Random Political comments...
- Thread starter Bliss
- Start date
archangel
Well-Known Member
I support them but I don't have faith things will change. The days of a good USA died some where aroung the regan years.
orejon4
Well-Known Member
I hate to admit it, but I think you're right. Well, no fast food for me for awhile... at least at those establishments.
Peach State Scholar
Well-Known Member
I fully support this! I only eat at McDonald's once a month (if that) and I haven't had KFC in years but I actually like Wendy's. It looks I'll be going without for a while.
I'd like to add that Wal-Mart needs to get their act together as well. If there's any company that can give its employees a raise and still make billions every year, it's that one.
orejon4
Well-Known Member
Their greed is shameful. And shameless. I love McDonald's fries and Quarter Pounders and Wendy's burgers rock. Oh well. I make a mean cheeseburger myself.
Bliss
Well-Known Member
Update:
Syrian Electronic Army claims responsibility for hacking US Marines website with images of 'servicemen' holding signs condemning military strikes
Photo of sailor, who bears the insignia of a Chief Petty Officer, now appears to have been faked by the pro-Assad group
The Syrian Electronic Army has claimed responsibility for a cyber attack after the pro-Assad group hacked into the U.S. Marines website on Monday and posted seemingly staged pictures of 'servicemen' holding up signs condemning American military strikes.
The picture of an unidentified man, dressed like a Navy officer, swept the web after he appeared in full regalia while covering his face with a sign which read: 'I didn't join the Navy to fight for al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war!'
It has now been revealed that marines.com was infiltrated by the SEA but quickly returned to normal. It follows the hacking of the New York Times website last week where nothing but error messages appeared for seven hours.
The SEA wrote a long message to its 'brothers' in the Marines, according to the International Business Times.
The hack included pictures of men dressed in U.S. military uniforms holding up signs condemning attacks on Syria.
Last edited:
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
Incredible foresight..........
I have been saying something like this for years, not realizing that I was a Huxleyan the whole time.
It's pretty pathetic how things are happening and no one seems to care because it's not in their own backyard.
Archman
Well-Known Member
I align my self as a conservative... but credit democratic leadership for being better at keeping me and my country out of war.....One nation cannot police the world unilaterally and be it’s savior.......Why this president, at this time in history, is desiring to go against his traditional grain and insert our country in this conflict is beyond me,......... I, like so many other Americans just have a very bad feeling in my gut this time about that choice and an uncustomary price we might have to pay for our arrogance.......
Last edited:
Morning Star
Well-Known Member
Blacktiger2005
Well-Known Member
I give Russian President Putin the score in chess over President Obama for out slicking him over the proposal to get the Syrians to turn over their chemical weapons. What a masterful chess move over our community organizer. Putin being the master judo martial artists that he is, out manuevered our President and on top of that he question American exceptionalism. Many here in America particularly on the left wish Putin was their President.
Loki
Well-Known Member
This is beyond laughable, nobody in their right mind would want Putin as President here in the US. Even a brief google search on Putin's record as de facto dictator will show numerous crimes. Do you really think that Syria would have been so willing to negotiate with Russia at the last second if our warships were not present and awaiting the attack order? I don't agree that we should attack Syria, but the threat of an attack is clearly bearing fruit.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/opinion/ghitis-putin-hypocrisy/index.html
Last edited:
Blacktiger2005
Well-Known Member
In the coming weeks the drama that will be played out on Capital Hill will be to fund the government or let it shut down. The central issue will be to defund ObamaCare. The President will refuse to let it happen, and after all ObamaCare is law. But the Republican opposition will refuse to budge and will let the nation's government shut down to prove their point. Could this spell defeat for the Republicans in their bids to capture the Senate and keep the House in own 2014 and 2016 if it proves to be their own miscalculation? Not beyond laughable I say
Loki
Well-Known Member
Paul Ryan says government shutdown wouldn't sideline Obamacare
Some congressional Republicans are threatening to deny funding for government operations unless a provision is included to defund President Barack Obama’s health care law. Because defunding Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment is a nonstarter for Democrats, lawmakers are now openly pondering the possibility of a government shutdown.
Other Republicans -- including Paul Ryan, the party’s former vice presidential nominee -- are warning that a government shutdown is a bad idea and won’t work anyway. That was a point he made on the Aug. 4, 2013, edition of CBS’ Face the Nation.
"Obamacare is an entitlement like Medicare and Social Security is, and so the entitlement carries on even under a government shutdown scenario," said Ryan, who is also the House budget chairman.
First, some background.
Shutdowns occur when appropriations bills expire, and Congress and the president are at an impasse. A shutdown typically prevents federal agencies from carrying out any functions deemed non-essential.
A shutdown last occurred in the mid 1990s, when President Bill Clinton squared off against a new Republican majority in the House and Senate. That led to two shutdowns -- one for five days in November 1995 and the other for 21 days from December 1995 to January 1996.
Some government functions are not reliant on congressional appropriations, and these can usually continue unimpeded in the face of a shutdown. Several elements of the health care law fall into this category.
Here’s a summary of some of the key provisions of the health care law and how they might be affected by shutdown.
Insurance exchanges and premium subsidies
Ryan referred to Obamacare being like such "entitlements" as Social Security and Medicare, which are not affected by shutdowns. An entitlement is a government program that is funded by a formula, rather than by the kinds of specific congressional appropriations that run out in a shutdown. Any American who meets the criteria for receiving the benefit will keep receiving payments even in the absence of congressional appropriations.
The health care law creates online marketplaces where uninsured Americans can purchase health insurance, and it offers them means-tested subsidies to help pay the premiums for those plans.
The subsidies fit the definition of an entitlement most directly. Because the subsidies are provided in the form of tax credits, they are not subject to appropriations, and thus should be able to proceed during a shutdown.
As for the operations of the exchanges themselves, these too seem likely to be unaffected by a shutdown, although for a different reason. The independent Congressional Research Service has concluded that implementation of the insurance marketplace is being funded by long-term appropriations -- funding streams that won’t be cut off during a government shutdown.
There’s one caveat, however: Delays could still occur if federal agencies have no workers, or too few, to carry out needed tasks.
This has been an issue in the past with Social Security Administration employees. The agency’s operational employees are paid through appropriated funds. Would a shutdown prevent employees from going to work, potentially halting operations?
A 1981 attorney general's opinion protects the right of at least some Social Security workers to carry out necessary functions -- and that’s essentially what happened during the 1995 shutdowns.
According to Social Security's official history on its website, 4,780 employees remained at work at the start of the four-day shutdown, while the other 61,415 were furloughed. But this cut "significantly impacted the Agency’s service to the public," the account said, and on the second day, additional employees were recalled to work.
The second shutdown -- which lasted three weeks, the longest in history -- could have brought even more severe consequences. But the agency deployed 55,000 employees and operations remained close to normal.
Noting the past experience of Social Security, CRS wrote, "it may be reasonable to infer that any similar benefit programs" under the health care law would have enough administrative flexibility to keep operations going during a shutdown.
In other words, there’s no guarantee, but it’s likely that operations will continue.
Tax provisions
In general, tax collection is not affected by a shutdown. Anyone who incurs taxes is still liable for paying them on a quarterly or annual basis, even if the IRS is in shutdown mode. In addition, exceptions exist for processing tax payments received during a shutdown.
Some Obamacare taxes, such as those on branded pharmaceuticals, need to be calculated and assessed in writing by IRS before the manufacturer pays them, so these could be affected by a shutdown, according to the Congressional Research Service. But even if there’s a delay, the taxes will ultimately be paid, shutdown or not. This is true for the mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance; people who run afoul of this pay their penalty through their tax return.
Regulations
Many key aspects of the health care law are regulatory in nature -- for instance, rules about what insurers have to cover, how much insurers need to spend on health-related expenses and protections for patients with pre-existing conditions or those with young adult children. While these are all part of the health care law, a government shutdown wouldn’t really affect them. At most, enforcement efforts might lag during a shutdown, but the rules will remain on the books and will have to be respected.
"At most, government enforcement activity might be put on hold, but after the shutdown people could be investigated and held liable for violations they committed during the shutdown period," said Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
We will conclude by emphasizing the rarity of government shutdowns, and the absence of any that lasted any significant period of time.
"It depends how long any shutdown goes on," said Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. "It's easy to be creative for a short period but harder after a while."
Our ruling
Ryan said that "Obamacare … carries on even under a government shutdown." For various reasons, most key parts of the law -- the insurance marketplace, the premium subsidies, and the taxes and regulations -- should continue unimpeded. But shutdowns are rare and unpredictable, so we can’t be entirely sure that there will be no major interruptions. We rate his claim Mostly True.
Blacktiger2005
Well-Known Member
Paul Ryan says government shutdown wouldn't sideline Obamacare
Share this story:
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said that President Barack Obama's health care law wouldn't be affected by a potential government shutdown. Is that correct?
Some congressional Republicans are threatening to deny funding for government operations unless a provision is included to defund President Barack Obama’s health care law. Because defunding Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment is a nonstarter for Democrats, lawmakers are now openly pondering the possibility of a government shutdown.
Other Republicans -- including Paul Ryan, the party’s former vice presidential nominee -- are warning that a government shutdown is a bad idea and won’t work anyway. That was a point he made on the Aug. 4, 2013, edition of CBS’ Face the Nation.
"Obamacare is an entitlement like Medicare and Social Security is, and so the entitlement carries on even under a government shutdown scenario," said Ryan, who is also the House budget chairman.
First, some background.
Shutdowns occur when appropriations bills expire, and Congress and the president are at an impasse. A shutdown typically prevents federal agencies from carrying out any functions deemed non-essential.
A shutdown last occurred in the mid 1990s, when President Bill Clinton squared off against a new Republican majority in the House and Senate. That led to two shutdowns -- one for five days in November 1995 and the other for 21 days from December 1995 to January 1996.
Some government functions are not reliant on congressional appropriations, and these can usually continue unimpeded in the face of a shutdown. Several elements of the health care law fall into this category.
Here’s a summary of some of the key provisions of the health care law and how they might be affected by shutdown.
Insurance exchanges and premium subsidies
Ryan referred to Obamacare being like such "entitlements" as Social Security and Medicare, which are not affected by shutdowns. An entitlement is a government program that is funded by a formula, rather than by the kinds of specific congressional appropriations that run out in a shutdown. Any American who meets the criteria for receiving the benefit will keep receiving payments even in the absence of congressional appropriations.
The health care law creates online marketplaces where uninsured Americans can purchase health insurance, and it offers them means-tested subsidies to help pay the premiums for those plans.
The subsidies fit the definition of an entitlement most directly. Because the subsidies are provided in the form of tax credits, they are not subject to appropriations, and thus should be able to proceed during a shutdown.
As for the operations of the exchanges themselves, these too seem likely to be unaffected by a shutdown, although for a different reason. The independent Congressional Research Service has concluded that implementation of the insurance marketplace is being funded by long-term appropriations -- funding streams that won’t be cut off during a government shutdown.
There’s one caveat, however: Delays could still occur if federal agencies have no workers, or too few, to carry out needed tasks.
This has been an issue in the past with Social Security Administration employees. The agency’s operational employees are paid through appropriated funds. Would a shutdown prevent employees from going to work, potentially halting operations?
A 1981 attorney general's opinion protects the right of at least some Social Security workers to carry out necessary functions -- and that’s essentially what happened during the 1995 shutdowns.
According to Social Security's official history on its website, 4,780 employees remained at work at the start of the four-day shutdown, while the other 61,415 were furloughed. But this cut "significantly impacted the Agency’s service to the public," the account said, and on the second day, additional employees were recalled to work.
The second shutdown -- which lasted three weeks, the longest in history -- could have brought even more severe consequences. But the agency deployed 55,000 employees and operations remained close to normal.
Noting the past experience of Social Security, CRS wrote, "it may be reasonable to infer that any similar benefit programs" under the health care law would have enough administrative flexibility to keep operations going during a shutdown.
In other words, there’s no guarantee, but it’s likely that operations will continue.
Tax provisions
In general, tax collection is not affected by a shutdown. Anyone who incurs taxes is still liable for paying them on a quarterly or annual basis, even if the IRS is in shutdown mode. In addition, exceptions exist for processing tax payments received during a shutdown.
Some Obamacare taxes, such as those on branded pharmaceuticals, need to be calculated and assessed in writing by IRS before the manufacturer pays them, so these could be affected by a shutdown, according to the Congressional Research Service. But even if there’s a delay, the taxes will ultimately be paid, shutdown or not. This is true for the mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance; people who run afoul of this pay their penalty through their tax return.
Regulations
Many key aspects of the health care law are regulatory in nature -- for instance, rules about what insurers have to cover, how much insurers need to spend on health-related expenses and protections for patients with pre-existing conditions or those with young adult children. While these are all part of the health care law, a government shutdown wouldn’t really affect them. At most, enforcement efforts might lag during a shutdown, but the rules will remain on the books and will have to be respected.
"At most, government enforcement activity might be put on hold, but after the shutdown people could be investigated and held liable for violations they committed during the shutdown period," said Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
We will conclude by emphasizing the rarity of government shutdowns, and the absence of any that lasted any significant period of time.
"It depends how long any shutdown goes on," said Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. "It's easy to be creative for a short period but harder after a while."
Our ruling
Ryan said that "Obamacare … carries on even under a government shutdown." For various reasons, most key parts of the law -- the insurance marketplace, the premium subsidies, and the taxes and regulations -- should continue unimpeded. But shutdowns are rare and unpredictable, so we can’t be entirely sure that there will be no major interruptions. We rate his claim Mostly True.
Mr. Loki, good post, however, despite Ryan and others like Rubio, there is a faction within the Republican Party that is at war with the more moderates in that party. The Republican Party is in a civil war so to speak. The more level headed moderates are trying to steer the party away from the extremes who are determine to kill ObamaCare even if it means the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I heard recently the sentiment displayed by a Republican Senator who actually said "it might be a good thing to put the brakes on the government". What they fail to realize that once "NIMBY" hits (not in my back yard) many of them will find their asses in defeat in the next elections. If that is what they want, then so be it. President Obama like Micheal Corelone will survive.
Last edited:
Blacktiger2005
Well-Known Member
There must be a master game distractor. With all the distractions going on with Syria, the coming fight over ObamaCare, etc... this national security agency (NSA). Do you remember? The NSA is making a huge pitch for billions more dollars to create a new generation of quantum computers so powerful that it's unimaginable the processing and storage capabilities would perform surveillances beyond what we have heard from Mr. Snowden. This is scary. When is the American people going to demand that something gets done to protect our privacy and put safeguards and controls over an agency with so much power to snoop into our lives? I hate to say this but we are in the process of living under a digital dictatorship. If it's not this current government I worry about. It's future governments to come that worry me the most. What if we end up with another Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, or J.R. Ewing mindset running our government?
Last edited:
Blacktiger2005
Well-Known Member
Syria is a client state of Russia. Russia has a naval base in Syria. Russia calls the shots. If it's one thing the arabs in that region understand and that is strength. Obama appears to be weak. He has a lot to learn about this ruthless and cunning Putin. Putin did not get to where he is without learning how to get and use power. Putin was the former head of the KGB and he relish rubbing our President's nose now that he has Mr. Snowden provide him with so much of this nations intelligence secrets. By the way there is an oil pipeline in Syria that the Russians have a vested interest in. Bomb the Syrians, kill a few Russians than we would have the beginnings of a Third World War. Political gamesmanship and geopolitical strategy is the calculus here that the average american does not have a clue.
andreboba
Well-Known Member
When's the last time Russia directly went to war to defend a client state??
One thing the Russians WON'T do is spill Russian blood to defend an ally post-WW2.
The Russians provide logistical and military aid, after that you're on your own.
Your fawning over Putin like he's some great man U.S. Presidents should strive to emulate is nauseating and contradictory.
What kind of surveillance do you think the Russian Secret police institute against their own citizens?? Putin probably laughs about the controversy here surrounding the NSA because in Russian terms, it's totally amateurish.
Remember there's no genuine due process in Russia. You can disappear tomorrow without explanation and that's business as usual.
Be careful embracing someone simply because they're an adversary of a POTUS you don't like.
Putin is NOT a good dude.
He's a dictator and will be until he dies.
Ask yourself, do you really want a ruthless and cunning POTUS who couldn't give a shit about the individual rights of American citizens??
Putin is still fighting the Cold War and can't come to terms with the fact his side lost.
artyman:BTW Snowden is a traitor.
I hope we've ended that noise that he's a whistleblower with the American public's best interests at heart.
Giving national security intelligence to the Chinese and Russians because you have a problem with the NSA is insane.