White House: "We won't coddle rioters" - it's about damn time!

[jc456]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

It's not 2014 any more!

In case you hadn't noticed, 2016 just ended.

Dueling Claims on Crime Trend
Over those 15 years, the number of homicides has dropped from more than 600 a year in the early 2000s to just under 500 in 2015. The yearly number has fluctuated since Obama took office in 2009 and topped 500 once, in 2012.

Chicago has often been singled out for the number of murders, but other cities have a higher murder rate, adjusted for population. As we wrote on this topic earlier this year, the city ranked 35th in 2014 in terms of its murder rate among cities with a population of 100,000 or more. The Pew Research Center reviewed FBI data from 1985 to 2012 and concluded in its headline that Chicago was “nowhere near U.S. ‘murder capital'” after adjusting the raw numbers for population.

special pleading, is what the right wing, does best.

What's that?

 

[jc456]

According to the FBI, violent offenses went up in 2015. From 366 per 100K to 372

Shit man 6 more! They already called out the Guard...

well actually it is six per 100k, and there are 300,000,000 or it's six times 3000 or 18,000 more. But shit, never let math get in the way of fake posting.

There can always be a radial variable in the mix....

yep, it could go up or could go down, it's an average figure. you make light of people being unnecessarily attacked. You are a low form of shit.

No one is making light of individual people being attacked. But it's not very relevant in a discussion about crime rates.

Well it is crime! And you wish to ignore and give passes. Maybe that's why crime rates went down. Cops ignore it cause it's useless to do anything cause obummer approves of violence.

 

[jc456]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

It's not 2014 any more!

In case you hadn't noticed, 2016 just ended.

And before you know it, it will be 2018.

Since only 13% of manufacturing jobs left the country and the rest were automated, how do you think Trump is going to explain he won't be bringing jobs back? How long will his minions listen to his BS until they had enough?

Have you gotten rich with that crystal ball of yours?

 

[Coyote]

Shit man 6 more! They already called out the Guard...

well actually it is six per 100k, and there are 300,000,000 or it's six times 3000 or 18,000 more. But shit, never let math get in the way of fake posting.

There can always be a radial variable in the mix....

yep, it could go up or could go down, it's an average figure. you make light of people being unnecessarily attacked. You are a low form of shit.

No one is making light of individual people being attacked. But it's not very relevant in a discussion about crime rates.

Well it is crime! And you wish to ignore and give passes. Maybe that's why crime rates went down. Cops ignore it cause it's useless to do anything cause obummer approves of violence.

You're really grasping at straws.

 

[Coyote]

Yes. Poverty has a big influence on crime.

why not work to end poverty rather than keep them locked in an inner city? Trump wants to change that, and you all are against him. I tell you, I don't get you all at all.

1. I think we can all agree on that goal.
2. Trump is no different than every other politician who has sought to end poverty. Just because you support him doesn't mean he has workable ideas on ending poverty. Just because I don't support him doesn't mean I don't want to work to end poverty.
3. Of course you don't get me. You don't try very hard to

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and bitch at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

Except conservatives, how can you say he included us? You are messed up girlie. Obummer care was done secretly how is that inclusive? I can at least be honest about my side, you live in pretendland

Except, dude, your claim is based on a lie - and a lie, repeated often enough is still a lie. You aren't the least bit honest about your side in this matter.

The roots of the ACA were already out in the public, and were public knowledge and had bipartisan support:

Bipartisan roots

To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors.

Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist."

The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law.

"There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care."​

None of this was "secret".

Despite the fact that the vote itself was partisan, the development of the ACA was bipartisan and hardly "secret".

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

• A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
• Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
• Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.


Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:


According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.​

So how can this possibly be a "secret" that excluded conservatives? They were right there involved in the crafting.

 

[bripat9643]

why not work to end poverty rather than keep them locked in an inner city? Trump wants to change that, and you all are against him. I tell you, I don't get you all at all.

1. I think we can all agree on that goal.
2. Trump is no different than every other politician who has sought to end poverty. Just because you support him doesn't mean he has workable ideas on ending poverty. Just because I don't support him doesn't mean I don't want to work to end poverty.
3. Of course you don't get me. You don't try very hard to

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and bitch at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

Except conservatives, how can you say he included us? You are messed up girlie. Obummer care was done secretly how is that inclusive? I can at least be honest about my side, you live in pretendland

Except, dude, your claim is based on a lie - and a lie, repeated often enough is still a lie. You aren't the least bit honest about your side in this matter.

The roots of the ACA were already out in the public, and were public knowledge and had bipartisan support:

Bipartisan roots

To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors.

Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist."

The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law.

"There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care."​

None of this was "secret".

Despite the fact that the vote itself was partisan, the development of the ACA was bipartisan and hardly "secret".

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

• A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
• Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
• Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.


Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:


According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.​

So how can this possibly be a "secret" that excluded conservatives? They were right there involved in the crafting.

No Republican voted for it, so your claim of "bi-partisan support" is total horseshit. The fact that some naive Republicans tried to fix this monstrosity doesn't alter the fact that none of them supported the final result.

 

[Coyote]

1. I think we can all agree on that goal.
2. Trump is no different than every other politician who has sought to end poverty. Just because you support him doesn't mean he has workable ideas on ending poverty. Just because I don't support him doesn't mean I don't want to work to end poverty.
3. Of course you don't get me. You don't try very hard to

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and bitch at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

Except conservatives, how can you say he included us? You are messed up girlie. Obummer care was done secretly how is that inclusive? I can at least be honest about my side, you live in pretendland

Except, dude, your claim is based on a lie - and a lie, repeated often enough is still a lie. You aren't the least bit honest about your side in this matter.

The roots of the ACA were already out in the public, and were public knowledge and had bipartisan support:

Bipartisan roots

To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors.

Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist."

The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law.

"There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care."​

None of this was "secret".

Despite the fact that the vote itself was partisan, the development of the ACA was bipartisan and hardly "secret".

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

• A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
• Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
• Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.


Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:


According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.​

So how can this possibly be a "secret" that excluded conservatives? They were right there involved in the crafting.

No Republican voted for it, so your claim of "bi-partisan support" is total horseshit. The fact that some naive Republicans tried to fix this monstrosity doesn't alter the fact that none of them supported the final result.

Speaking of bullshit did you read what I wrote?

It was a partisan line vote.
But the ACA itself was full of Republican supported ideas and amendments. To claim it was not bipartisan (or it was done in secret without the Republicans) is a total lie.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

The problem is that you left wrong-wing filth, by your actions, define “free speech and protesting” as necessarily including violence, destruction, looting, and other savage criminal activity, that has no legitimate relationship to, nor legitimate place in genuine free speech and protesting.

Declaring that No violence is acceptable” is meaningless when it comes from the side that know no other behavior than violence.

It's pretty much for this reason that sane, decent Americans are fed up with you subhuman scum, this being a major driving force behind Mr. Trump's victory.

 

[Coyote]

Cracking down on protests....are the rightwing THAT thinskinned they have to silence dissent?

No violence is acceptable. But free speech and protesting are an American right.

The problem is that you left wrong-wing filth, by your actions, define “free speech and protesting” as necessarily including violence, destruction, looting, and other savage criminal activity, that has no legitimate relationship to, nor legitimate place in genuine free speech and protesting.

No. The problem is people, like you, who rightly rejected the left's label of deplorable - are so into labeling us "filth" you can't see beyond your labels.

Who here on the left has supported destruction, looting, or violence? I'll wait.

Declaring that No violence is acceptable” is meaningless when it comes from the side that know no other behavior than violence.

Given that by FAR the protests have been peaceful, your claim is a lie.

It's pretty much for this reason that sane, decent Americans are fed up with you subhuman scum, this being a major driving force behind Mr. Trump's victory.

Reading this post, I don't see how you are any different.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

Mostly because firearm ownership has skyrocketed, more firearms less crime… Fact

False. Violent crime has been falling worldwide over the same period. It's fallen even more in countries where there is no gun ownership.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Muhammed]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

So what is your point? Are you trying to say that higher incarceration rates reduce crime?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and bitch at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

Except conservatives, how can you say he included us? You are messed up girlie. Obummer care was done secretly how is that inclusive? I can at least be honest about my side, you live in pretendland

Except, dude, your claim is based on a lie - and a lie, repeated often enough is still a lie. You aren't the least bit honest about your side in this matter.

The roots of the ACA were already out in the public, and were public knowledge and had bipartisan support:

Bipartisan roots

To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors.

Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist."

The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law.

"There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care."​

None of this was "secret".

Despite the fact that the vote itself was partisan, the development of the ACA was bipartisan and hardly "secret".

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

• A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
• Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
• Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.


Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:


According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.​

So how can this possibly be a "secret" that excluded conservatives? They were right there involved in the crafting.

No Republican voted for it, so your claim of "bi-partisan support" is total horseshit. The fact that some naive Republicans tried to fix this monstrosity doesn't alter the fact that none of them supported the final result.

Speaking of bullshit did you read what I wrote?

It was a partisan line vote.
But the ACA itself was full of Republican supported ideas and amendments. To claim it was not bipartisan (or it was done in secret without the Republicans) is a total lie.

They tried watering it down as much as they could in the event it passed with a partisan vote. But NO Republican voted for it into law. NO Republican wanted it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No. The problem is people, like you, who rightly rejected the left's label of deplorable - are so into labeling us "filth" you can't see beyond your labels.

Some times, it is necessary and appropriate to call a spade a spade.

As long as those on your side willfully and knowingly behave like subhuman, savage filth; nobody is going to take you seriously when you complain about being called as such.

 

[Coyote]

No. The problem is people, like you, who rightly rejected the left's label of deplorable - are so into labeling us "filth" you can't see beyond your labels.

Some times, it is necessary and appropriate to call a spade a spade.

As long as those on your side willfully and knowingly behave like subhuman, savage filth; nobody is going to take you seriously when you complain about being called as such.

Who here on the left has supported destruction, looting, or violence? I'll wait.

 

[Coyote]

No. The problem is people, like you, who rightly rejected the left's label of deplorable - are so into labeling us "filth" you can't see beyond your labels.

Some times, it is necessary and appropriate to call a spade a spade.

As long as those on your side willfully and knowingly behave like subhuman, savage filth; nobody is going to take you seriously when you complain about being called as such.

So...let's take this a step further: are you subhuman filth given the behavior and ideology of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's on your side? Like Roof?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who here on the left has supported destruction, looting, or violence? I'll wait.

All those savages that we are seeing on various news sources, rioting, looting,. destroying cars, breaking windows, assaulting passersby—How many of them are Republicans, conservatives, or Trump supporters?

Your side totally owns this. All of it.

You are known by your behavior, and you are known by the company that you keep.

And of course, everyone knows that you are lying when you try to deny this, but then lying is an inseparable part of your wretched and degenerate ideology.

 

[bripat9643]

well fk, eight years of a black president and the violence got worse in those areas. So there was no commitment to help them in eight years. and again, John Lewis hasn't done shit and pointed out by president trump. Which the media took as trump taking on John Lewis. Well gd dmn right he should. that is unacceptable from a black man representing blacks. So again, no improvements in inner cities in eight years and you agree with me and bitch at trump. hmmmmm you got a screw loose sweetie.

Eight years of a black president (who represents the entire nation, not just a racial demographic) cut the national crime rate almost in half from the time he took office. Why is it so hard for you to give credit?

Except conservatives, how can you say he included us? You are messed up girlie. Obummer care was done secretly how is that inclusive? I can at least be honest about my side, you live in pretendland

Except, dude, your claim is based on a lie - and a lie, repeated often enough is still a lie. You aren't the least bit honest about your side in this matter.

The roots of the ACA were already out in the public, and were public knowledge and had bipartisan support:

Bipartisan roots

To understand the invention of Obamacare requires looking back at previous attempts to overhaul health care, including by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Their proposal for universal health care prompted Republicans to come up with their own alternative in 1993. While as a party Republican senators never reached consensus, Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island introduced a bill with 18 Republican co-sponsors (although some later withdrew) and two Democrats as co-sponsors.

Chafee’s bill had some similarities to Obamacare. It included an individual mandate, created purchasing pools, standardized benefits, and included vouchers for the poor and a ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Another key player was the conservative Heritage Foundation, which advocated for health insurance exchanges including when Massachusetts, led by a Democratic Legislature and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, crafted its own law in 2006. Many experts we interviewed noted that Romney is not a "liberal academic theorist."

The Massachusetts plan and the national law share the central idea of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance and setting up a marketplace to allow individuals to buy coverage.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health care policy specialist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said that liberal academics represented a part -- but not the entirety -- of the creators of the federal law.

"There were many cooks in this kitchen and these ideas were generated over a long period over time," he said. "Ideas such as the individual mandate, exchange and private insurer competition had previously been advocated by conservative health policy analysts and Republican politicians—in many respects the ACA’s design and some of its major policies embodied what used to be core tenets of GOP philosophy on health care."​

None of this was "secret".

Despite the fact that the vote itself was partisan, the development of the ACA was bipartisan and hardly "secret".

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

• A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions
• Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines
• Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.


Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:


According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.​

So how can this possibly be a "secret" that excluded conservatives? They were right there involved in the crafting.

No Republican voted for it, so your claim of "bi-partisan support" is total horseshit. The fact that some naive Republicans tried to fix this monstrosity doesn't alter the fact that none of them supported the final result.

Speaking of bullshit did you read what I wrote?

It was a partisan line vote.
But the ACA itself was full of Republican supported ideas and amendments. To claim it was not bipartisan (or it was done in secret without the Republicans) is a total lie.

As I already stated, Republican attempts to fix the mess doesn't equate to bipartisan support for the result. No Republican voted for it. Democrats own it.

 

[bripat9643]

No. The problem is people, like you, who rightly rejected the left's label of deplorable - are so into labeling us "filth" you can't see beyond your labels.

Some times, it is necessary and appropriate to call a spade a spade.

As long as those on your side willfully and knowingly behave like subhuman, savage filth; nobody is going to take you seriously when you complain about being called as such.

So...let's take this a step further: are you subhuman filth given the behavior and ideology of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's on your side? Like Roof?

are you subhuman filth given the behavior and ideology of ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas on your side?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So...let's take this a step further: are you subhuman filth given the behavior and ideology of the KKK and Neo-Nazi's on your side? Like Roof?

In a way, it's funny when you left wrong wing filth try to tar us on the right with the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK was a DEMOCRAT organization; and throughout its entire history, for the entire time that it had any meaningful existence, it was aligned with the Democratic party, and an enemy of the Republican party.

But then that's another of the defining clichés of your own degenerate ideology, that it will never take responsibility for its own bad behavior, seeking always instead to try to blame its own misdeeds, and the consequences thereof, on its opposition.

 

[danielpalos]

That's funny.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing and now stands at the lowest rate in over 25 years. I don't know what air you've been smelling.

It's not 2014 any more!

In case you hadn't noticed, 2016 just ended.

Dueling Claims on Crime Trend
Over those 15 years, the number of homicides has dropped from more than 600 a year in the early 2000s to just under 500 in 2015. The yearly number has fluctuated since Obama took office in 2009 and topped 500 once, in 2012.

Chicago has often been singled out for the number of murders, but other cities have a higher murder rate, adjusted for population. As we wrote on this topic earlier this year, the city ranked 35th in 2014 in terms of its murder rate among cities with a population of 100,000 or more. The Pew Research Center reviewed FBI data from 1985 to 2012 and concluded in its headline that Chicago was “nowhere near U.S. ‘murder capital'” after adjusting the raw numbers for population.

special pleading, is what the right wing, does best.

What's that?

appealing to ignorance, for one.