makes them more dependent government, they will be for it.

And here we see on full display the corrosive and divisive legacy of Ronald Reagan.

The facts don't support your ignorance, but carry on with it.

Medicare is a great example. Here is a market-driven entrepreneur.

Bill Brody, M.D. President, Salk Institute for Biomedical Research

Dr. William R. Brody, an acclaimed physician-scientist, entrepreneur and university leader, joined the Salk Institute for Biological Studies on March 2, 2009 after 12 years as president of The Johns Hopkins University.

June 13, 2003

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.

2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

 

[HomeInspect]

Bottom Line is... when ever government gets involved ... things go to shit. If private industry ran any operation half as bad as any government program, they would go belly up in 3 months. Unfortunately, the mindless can't learn from history, and anything that makes them more dependent government, they will be for it.

And here we see on full display the corrosive and divisive legacy of Ronald Reagan.

The facts don't support your ignorance, but carry on with it.

Medicare is a great example. Here is a market-driven entrepreneur.

Bill Brody, M.D. President, Salk Institute for Biomedical Research

Dr. William R. Brody, an acclaimed physician-scientist, entrepreneur and university leader, joined the Salk Institute for Biological Studies on March 2, 2009 after 12 years as president of The Johns Hopkins University.

June 13, 2003

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.

2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

LOL... one example ?? Want me to list you 5 for every one that went broke, didn't work, or is under water.
Even Medicare has had some major problems.

 

[HomeInspect]

Here are some facts to easily help you out of YOUR ingnorance.

THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE was established in 1775 – they’ve had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can’t compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.

SOCIAL SECURITY was established in 1935 – they’ve had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

FANNIE MAE was established in 1938 – they’ve had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

FREDDIE MAC was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

THE WAR ON POVERTY was started in 1964 – they’ve had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked.

MEDICARE and MEDICAID were established in 1965 – they’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

WAR ON DRUGS started over four decades ago. Failed.

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it’s been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships.

CASH FOR CLUNKERS was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 – after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: $54.4 billion per year. America ranks 17th in education compared to other modern countries.

DEPT. OF ENERGY: $26.4 billion budget. Gas prices at all time high!

FAIR HOUSING ACT: The Feds forced the Banks to issue Subprime Mortgages to minorities with bad credit. Major cause of current recession. 841,073 foreclosures in 2012.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK: Broke! There is no “reserve” just printed paper money with no backing.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every “service” or ”program” shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America’s health care system – - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record, and then help remove those from office who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren’s future.

OBAMA HEALTH PLAN _____________________________________________________

The blank space is to be filled in (2 to 4 years is my guess)

Government Programs That Have Failed | LibertyLog

 

[Bfgrn]

Here are some facts to easily help you out of YOUR ingnorance.

THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE was established in 1775 – they’ve had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can’t compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.

SOCIAL SECURITY was established in 1935 – they’ve had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

FANNIE MAE was established in 1938 – they’ve had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

FREDDIE MAC was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

THE WAR ON POVERTY was started in 1964 – they’ve had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked.

MEDICARE and MEDICAID were established in 1965 – they’ve had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 – they’ve had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

WAR ON DRUGS started over four decades ago. Failed.

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it’s been used to increase the size of governments across America, and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships.

CASH FOR CLUNKERS was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 – after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: $54.4 billion per year. America ranks 17th in education compared to other modern countries.

DEPT. OF ENERGY: $26.4 billion budget. Gas prices at all time high!

FAIR HOUSING ACT: The Feds forced the Banks to issue Subprime Mortgages to minorities with bad credit. Major cause of current recession. 841,073 foreclosures in 2012.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK: Broke! There is no “reserve” just printed paper money with no backing.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every “service” or ”program” shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America’s health care system – - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record, and then help remove those from office who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren’s future.

OBAMA HEALTH PLAN _____________________________________________________

The blank space is to be filled in (2 to 4 years is my guess)

Government Programs That Have Failed | LibertyLog

LMAO! Bringing something written by a child. Mostly all bullshit.

You right wingers don't even know what most of those agencies do. And the success stories vastly outweigh the failures.

Would you like a list of private companies and corporations that have failed since 1775?

The list would use up every space on this board.

 

[daveman]

Childish? That would be the polarized argument you always resort to. I never said Obama is the nation. But you are implying that the only people Republicans represent is the people who vote Republican. That is not how our government works.

If Democrats can't convince enough people to vote for them, then usually Republicans are elected.

Are you saying the winning candidate should vote according to the wishes of the minority of voters? Let me guess -- only when a Republican is elected, right?

Too bad. Work harder to get your guy elected next time.

The GOP is loyal to their party and ideology. And it is fine to stand up for your beliefs, but there must be negotiation and compromise. But the GOP instead made a collective decision to throw a temper tantrum and resort to insurgency. That is childish and dangerous.

What's childish is calling people who disagree with you "insurgents".

It's that kind of childishness that allows this Administration to label people "domestic terrorists" when they disagree with the President.

WOW, are you that willfully blind? Did you READ what Republicans did and said???

Let me recap for you.

1) Republican leaders and officials got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs.

2) Republicans made a collective decision how they would handle the health care debate. It was revealed by David Frum, a Republican, and George W. Bush's former speechwriter.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

3) What would YOU call people who use insurgency? Because THIS is what a Republicans Congressman SAID, not a Democrat:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Republican Congressman Pete Sessions

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Whoopty-shit. Until you retards get your First-Amendment-hating way, disagreeing with The One is still legal.

 

[Bfgrn]

If Democrats can't convince enough people to vote for them, then usually Republicans are elected.

Are you saying the winning candidate should vote according to the wishes of the minority of voters? Let me guess -- only when a Republican is elected, right?

Too bad. Work harder to get your guy elected next time.

What's childish is calling people who disagree with you "insurgents".

It's that kind of childishness that allows this Administration to label people "domestic terrorists" when they disagree with the President.

WOW, are you that willfully blind? Did you READ what Republicans did and said???

Let me recap for you.

1) Republican leaders and officials got together during Obama's inauguration in the infamous, secret pact meeting to vow to destroy him at all costs.

2) Republicans made a collective decision how they would handle the health care debate. It was revealed by David Frum, a Republican, and George W. Bush's former speechwriter.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

3) What would YOU call people who use insurgency? Because THIS is what a Republicans Congressman SAID, not a Democrat:

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Republican Congressman Pete Sessions

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Whoopty-shit. Until you retards get your First-Amendment-hating way, disagreeing with The One is still legal.

Disagreeing with Obama is legal. But what Republicans did and are doing is dishonest and immoral. You really need to have an adult explain this to you, because you clearly don't comprehend, you just keep ignoring what they did and parroting the same childish rant.

 

[daveman]

Disagreeing with Obama is legal. But what Republicans did and are doing is dishonest and immoral. You really need to have an adult explain this to you, because you clearly don't comprehend, you just keep ignoring what they did and parroting the same childish rant.

Dishonest and immoral? Yes, I can see how it might appear that way to someone who operates solely on emotion.

Obama is not king. He doesn't get to dictate the behavior of the opposition party. If they don't like what he's doing, they don't have to support it.

You simply cannot understand that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Disagreeing with Obama is legal. But what Republicans did and are doing is dishonest and immoral. You really need to have an adult explain this to you, because you clearly don't comprehend, you just keep ignoring what they did and parroting the same childish rant.

Dishonest and immoral? Yes, I can see how it might appear that way to someone who operates solely on emotion.

Obama is not king. He doesn't get to dictate the behavior of the opposition party. If they don't like what he's doing, they don't have to support it.

You simply cannot understand that.

What you continue to ignore; Republicans didn't disagree with the President on any particular issue, they decided that no matter what he proposed they would use insurgency and obstructionism with the sole intent of destroying the President of the United States. But because you are a super partisan hack, you can't see it or admit that it is dishonest and immoral.