Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

Which is why we need to fire all the janitors, get rid of child labor laws, and put children to work as janitors.



Maybe I'm being naive, but I prefer to think that they've finally decided to not be hypocritical about their no government spending policy by applying it to the military as well.

Unlikely, military budget cuts are evil for the GOP. And mainly for the Dems also.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Big news today is KFF's study on Obamacare premiums.

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.​

For those who are married, how do the plans measure up cost wise?

Obviously young people will have to sacrifice some PS4 money disposable income but those prices look damn good. Now we wait and see if people sign up.

 

[zero shift]

Looks like Congress is starting to vote No.

Guess it doesn't matter to Obama. Whether they say yes or no, he effectively gets no blame for what happens in Syria.

So the Democrats support taking action in Syria more than Republicans? Fuck.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

So the Democrats support taking action in Syria more than Republicans? Fuck.

Doubt it has anything to do with Syria more than partisan politics.

 

[Samk]

That makes sense though. Realists, typically libertarian republicans, don't see what intervention in Syria would do to promote national interests. Liberals, dems, see collective action and international norms as very important.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

NC taking a hit nationally.

North Carolina's national image declines

Two years ago PPP did national polls assessing the favorability of every state in the country. While southern states generally found themselves toward the bottom of the list, North Carolina was an exception. It polled among the ten most popular states in the country, with 40% of voters rating it favorably to only 11% who had an unfavorable opinion.

North Carolina's national image has seen a strong shift in a negative direction since that time. Its favorability has dropped from 40% to 30%, while the share of voters with an unfavorable opinion of it has more than doubled from 11% to 23%. Its +7 favorability rating would have ranked it 40th in our national study of state popularity in 2011, rather than its top 10 popularity at that time.

The state's national image has seen particularly large declines with racial minorities and women. In 2011 North Carolina stood out in the south as a state African Americans had a positive opinion of, at a 42/8 favorability rating. Now blacks see it negatively by a 19/30 spread. It's a similar story with Hispanics- they gave the state a positive 50/9 favorability in 2011, now it's a negative one at 20/39. There's also been a steep decline with women. They gave the state a net +32 favorability in 2011 at 40/8, but that's dropped all the way down to +3 at just 25/22.
Predictably the biggest hit in North Carolina's national image following this legislative session has been with Democrats. Their view of North Carolina has dropped a net 38 points from +18 (35/17) a couple years to -20 at 18/38 now. What's interesting though is the state has gotten less popular with Republicans too- it had a +42 favorability at 48/6 in 2011 and that's declined now to +28 at 41/13.

We know from repeated polling over the last few months that North Carolinians are very unhappy with what's happened to their state this year. The national polling makes it clear that the rest of the country feels the same way.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/north-carolinas-national-image-declines.html

 

[Sanky Panky]

There's a lot of bollocks in here.

For a start, they link the MintPress article. That alone should set off some sirens. And then another link showing some jugs and that video of the rebels using the Hell cannon which it says is launching a NERVE GAS CANISTER OMG which is a load of BS.

And then it says the rebels had access to chemical weapons when they mean they had access to locations linked to Syria's CW programme with no evidence they actually have any. They get past that by saying the UN and news outlets disagreeing. The link doesn't work but the former is factually untrue; in fact quite the opposite - the UN themselves said "there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems."
I assume the news it's talking about is the story from Turkey, where the authorities denied they had recovered any sarin (and I heard it just turned out to be anti-freeze luls).

Next it refers to the munitions linked to the 21st August attack as a DIY-type rocket which is rubbish. The munitions are huge, produced in bulk, standardised and clearrly professionally manufactured. It simply dismisses this with "The rebels could have made these". Given their unique and distinctive nature, you'd think someone would've taken notice. Alas they are only possessed by the Syrian military and have only ever been seen as remnants or UXO from government bombardments of rebel-held areas. Interestingly, they have also turned up at the sites of previous alleged chemical attacks.

You probably shouldn't put too much stock into what some ecconomics blog that's tryng to get me to buy gold and bitcoins says about things. Or maybe you do if you just want to switch your brain off when you see something that supports your presuppositions. Keep fighting the fight against that dastardly ~mainstream media~.

Hehe nice ad hominem in the end there. So in the grand show off of the he-said-she-said when it comes to evidence for this, who is YOUR go-to source at which you shut YOUR brain off to any other contradicting evidence?

What is your evidence that the rebels never had any chemical weapons, despite as you claim, having access to the CW locations? At which point does evidence become "compelling" for the UN if there are reports out there indicating they had? Is it the same compelling evidence that the US is using to say that there have been over 1400 deaths, when everyone else says around 500?

Your opinions on the characteristics of the munition as "huge, produced in bulk, standardised and clearrly professionally manufactured" is all nice and well, but again I ask, in the battle of conflicting reports, why should I trust whatever "classified intelligence" report you are basing your own opinions from? or John Kerry for that matter? Should I listen instead to Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, that point to Saudi Arabia providing the weapons? That definitely goes along with the undeniable narrative the Saudis/Qatar have been arming the rebels, want to see Assad gone, and have been pressing the US to intervene.

The point is a world full of CHEEZMOs stood by in agreement while we were fed "irrefutable evidence" from "classified sources" to take us into a war under false pretenses quite recently. A world full of you continue to get riled over coordinated (and condoned) attacks that are used as an excuse for US intervention (from the Spanish-American war, up to the present day). It would help if we were all a bit more critical.

 

[jamesinclair]

NC taking a hit nationally.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/north-carolinas-national-image-declines.html

We need to put our states into a promotion/relegation system.

Popular vote, every 2 years.

Top 30 states are in, bottom 30 states are declared territories and lose many rights.

Spoiler

60 because were adding in Canada

 

[xnipx]

We need to put our states into a promotion/relegation system.

Popular vote, every 2 years.

Top 30 states are in, bottom 30 states are declared territories and lose many rights.

Spoiler

60 because were adding in Canada

You would have my vote.

 

[Wilsongt]

*slams head on the desk repeatedly unless he has brain damage*


Gay rights groups seek anti-bias victory in Texas

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Gay rights advocates and religious conservatives were expected Thursday to pack a City Council meeting for a vote on nondiscrimination protections that are already in place elsewhere in Texas but that have drawn rebuke from big-name Republicans.

The proposal would amend San Antonio's nondiscrimination code to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and thereby add the nation's seventh-largest city to a list of nearly 180 other U.S. cities with similar ordinances, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

What began as a local issue has mushroomed into a heated debate attracting GOP heavyweights such as U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is the early favorite in the 2014 governor's race.

Abbott warned the city that passing the ordinance would invite a lawsuit, though a carefully worded letter to Democratic Mayor Julian Castro on Wednesday did not say that challenge would come from the state.

"Forced compliance with the proposed ordinance does not promote diversity. It tramples it," Abbott said. "And when the diversity being trampled is religious diversity, the Constitution must be reckoned with."

Gay rights victories in Texas haven't come at the Capitol but at city hall. While nondiscrimination bills in the Legislature have languished, Houston has a lesbian mayor and Austin offers health benefits for same-sex couples.

The conservative pushback in San Antonio is notable coming on the turf of Castro, a rising star who delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention last year. It also sprouts a weed in Castro's narrative that San Antonio embraces political values that he says are spreading statewide and will eventually turn Texas blue.

Castro said the opposition to what he called an "overdue" and level-headed amendment was disappointing.

"These days, unfortunately, it's campaign season," Castro said. "What else would you expect?"

For Republicans, who hold every statewide office in Texas and mock predictions that a Democratic resurgence is on the horizon, the San Antonio proposal has rallied supporters and become an early stakeout ahead of the 2014 primaries.

Hundreds of congregants from black and Latino churches have rallied against the ordinance on the steps of City Hall.

"I consider this an attempt to impose a liberal value system over the objection of millions of Texans," said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, who as a Republican state senator sponsored a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in Texas as between one man and one woman. "It actually discriminates against those with deeply held religious views by pushing this agenda to the extreme."

Staples is running for lieutenant governor next year. One of his primary opponents, state Sen. Dan Patrick, said the ordinance "runs counter to the Holy Bible and the United States Constitution." Cruz said he was encouraged to see "Texans standing up to defend their religious freedoms."

Attention surrounding the ordinance spread far beyond San Antonio last month when City Councilwoman Elisa Chan was caught on tape calling homosexuality "disgusting" and arguing that gays should not be allowed to adopt. The comments were surreptitiously recorded during a staff meeting by a former aide, who shared the audio with the San Antonio Express-News.

Chan has defended her comments and has vowed to stand for freedom of speech and right to privacy. During a packed hearing about the ordinance last week, Chan received several standing ovations.

Chuck Smith, executive director of the advocacy group Equality Texas, said claims that the ordinance would result in religious infringement are untrue.

"In the context of public accommodation, you can say, 'I think you're disgusting, I think you're going to go to hell — would you like baked potatoes or fries with that order?'" Smith said. "It does not suppress any expression of their beliefs, religious or otherwise."

Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, Austin and El Paso have ordinances making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and some have been on the books longer than a decade. Smith said adding San Antonio to the list would nonetheless be a major victory given the fierce opposition that has erupted within the past month.

Victories on a state level in Texas remain much more elusive for gay rights advocates. Asked to recall a significant recent achievement in the Legislature, Smith took a long pause, then pointed toward a statewide nondiscrimination law proposed in the Senate this spring.

Not because the bill passed, but because it was filed at all.

"It's hard to tell when things will turn around," Castro said. "But my hope is that the time will come very soon."

*through clenched teeth* Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians.

FUCK. I'm done.

 

[jamesinclair]

You would have my vote.

Anyone who votes no is a free-market hating communist.

The current system is full of handouts. We need to stop treating all the states like equals when theyre not. Im tired of all the taker states with their hands out.

If we vote them back into territories, then they can lift themselves back into states using their own bootstraps.

It could be a good learning experience for them as well.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What is your evidence that the rebels never had any chemical weapons, despite as you claim, having access to the CW locations?

Can't prove a negative, yo.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Hehe nice ad hominem in the end there. So in the grand show off of the he-said-she-said when it comes to evidence for this, who is YOUR go-to source at which you shut YOUR brain off to any other contradicting evidence?

What is your evidence that the rebels never had any chemical weapons, despite as you claim, having access to the CW locations? At which point does evidence become "compelling" for the UN if there are reports out there indicating they had? Is it the same compelling evidence that the US is using to say that there have been over 1400 deaths, when everyone else says around 500?

Your opinions on the characteristics of the munition as "huge, produced in bulk, standardised and clearrly professionally manufactured" is all nice and well, but again I ask, in the battle of conflicting reports, why should I trust whatever "classified intelligence" report you are basing your own opinions from? or John Kerry for that matter? Should I listen instead to Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, that point to Saudi Arabia providing the weapons? That definitely goes along with the undeniable narrative the Saudis/Qatar have been arming the rebels, want to see Assad gone, and have been pressing the US to intervene.

The point is a world full of CHEEZMOs stood by in agreement while we were fed "irrefutable evidence" from "classified sources" to take us into a war under false pretenses quite recently. A world full of you continue to get riled over coordinated (and condoned) attacks that are used as an excuse for US intervention (from the Spanish-American war, up to the present day). It would help if we were all a bit more critical.

You're asking me to prove a negative? There's no evidence of the rebels having chemical weapons. This is not in dispute except for the people at InfoWars who jumped on the MintPress article, which is itself a load of nonsense just on the face of it. Only an idiot would lend any credence to it. Unless you think the biggest story of the century so far is going to be broken on some random unknown independent news site with no-one serious taking it up except conspiracy blogs.

Even if everything in it was 100% trufact, it's still absurd. Prince Bandar, Master of the League of Shadows, somehow got hold of massive amounts of nerve agent (from somewhere, dont ask) smuggled it into Damascus where it was mis-handled and was released in multiple different locations at the same time just as a government bombardment of those exact same areas took place. Next they'll be shipping nanothermite in.

And I'd believe the UN would find evidence "compelling" when there is some, which there isn't.

And I'm not basing my opinions on any intelligence reports. I've not read any of those that have been released. I'm basing it on things I've seen and tracked personally, and information from independent munitions & CW experts and video analysts.

Here's a post I've made previously.

Evidence to support the idea Assad's forces are responsible:

The only people who have previously used the munitions linked to the attack have been the government. Even if they had them, the only people who are known to have the capabilities to deploy them is the government. The only people known to have access to chemical weapons is the government. Eye-witness reports claim the rockets came from government-held territory, something backed up by the location and orientation of the munitions recovered. The areas that were attacked were also subject to conventional shelling by the government during and after the attack.

All this is just the stuff readily, publicly available. Who knows what info state intellignce agencies have (tissue samples, soil samples, intecepted communications, other sorts of spy shit).

Evidence for the FALSE FLAG theory:

If you have any information on the munitions linked to the CW attack then present it to someone.

You'd do good to drop the Switzerland approach to information. Oh one side says [sensible thing], but this other side says [extraordinary thing]. Clearly they are both as likely and realistic and we should always keep an open mind etc etc. It's the sort of nonsense that leads to Homeopathy advocates on the BBC. You call yourself critical but it's clear that my initial judgement of you simply swallowing something if it goes with what you believe/want to be true was correct.

If you have any evidence the opposition were behind the attack on August 21st, present it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

NC taking a hit nationally.



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/north-carolinas-national-image-declines.html

NC does have a lot of great looking snow bunnies though.

Not enough to give it a pass, but goddamn, son.

 

[PhoenixDark]

NC does have a lot of great looking snow bunnies though.

Not enough to give it a pass, but goddamn, son.

It's like pawg heaven. But then again many states down there are like that.

 

[Sanky Panky]

You're asking me to prove a negative? There's no evidence of the rebels having chemical weapons. This is not in dispute except for the people at InfoWars who jumped on the MintPress article, which is itself a load of nonsense just on the face of it.

If you are still referring to the article that had actual boots on the ground of the attack (since UN inspectors were not, as US officials called off the investigation after they landed in Damascus), and actually interviewed those affected, I don't see why you completely dismiss it over some declassified report by the beneficiaries of Assad going down. If the best they have is "high confidence" in the evidence, as much as they had high confidence in their case against Hussein, fool me twice...

Even if everything in it was 100% trufact, it's still absurd. Prince Bandar, Master of the League of Shadows, somehow got hold of massive amounts of nerve agent (from somewhere, dont ask) smuggled it into Damascus where it was mis-handled and was released in multiple different locations at the same time just as a government bombardment of those exact same areas took place. Next they'll be shipping nanothermite in.

Considering the small nation of Qatar has already thrown in a few BILLION dollars worth of support to the rebels, we should question what the main beneficiaries of Assad going down are willing to invest or supply. As for the government bombardments, would you say it takes 3 hours (according to the US) from the time the rocket launches are detected, to the time we first hear about the chemical attack on twitter/social media?

And I'm not basing my opinions on any intelligence reports. I've not read any of those that have been released. I'm basing it on things I've seen and tracked personally, and information from independent munitions & CW experts and video analysts.

Are we looking at the same videos (where rockets look like very simple home-made tubes), and reading the same experts that question the accuracy of the US claims? Back to my original point, as you can see, in the battle of opposing claims/evidence, I questions the claims of those who start wars for profit, and have lied about evidence for the past 100+ years to get into those wars.

You call yourself critical but it's clear that my initial judgement of you simply swallowing something if it goes with what you believe/want to be true was correct.

History will be the judge of that. The likes of you swallowed up the government narratives on the attacks on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, the Tonkin Gulf, Saddam chemical attacks, WMDs.... and they all turned out to be planned/enabled attacks to take us to war. It does take a few decades to uncover these, so we can take up the conversation again then.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Why don't you get a job, eight year old taker? I bet you are from an inner city, too. Let me blow on this dog whistle.

Just one time, just one time---I want to see one of these blowhards going to town on this nonsense actually attacked out of nowhere by random dogs in the area mid hateful tirade.

2013 and people are still spouting this same bootstrap nonsense...ugh.

 

[Wilsongt]

*slams head on the desk repeatedly unless he has brain damage*


Gay rights groups seek anti-bias victory in Texas




*through clenched teeth* Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians. Anti-discrimination laws do not affect Christians.

FUCK. I'm done.

It passed. Suck it, haters.

 

[Chumly]

If you are still referring to the article that had actual boots on the ground of the attack (since UN inspectors were not, as US officials called off the investigation after they landed in Damascus), and actually interviewed those affected, I don't see why you completely dismiss it over some declassified report by the beneficiaries of Assad going down. If the best they have is "high confidence" in the evidence, as much as they had high confidence in their case against Hussein, fool me twice...



Considering the small nation of Qatar has already thrown in a few BILLION dollars worth of support to the rebels, we should question what the main beneficiaries of Assad going down are willing to invest or supply. As for the government bombardments, would you say it takes 3 hours (according to the US) from the time the rocket launches are detected, to the time we first hear about the chemical attack on twitter/social media?



Are we looking at the same videos (where rockets look like very simple home-made tubes), and reading the same experts that question the accuracy of the US claims? Back to my original point, as you can see, in the battle of opposing claims/evidence, I questions the claims of those who start wars for profit, and have lied about evidence for the past 100+ years to get into those wars.



History will be the judge of that. The likes of you swallowed up the government narratives on the attacks on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, the Tonkin Gulf, Saddam chemical attacks, WMDs.... and they all turned out to be planned/enabled attacks to take us to war. It does take a few decades to uncover these, so we can take up the conversation again then.

How did the us government cause Pearl Harbor? Did we send in us planes to bomb the ships?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

If you are still referring to the article that had actual boots on the ground of the attack (since UN inspectors were not, as US officials called off the investigation after they landed in Damascus), and actually interviewed those affected, I don't see why you completely dismiss it over some declassified report by the beneficiaries of Assad going down. If the best they have is "high confidence" in the evidence, as much as they had high confidence in their case against Hussein, fool me twice...

You mean the article that ends with "Some information in this article could not be independently verified." then yes. Especially given that it wasn't Gavlak on the ground, but Ababneh (who was nobody before this ultra-scoop).

And I already told you I haven't even read the intelligence reports and formed my opinion independently before they even came out. Some of us don't have to be told what to think about things.

Also as an interesting aside - Dan Kaszeta, who the ZH page uses to support itself, also thinks the Mint Press article in nonsense and that he believes the Assad government or its proxies were behind the attack.

Considering the small nation of Qatar has already thrown in a few BILLION dollars worth of support to the rebels, we should question what the main beneficiaries of Assad going down are willing to invest or supply. As for the government bombardments, would you say it takes 3 hours (according to the US) from the time the rocket launches are detected, to the time we first hear about the chemical attack on twitter/social media?

So the scenario I laid out in that quote is plausible to you? Okay.

And I don't know - maybe coming under a massive conventional and WMD attack in the middle of the night slows down peoples' rush to Youtube.

Are we looking at the same videos (where rockets look like very simple home-made tubes), and reading the same experts that question the accuracy of the US claims?

You mean these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y6CZtF6pGvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xrmPdJhbxcA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ThtLIc0iEzc#t=34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=E0lzUvozF1c

These look like home-made tubes to you?

For reference, this is what your typical manufactured IRAM looks like

History will be the judge of that. The likes of you swallowed up the government narratives on the attacks on the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, the Tonkin Gulf, Saddam chemical attacks, WMDs.... and they all turned out to be planned/enabled attacks to take us to war. It does take a few decades to uncover these, so we can take up the conversation again then.

That's a pretty roundabout way to cry "sheeple".

 

[Sanky Panky]

How did the us government cause Pearl Harbor? Did we send in us planes to bomb the ships?

They didn't cause it. However, we now know that they knew about the Japanese attack in advance. The US needed something to go to war, so nothing was done to prevent the attack.

CHEEZMO™, I would like your input on this article.

I had my point of view before I read it today, and basically corroborates my version.

 

[Karakand]

Kids not having the money for lunch is a teaching moment now apparently.

If I had editorial powers at marxists.org I would replace the text of Karl Korsch's "Why I Am a Marxist" with the text of this article.

 

[Tamanon]

They didn't cause it. However, we now know that they knew about the Japanese attack in advance. The US needed something to go to war, so nothing was done to prevent the attack.

CHEEZMO™, I would like your input on this article.

I had my point of view before I read it today, and basically corroborates my version.

Foiling a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would drag us into war just as quickly as allowing it to happen. It doesn't matter that the Japanese wrecked the place, it matters that they tried. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

They didn't cause it. However, we now know that they knew about the Japanese attack in advance. The US needed something to go to war, so nothing was done to prevent the attack.

No, we don't know this. Some people think this. Just like some people think that the United States government caused 9/11. Or that the Syrian chemical attack is a false flag operation.

And I'm not sure why that would even matter.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Foiling a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would drag us into war just as quickly as allowing it to happen. It doesn't matter that the Japanese wrecked the place, it matters that they tried. Doesn't make sense.

Very neatly summed up.

By all accounts war with Japan was looming, but the exact nature of an attack was unknown.

 

[Chumly]

They didn't cause it. However, we now know that they knew about the Japanese attack in advance. The US needed something to go to war, so nothing was done to prevent the attack.

CHEEZMO™, I would like your input on this article.

I had my point of view before I read it today, and basically corroborates my version.

There is no evidence supporting what you just said and it doesn't make any sense. Had the United States been 100 percent ready it would have been enough to go to war anyways.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Foiling a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would drag us into war just as quickly as allowing it to happen. It doesn't matter that the Japanese wrecked the place, it matters that they tried. Doesn't make sense.

Sadly the key to these events is that they rile up the population through casualties. The goal is to gain support from the people to make the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Sadly the key to these events is that they rile up the population through casualties. The goal is to gain support from the people to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Sadly people want things to be more complicated than they actually are.

 

[ridethepiggy]

Heh

As the struggle to secure House votes for or against authorization for military strikes in Syria accelerates, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has started making plans to team up with isolationist conservatives to stop the resolution, TPM has learned.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) has become the leader of the progressive resistance. He is planning an “ad hoc whip operation,” as he called it in a phone interview with TPM. That includes supplying other aligned members with talking points and giving them the names of undecided colleagues to lobby for a no vote.

Grayson’s office has also been in touch with staffs for Republicans who oppose military action against Syria, such as tea party favorite Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), about crafting an organized strategy for lobbying no votes.

The White House’s repeated briefings on Syria aren’t having the desired effect on members, Grayson told TPM, while the constituents have been clogging congressional phone lines with opposition to military authorization.

Alan Grayson is our John Connor.

 

[ScubaD00d]

This administration is a total embarrassment.

 

[Wilsongt]

This administration is a total embarrassment.

[citation needed]

 

[Tamanon]

This administration is a total embarrassment.

Alright SomeDude

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

This administration is a total embarrassment.

Thank you for your contribution

 

[ridethepiggy]

Alright SomeDude

Civil War is upon us, man. The South shall rise again.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Alright SomeDude

SOON

 

[PhoenixDark]

Heh



Alan Grayson is our John Connor.

Good, if Rand Paul* won't stand up someone else will. I'd love for there to be more Graysons, even if I disagree with him on some issues. There really isn't any left wing pressure system like the tea party. Not long ago republicans just fell in line, but over the last 3 years they've blown up a series of bills. I'd love that type of situation on the left - just less crazy, obviously.

*he's getting more cautious, which tells me he's running for president

 

[Diablos]

Big news today is KFF's study on Obamacare premiums.

While premiums will vary significantly across the country, they are generally lower than expected. For example, we estimate that the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office imply that the premium for a 40-year-old in the second lowest cost silver plan would average $320 per month nationally. Fifteen of the eighteen rating areas we examined have premiums below this level, suggesting that the cost of coverage for consumers and the federal budgetary cost for tax credits will be lower than anticipated.​

...those premiums don't look so bad. I really wish there was more data on Pennyslvania. I need to make a decision about my health insurance soon.

 

[Chumly]

Sadly the key to these events is that they rile up the population through casualties. The goal is to gain support from the people to make the ultimate sacrifice.

So your telling me that the United States deliberately had over 2400 people killed and over 1200 people wounded along with having billions of damage done to sunk and damaged ships/planes etc? Yea that is crazy.


Do you also believe that the United States was behind 09/11?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Is it conspiracy day today?

 

[Tamanon]

Is it conspiracy day today?

Started yesterday when people started theorizing that Microsoft started the fire in that RAM factory.

 

[Diablos]

What's the latest on the GOP's efforts to defund PPACA during the debt ceiling manufactured crisis of 2013?

September: GOP votes against use of force to protect Syria

October: GOP: "Why hasn't Obama done anything about Assad?"

Yeah pretty much.

 

[ridethepiggy]

What's the latest on the GOP's efforts to defund PPACA during the debt ceiling manufactured crisis of 2013?


Yeah pretty much.

It's not going to happen. Don't even worry. Seriously, just don't even pay it attention.

 

[Diablos]

It's not going to happen. Don't even worry. Seriously, just don't even pay it attention.

It's not? How can you be sure?
And you better believe if Obama strikes Syria should Congress say no, they are going to pour a lot of that angst into cockblocking his agenda even more during our next oh so hideous manufactured crisis.

I thought it over and I really do think Obama needs to stay the fuck out of Syria. I just can't see any good coming out of it in the long term. He can blow up every known chemical and weapons facility in the region that poses a threat and these barbarians will continue to slaughter innocent men, women and children regardless.

 

[Tamanon]

It's not? How can you be sure?
And you better believe if Obama strikes Syria should Congress say no, they are going to pour a lot of that angst into cockblocking his agenda even more during our next oh so hideous manufactured crisis.

I thought it over and I really do think Obama needs to stay the fuck out of Syria. I just can't see any good coming out of it in the long term. He can blow up every known chemical and weapons facility in the region that poses a threat and these barbarians will continue to slaughter innocent men, women and children regardless.

Obama isn't going to strike Syria if Congress says no.

Also, Congress probably won't say no.

 

[Sanky Panky]

So your telling me that the United States deliberately had over 2400 people killed and over 1200 people wounded along with having billions of damage done to sunk and damaged ships/planes etc? Yea that is crazy.

I'm just stating the now known information that they knew about the attack, and that it happened. That events like this have to happen to take us to war, is also a documented method drafted in paper by policy makers in the past. That economic history highlights who profits and benefits from these conflicts, is also well documented.

I'm not making a statement on the moral authority (or lack thereof) of the US. We can all come to our own conclusions.

 

[PhoenixDark]

September: GOP votes against use of force to protect Syria

October: GOP: "Why hasn't Obama done anything about Assad?"

Eh? He's going to order an attack regardless of what congress says.

 

[Diablos]

Obama isn't going to strike Syria if Congress says no.

Also, Congress probably won't say no.

He might be saying that in hopes that Congress will authorize it, then after getting pissed will do so anyway.

Congress seems to be leaning towards no outside of committees and such.

 

[Tamanon]

He might be saying that in hopes that Congress will authorize it, then after getting pissed will do so anyway.

Congress seems to be leaning towards no outside of committees and such.

If Congress says no, and the American people say no, and we don't really care about Syria to begin with, what possible reason would he have to strike?

And don't give me any of that nonsense about using this to surround Iran that some other weirdoes are doing. If that was the purpose, then Congress would be selling it also.

 

[TacticalFox88]

If Obama does a "strike" without Congressional consent, it basically is going to be a clandestine special forces operation on the ground to remove the chemical weapons. A job for the CIA's SAD or Delta operatives.

 

[ridethepiggy]

It's not? How can you be sure?
And you better believe if Obama strikes Syria should Congress say no, they are going to pour a lot of that angst into cockblocking his agenda even more during our next oh so hideous manufactured crisis.

Do you not realize that the insurance companies have spent billions to prepare for the ACA? They've hired thousands of new employees for the call centers, the agents, folks to handle commission, as well as incorporating brand new systems. Obama isn't going to sign off on legislation that defunds the ACA. The Senate isn't going to pass legislation that defunds the ACA. The House will have to decide if it wants to fuck the economy over even though they won't be able to defund the ACA. Boehner and Cantor have said they're not going to do it. If you want to believe in something that doesn't have any logical chance of taking place, well, thats your choice.