Putting ideology above country

[emilynghiem]

50% of the republican party agree's with me...We want our government reopened and our economy to work.

fact...Businesses and advancement of this country are the heart of our economy...NOT some loon that wants us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Infrastructure, tech, science, education and manufacturing is the future of America.

OK and you do know that Obama could have agreed to funding that
delayed the individual mandate for one year. I hear that the insurance groups
wouldn't agree to that. Well why weren't the citizens in on the meeting with insurance groups to write up this contract our names were signed to requiring us to purchase?

And you do know that the initial offer had only two points to it, which
most people I know even ACA liberal supporters agreed was sensible:
* delaying the individual mandate for a year
* removing the tax on medical devices so it wouldn't harm companies
trying to provide services

so if you are for jobs and businesses,
wouldn't you have supported this first offer to sign the budget
with these two points and prevent the shutdown from ever going so far?

p.s. most conflicts I know are two sided
so I don't see how anyone can expect to blame one side more than the other
in this case the ACA already went through Congress and Courts
with the same objections not being heard or redressed
why not allow the two changes that all the opposition had agreed to

why punish and blame them when that was turned down?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, Obama should be ashamed of putting his socialist ideology before the good of the nation.

Strangely (NOT) he doesn't appear to be.

Ask me how I know that you don't understand what Socialism is.

I wouldn't blame socialism, but putting his own agenda
and partisan biased politics above his Constitutional duty
to represent all of Americans equally and inclusively, regardless of
religious or political ideology. He clearly fails to meet Constitutional standards.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service
ethics-commission.net

To be constitutionally inclusive for equal protection and presentation,
all conflicts such as over ACA SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN ADVANCE.
The bill especially something changing federal policy in relation to constitutional
authority should have reflected a clear consensus among Americans
and majority of those paying for the bill. None of this was established,
nor was the contents or the consequences of the bill "proven to work"
so all taht was basically "faith based" representing only those who share this particular "faith"
and punishing those who "believe in something else as more cost effective and constitutional"
those people are penalized on the basis of believing in other constitutional choices, based on faith.

To pass it with such a clear partisan bias in voting is the equivalent of
putting two religious groups to a vote on a religious policy, such as Buddhists vs Muslims vs
Christians vs Atheists, and then when the majority vote decides you hold ALL people
to that policy, even though only the Atheists voted yes. if it was religious denominations
you could see how ridiculous it is to discount opposition to the policy. but since it
is political groups, somehow people are conditioned to let them bully it out by votes.

wake up people! how is this equal protection and representation
if half the nation opposes a policy and it is clearly split by ideological beliefs.
how is that not imposing religious bias through govt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That charge gets thrown around a lot, so lets see if it actually applies to someone that, in theory, has the power to make a real difference, if he wants to. A single person in the government that, if he wanted to lead by example, and show a real spirit of compromise, could have ended the debate over the shut down and the debt ceiling long before it reached crisis mode.

What is it that Republicans insisted on? I know the whackadoodles on the left say they wanted to rewrite an existing law, but everyone knows there is nothing legitimate about that complaint. (Anyone who doesn't actually have a brain is free to jump in and explain why negotiating on laws, something that has gone on for 237 years, is suddenly unprecedented and actually worse than the Holocaust, just don't expect me to pay attention.) Basically, they wanted Obama to treat individuals exactly the same way he treats big business. He deleyed the mandate for big business, why not delay it for individuals? After all, we know that Obama is all about the little guy.

The answer to that is pretty simple, big insurance wouldn't stand for it. If they can't force everyone who is healthy to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it, there is no way they can stay in business. Some of the wheeling and dealing that went on recognized this, and at least one of the proposals floated would have compensated insurance companies for the lost revenues from delaying Obamacare a year, and got the money back by tacking an extra year on the tax at the back end. Obama wasn't even willing to accept that compromise. Why not?

Because, ultimately, he thinks he is right. It doesn't matter that everyone from Wolf Blitzer to the guy who wrote the ******* law thinks it needs to be delayed. It doesn't matter that the website sucks so much that traffic to the site is dropping off like the Mount Thor. It doesn't matter that the law is a complete debacle, all that matters to Obama is that he is right. He is willing to put his belief in Obamacare, his ideology, above the good of the country. He told the entire world that, unless Republicans gave into his childish demand, he would take the country into default.

Then he blamed the other guy, just like every spoiled brat in history.

Dear QW: you don't know how much I regretted giving thanks and agreeing with your post.

That is truly sad, as I normally am sympathetic and don't like blaming and faulting people for believing what they are doing is right. I understand how much they truly believe that more good than harm is coming from that, or else they would do otherwise.

I think this whole thing is a collective backlash over the Bush arguments
about rationalizing the costs and damages of the war vs. the benefits.
Now it's Obama and his supporters committing the same namecalling
of discrediting opposition as political instead of hearing and addressing real grievances.

Same with prochoice and prolife sides that seemed to switch midstream,
both justifying their views of ACA using the opposite arguments as before!
Suddenly the prolife side wants choice and to take govt control completely out of the equation.
Suddenly my prochoice friends support compromising freedom in order to serve some greater good,
when that is not what they said about the choice of abortion and weren't willing to compromise freedom at all.

Unless people can see both sides clearly, it looks insane that each side
can only see their way and think the other is "merely opposed for political points"

in both cases there was legitimate opposition, and both times it got hijacked
and twisted politically beyond recognition where it looked like political posturing only.

very sad, and we are all paying for this destructive habit

when the second half of this storm passes, maybe we will pick up the pieces
and rebuild based on hard lessons learned from taking turns bullying one side or the other
instead of investing directly in solutions that would have ended conflicts to begin with.

when we quit discrediting each other and start validating views to hold people responsible for them instead of cutting them down, maybe we will learn to hear what we're missing.

I never regret thanking people I agree.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was a credit downgrade after the debt ceiling debate in 2011, even rdean remembers it, why else would he keep posting about Boehner getting 98% of what he wanted?

And he still hasn't answered.

Still waiting for you to name the law. You won't because you can't because you literally spew shit from your mouth.

Let me get this straight.

Obama wanted to change the law that said that there would be a tax hike in 2012, so did Republicans. The Republicans wanted to make the cuts permanent acorss the board, the president only wanted them for people making less than $250,000 (I think, not going to bother digging up the exact number.) They wouldn't agree on the change of the law, and refused to pass a new debt ceiling without some concession. The end result was tax cuts for most people made permanent, and the sequester cuts that were supposed to force both sides to deal on the budget, but neither side was willing to compromise.

Remember that now? Do you still want to pretend that was not existing law tied to the debt ceiling, and that I, how did you put it, "willing to say literally ANYTHING without worrying about how foolish it makes him sound?"

Want a couple of examples of Democrats not named Obama doing the same thing so that you can be the foolish one, or do you prefer to pretend you didn't say anything?

In 2010 the Bush Tax cuts were extended for two years. Had they done nothing the law was done. Not quite the same thing as trying to force democrats to defund the new healthcare laws.

Now it's the TeaBags "Waterloo"

 

[NYcarbineer]

That charge gets thrown around a lot, so lets see if it actually applies to someone that, in theory, has the power to make a real difference, if he wants to. A single person in the government that, if he wanted to lead by example, and show a real spirit of compromise, could have ended the debate over the shut down and the debt ceiling long before it reached crisis mode.

What is it that Republicans insisted on? I know the whackadoodles on the left say they wanted to rewrite an existing law, but everyone knows there is nothing legitimate about that complaint. (Anyone who doesn't actually have a brain is free to jump in and explain why negotiating on laws, something that has gone on for 237 years, is suddenly unprecedented and actually worse than the Holocaust, just don't expect me to pay attention.) Basically, they wanted Obama to treat individuals exactly the same way he treats big business. He deleyed the mandate for big business, why not delay it for individuals? After all, we know that Obama is all about the little guy.

The answer to that is pretty simple, big insurance wouldn't stand for it. If they can't force everyone who is healthy to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it, there is no way they can stay in business. Some of the wheeling and dealing that went on recognized this, and at least one of the proposals floated would have compensated insurance companies for the lost revenues from delaying Obamacare a year, and got the money back by tacking an extra year on the tax at the back end. Obama wasn't even willing to accept that compromise. Why not?

Because, ultimately, he thinks he is right. It doesn't matter that everyone from Wolf Blitzer to the guy who wrote the ******* law thinks it needs to be delayed. It doesn't matter that the website sucks so much that traffic to the site is dropping off like the Mount Thor. It doesn't matter that the law is a complete debacle, all that matters to Obama is that he is right. He is willing to put his belief in Obamacare, his ideology, above the good of the country. He told the entire world that, unless Republicans gave into his childish demand, he would take the country into default.

Then he blamed the other guy, just like every spoiled brat in history.

Do you know what 'begging the question' means?

Every post you make?

Wrong. Look it up sometime.


Is the country in default?

yes or no

Did the President cave on Obamacare?

yes or no

 

[HenryBHough]

Depends upon what country one holds to be "home".

 

[NYcarbineer]

The individual mandate was delayed. For almost 4 years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And he still hasn't answered.

Still waiting for you to name the law. You won't because you can't because you literally spew shit from your mouth.

Let me get this straight.

Obama wanted to change the law that said that there would be a tax hike in 2012, so did Republicans. The Republicans wanted to make the cuts permanent acorss the board, the president only wanted them for people making less than $250,000 (I think, not going to bother digging up the exact number.) They wouldn't agree on the change of the law, and refused to pass a new debt ceiling without some concession. The end result was tax cuts for most people made permanent, and the sequester cuts that were supposed to force both sides to deal on the budget, but neither side was willing to compromise.

Remember that now? Do you still want to pretend that was not existing law tied to the debt ceiling, and that I, how did you put it, "willing to say literally ANYTHING without worrying about how foolish it makes him sound?"

Want a couple of examples of Democrats not named Obama doing the same thing so that you can be the foolish one, or do you prefer to pretend you didn't say anything?

In 2010 the Bush Tax cuts were extended for two years. Had they done nothing the law was done. Not quite the same thing as trying to force democrats to defund the new healthcare laws.

Now it's the TeaBags "Waterloo"

I was asked when the last time an existing law was part of the debt cieling deal, I answered. The proof of that is the fact that the two people who insisted I didn't know what I am talking about left the thread. If you want an example of Democrats demanding the end of an existing law in order to raise the debt ceiling, feel free to ask when it happened. If all you want is to look smarter than rdean, don't challenge me to prove you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you know what 'begging the question' means?

Every post you make?

Wrong. Look it up sometime.


Is the country in default?

yes or no

Did the President cave on Obamacare?

yes or no

When did I say the country was in default?

That's right, I didn't. In fact, I have consistently argued that, even if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, we wouldn't default.

Which means that you just got caught begging the question.

While that doesn't prove me right, it certainly doesn't prove me wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

The only way the country could possibly have gone into default is if the democrats did it deliberately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

50% of the republican party agree's with me...We want our government reopened and our economy to work.

fact...Businesses and advancement of this country are the heart of our economy...NOT some loon that wants us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Infrastructure, tech, science, education and manufacturing is the future of America.

OK and you do know that Obama could have agreed to funding that
delayed the individual mandate for one year. I hear that the insurance groups
wouldn't agree to that. Well why weren't the citizens in on the meeting with insurance groups to write up this contract our names were signed to requiring us to purchase?

And you do know that the initial offer had only two points to it, which
most people I know even ACA liberal supporters agreed was sensible:
* delaying the individual mandate for a year
* removing the tax on medical devices so it wouldn't harm companies
trying to provide services

so if you are for jobs and businesses,
wouldn't you have supported this first offer to sign the budget
with these two points and prevent the shutdown from ever going so far?

p.s. most conflicts I know are two sided
so I don't see how anyone can expect to blame one side more than the other
in this case the ACA already went through Congress and Courts
with the same objections not being heard or redressed
why not allow the two changes that all the opposition had agreed to

why punish and blame them when that was turned down?

They can be dealt with now in an adult fashion without a political terrorist threat of shut down or else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Putting ideology above country

That would describe republicans perfectly during the shutdown and GOP threat to allow the Nation to default.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The two parties can now negotiate in relationship to their elected strengths.

 

[Katzndogz]

The two parties can now negotiate in relationship to their elected strengths.

Yep. Republicans control the house even with a few RINOS still in office.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

50% of the republican party agree's with me...We want our government reopened and our economy to work.

fact...Businesses and advancement of this country are the heart of our economy...NOT some loon that wants us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Infrastructure, tech, science, education and manufacturing is the future of America.

OK and you do know that Obama could have agreed to funding that
delayed the individual mandate for one year. I hear that the insurance groups
wouldn't agree to that. Well why weren't the citizens in on the meeting with insurance groups to write up this contract our names were signed to requiring us to purchase?

And you do know that the initial offer had only two points to it, which
most people I know even ACA liberal supporters agreed was sensible:
* delaying the individual mandate for a year
* removing the tax on medical devices so it wouldn't harm companies
trying to provide services

so if you are for jobs and businesses,
wouldn't you have supported this first offer to sign the budget
with these two points and prevent the shutdown from ever going so far?

p.s. most conflicts I know are two sided
so I don't see how anyone can expect to blame one side more than the other
in this case the ACA already went through Congress and Courts
with the same objections not being heard or redressed
why not allow the two changes that all the opposition had agreed to

why punish and blame them when that was turned down?

They can be dealt with now in an adult fashion without a political terrorist threat of shut down or else.

Oh, now you think you're not only smarter than everyone else, you're now more patriotic SHIT BIRD? So do you still think a 60% disapproval rating of ACHA is minority? Dems have used filibustering and other methods just as the Republicans are currently employing when they are the minority party in congress. Ex: During the Reagan administration, the dems shutdown the government 8 times. But at least Reagan was mature enough to now allow those 8 shutdowns last 16 days like dumbocrat Obama. Should we have labeled the dumbocrats terrorist then?

 

[emilynghiem]

And he still hasn't answered.

Still waiting for you to name the law. You won't because you can't because you literally spew shit from your mouth.

Let me get this straight.

Obama wanted to change the law that said that there would be a tax hike in 2012, so did Republicans. The Republicans wanted to make the cuts permanent acorss the board, the president only wanted them for people making less than $250,000 (I think, not going to bother digging up the exact number.) They wouldn't agree on the change of the law, and refused to pass a new debt ceiling without some concession. The end result was tax cuts for most people made permanent, and the sequester cuts that were supposed to force both sides to deal on the budget, but neither side was willing to compromise.

Remember that now? Do you still want to pretend that was not existing law tied to the debt ceiling, and that I, how did you put it, "willing to say literally ANYTHING without worrying about how foolish it makes him sound?"

Want a couple of examples of Democrats not named Obama doing the same thing so that you can be the foolish one, or do you prefer to pretend you didn't say anything?

In 2010 the Bush Tax cuts were extended for two years. Had they done nothing the law was done. Not quite the same thing as trying to force democrats to defund the new healthcare laws.

Now it's the TeaBags "Waterloo"

And none of this does a dang thing to set up a real system for
assessing past govt waste and abuse of taxpayer money
and collecting it over time to invest in longterm solutions and programs
that our resources could have been paying for instead.

I have proposed such a system of issuing federal restitution notes
to represent tangible debts to taxpayers, hold land property or programs/schools
as collateral against the debt, and use those notes to finance the reforms and
work to fix the problems; then hold the wrongdoers accountable for paying off that debt.

But people are too busy fighting over whose fault was whose, and which law
did or blocked this that when under Bush or Obama Rep or Dem etc etc.

so when they get tired of slugging it out over legislation after the fact that doesn't solve the problems, maybe we can focus more attention on where our money went, how to get it paid back, and where to invest it instead of having to pay more and more and more

 

[ClosedCaption]

That charge gets thrown around a lot, so lets see if it actually applies to someone that, in theory, has the power to make a real difference, if he wants to. A single person in the government that, if he wanted to lead by example, and show a real spirit of compromise, could have ended the debate over the shut down and the debt ceiling long before it reached crisis mode.

What is it that Republicans insisted on? I know the whackadoodles on the left say they wanted to rewrite an existing law, but everyone knows there is nothing legitimate about that complaint. (Anyone who doesn't actually have a brain is free to jump in and explain why negotiating on laws, something that has gone on for 237 years, is suddenly unprecedented and actually worse than the Holocaust, just don't expect me to pay attention.) Basically, they wanted Obama to treat individuals exactly the same way he treats big business. He deleyed the mandate for big business, why not delay it for individuals? After all, we know that Obama is all about the little guy.

The answer to that is pretty simple, big insurance wouldn't stand for it. If they can't force everyone who is healthy to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it, there is no way they can stay in business. Some of the wheeling and dealing that went on recognized this, and at least one of the proposals floated would have compensated insurance companies for the lost revenues from delaying Obamacare a year, and got the money back by tacking an extra year on the tax at the back end. Obama wasn't even willing to accept that compromise. Why not?

Because, ultimately, he thinks he is right. It doesn't matter that everyone from Wolf Blitzer to the guy who wrote the ******* law thinks it needs to be delayed. It doesn't matter that the website sucks so much that traffic to the site is dropping off like the Mount Thor. It doesn't matter that the law is a complete debacle, all that matters to Obama is that he is right. He is willing to put his belief in Obamacare, his ideology, above the good of the country. He told the entire world that, unless Republicans gave into his childish demand, he would take the country into default.

Then he blamed the other guy, just like every spoiled brat in history.

Do you know what 'begging the question' means?

 

[JimH52]

That charge gets thrown around a lot, so lets see if it actually applies to someone that, in theory, has the power to make a real difference, if he wants to. A single person in the government that, if he wanted to lead by example, and show a real spirit of compromise, could have ended the debate over the shut down and the debt ceiling long before it reached crisis mode.

What is it that Republicans insisted on? I know the whackadoodles on the left say they wanted to rewrite an existing law, but everyone knows there is nothing legitimate about that complaint. (Anyone who doesn't actually have a brain is free to jump in and explain why negotiating on laws, something that has gone on for 237 years, is suddenly unprecedented and actually worse than the Holocaust, just don't expect me to pay attention.) Basically, they wanted Obama to treat individuals exactly the same way he treats big business. He deleyed the mandate for big business, why not delay it for individuals? After all, we know that Obama is all about the little guy.

The answer to that is pretty simple, big insurance wouldn't stand for it. If they can't force everyone who is healthy to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it, there is no way they can stay in business. Some of the wheeling and dealing that went on recognized this, and at least one of the proposals floated would have compensated insurance companies for the lost revenues from delaying Obamacare a year, and got the money back by tacking an extra year on the tax at the back end. Obama wasn't even willing to accept that compromise. Why not?

Because, ultimately, he thinks he is right. It doesn't matter that everyone from Wolf Blitzer to the guy who wrote the ******* law thinks it needs to be delayed. It doesn't matter that the website sucks so much that traffic to the site is dropping off like the Mount Thor. It doesn't matter that the law is a complete debacle, all that matters to Obama is that he is right. He is willing to put his belief in Obamacare, his ideology, above the good of the country. He told the entire world that, unless Republicans gave into his childish demand, he would take the country into default.

Then he blamed the other guy, just like every spoiled brat in history.

You do not "negotiate a law" by refusing to pass a CR and holding the country hostage. The GOP does not want to improve the ACA. They want to kill it. They have said as much. They know that if the ACA succeeds, they are cooked. When actually they are cooked anyway...

 

[emilynghiem]

50% of the republican party agree's with me...We want our government reopened and our economy to work.

fact...Businesses and advancement of this country are the heart of our economy...NOT some loon that wants us to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Infrastructure, tech, science, education and manufacturing is the future of America.

OK and you do know that Obama could have agreed to funding that
delayed the individual mandate for one year. I hear that the insurance groups
wouldn't agree to that. Well why weren't the citizens in on the meeting with insurance groups to write up this contract our names were signed to requiring us to purchase?

And you do know that the initial offer had only two points to it, which
most people I know even ACA liberal supporters agreed was sensible:
* delaying the individual mandate for a year
* removing the tax on medical devices so it wouldn't harm companies
trying to provide services

so if you are for jobs and businesses,
wouldn't you have supported this first offer to sign the budget
with these two points and prevent the shutdown from ever going so far?

p.s. most conflicts I know are two sided
so I don't see how anyone can expect to blame one side more than the other
in this case the ACA already went through Congress and Courts
with the same objections not being heard or redressed
why not allow the two changes that all the opposition had agreed to

why punish and blame them when that was turned down?

They can be dealt with now in an adult fashion without a political terrorist threat of shut down or else.

What? Why couldn't the offer be taken up when it was first offered?
Who was being a brat at that point?

Jake I didn't even realize it, myself, what a HUGE concession it already was
to get the Republicans and Opposition to agree to just THOSE TWO POINTS.

Not until I checked around, and did find people so opposed they didn't even want those.

So these people WERE going out of there WAY to be accommodating, Jake.

Not to worry, Jake. I decided a lot of this dual blindsided/onesided ness is "karmic payback" from when the opposition to Bush was downplayed and discredited
as all political nonsense from "anti-american commies and traitors." So now the shoe is on the other foot. The same people who could not see past their own politics to see the REAL grievances and issues behind opposition to Bush and war spending, are now being treated the same way.

Both are still wrong, Jake, it doesn't justify either side doing that to the other by "calling names" and not taking responsibility for resolving valid objections from opposition very real.

But it explains why it is happening. I don't think people mean to be that bias and blinded. they really do believe what they see is real. they really do see each other that way.

but I am working to see past those biases and see where they are coming from, regardless if the sides don't see each other that way.

Even people like my own bf who claim not to have biases and to hold all ppl accountable are taking sides,
and "can't see" the valid beliefs of the other side without discrediting it as "not real" or "they know they are lying" and any number of ways to discount them unequal.

this is a process we have to go through to grow up and perfect our democratic process.
it seems tragic now, but since it is leading us to a stage of greater good, then I focus on that point in time.

i will be glad when we see there is more good than bad in addressing objections directly,
and that resolving conflicts works better than fearing them and blaming and taking sides.
people can't keep suffering this way, the human conscience is designed to progress toward equal justice,
so at some point breakthroughs will soon be made, where people outgrow these patterns from the past.

we will get a lot more accomplished in the future. and be thankful we had the freedom to learn by trial and error, by experience though the learning curve is still costly to all. We could have been using our resources to achieve solutions faster, but whenever we are ready to start working together instead of freaking out over differences, we'll just have to work faster and smarter to makeup for lost time/resources wasted on blame and bullying.

I will be happy to get to that point, though the amount of work will be staggering. This silly talk of throwing people out of office, or spending millions to get this party or that one in will become meaningless. because all people whether in or out of office will need to work or go to school full time to run programs to fix social messes and rebuild a sustainable economy, and all campaign fundraising will be needed to invest directly in solutions per community. It will take everyone working together to share the responsibility, not just depending on govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

You do not "negotiate a law" by refusing to pass a CR and holding the country hostage. The GOP does not want to improve the ACA. They want to kill it. They have said as much. They know that if the ACA succeeds, they are cooked. When actually they are cooked anyway...

Hi Jim: Yes, a lot of opposition just wanted ACA gone and did not even really want to go with the one year extension. That was a huge compromise.

Instead of making this impossible, the House managed to whittle down the points to just TWO that were generally agreed upon by most people including those who support ACA.

Just delaying the individual mandate for one year
and cutting the tax on medical devices which would have hurt businesses trying to
provide medical services.

That was it.

Even one of my pro-Obama anti-GOP friends AGREED and thought those two points
were GOOD. So there could have been acceptance and passage at that point,
and all this could be avoided.

Funny that Obama and media reports blame GOP or both sides.
But none blame Obama.

And with past shutdowns, the national memorials and vet benefits were NOT AFFECTED.
He was approached on this, but would not budge.

So he was equally if not more responsible.

Given this context alone, I would go with equally responsible.

If you count passing the ACA in the first place, without resolving conflicts
and with CLEAR OPPOSITION divided by party lines,
that is clearly Obama and ACA supporters who started this process.

The opposition has tolerated it beyond what I believe is Constitutional.
I believe it has been imposing unconstitutionally since the start.

And I agreed with the two points that were originally proposed.

So it was completely possible to advert any shutdown altogether.

Among even the small sampling when I asked around,
* someone who is anti ACA, anti Obama as a Marxist, anti Democrat and doesn't believe it should be there at all was OK with the two points, the extension and removing the medical tax and putting up with the rest which is already a huge concession.

* someone who is Pro Democrat, Pro Obama and anti GOP (and anti my boyfriend he can't stand) AGREES that the the two concession points should have been accepted and passed.
he is totally willing to let the ACA stand and make changes later, and still wanted
those two points to get passed since they were reasonable and effective

if people with opposite views of ACA and Obama/GOP/Dems could
accept those two points and agree with passing that to avoid the shutdown

then ANYONE else could have done so

[and if Obama couldn't delay things without consent of the Insurance industry or lobbyists, then he should include ALL citizens and insurance buyers to chip in and have a say. If he could sign the ACA "without consent" of all taxpayers affected, why cant he sign the one year delay "without consent" of the insurance lobbies and companies affected. if the bill doesn't work without their consent, why try to force it to work without taxpayer consent. you can't sign people's names to a business contract without consent of those parties. And them blame them if they object? At least Bush acknowledged WMD issue was not proven to people who objected to using that to justify Congress signing on for war. When Obama comes to similar realization instead of denying/blaming opposition maybe we can have an equal dialogue where parties hear each other's objections, not pretend they aren't real.]

If my friends who cannot stand each other's views about ACA or party politics
can AGREE that those two points should have been accepted and passed,
I don't see how you can blame that except on Democrat majority in the Senate.

If they passed through the House which was the harder sell, then why not the Senate.
Unless they did that to blame the GOP because if it passed through the
Senate and Obama didn't sign it, it will clearly be his fault? is that why they didn't?
to kick it back to the House and try to blame GOP for it when those two points were good!

It could be mutual, but there is no way this is more GOP fault than Obama or Dems.

Where people are parties disagree religiously on that ACA,
that is the responsibility of both parties. It cannot be blamed
on just one side "just because you don't agree with mine."
It is at least mutual. And if Obama and pro-ACA supporters
"passed ACA as is" without first resolving the objections that THEY KNEW WERE THERE the whole time, they ought to accept responsibility for the consequences of doing so.
Again, at the VERY least equal responsibility; but this concept of only "blaming
one side" then claiming that side is "being politically" well, what do you call that?

Very very odd. My bf says they are doing that on purpose to politically win by blaming GOP unfairly. But I think it is they truly BELIEVE that. So it isn't conscious manipulation,
sadly I believe people are internally deluded and don't even realize it, but think they are doing everyone else a huge favor and really do believe the opposition is evil and false.

My friends who oppose and demonize each other's views truly believe that!
they cannot see what each other believes as "equally real or valid" but justify in their heads it is "all lies" based on propaganda. their fears totally block their perception and judgment.