Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
27 user(s) are online (23 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 27

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users






positive connotations
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

tern wrote:
I find it odd that Republicans attempt to use the term Obamacare as a pejorative.

This portmanteau has only positive connotations in most people's eyes.

Robin.


Have you figured it out yet?



How about now?



How about now?



Posted on: 2013/10/31 1:04
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

tern wrote:
I find it odd that Republicans attempt to use the term Obamacare as a pejorative.

This portmanteau has only positive connotations in most people's eyes.

Robin.


Have you figured it out yet?



How about now?




Posted on: 2013/10/24 2:31
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/17 1:11
Last Login :
1/28 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1182
Offline
Quote:

boomer wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
No, sorry. However you dress it up, the essence is simple:

The side that tries to keep the hostage in the war zone, - is the side that is guilty of hostage taking. The side that is trying to remove the hostage from the war zone, - is not guilty.

That is it.

Republicans have passed the budget that would fund lots of programs. Now, you can claim that Obama can't sign that budget because if he did, he would lose the fight over obamacare, - and that claim would be true.


However, if Respublicans are trying to remove the funding for other programs from the negotiating table, and Obama keeps it there, - it is Obama who's taking those programs hostage, plain and simple.


Hey Boris,

Since you've taken the position that it's the President who is taking hostages I just wanted to ask you something.

Why won't Speaker Boehner allow a vote on a clean continuing resolution? If we're pointing fingers I'm pointing at him now.

especially considering the huge margins it passed with in both houses.

Posted on: 2013/10/18 14:17
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
Quote:

tern wrote:
I find it odd that Republicans attempt to use the term Obamacare as a pejorative.

This portmanteau has only positive connotations in most people's eyes.

Robin.


Have you figured it out yet?


Posted on: 2013/10/18 4:00
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#24
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/10/13 2:56
Last Login :
2019/2/15 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
No, sorry. However you dress it up, the essence is simple:

The side that tries to keep the hostage in the war zone, - is the side that is guilty of hostage taking. The side that is trying to remove the hostage from the war zone, - is not guilty.

That is it.

Republicans have passed the budget that would fund lots of programs. Now, you can claim that Obama can't sign that budget because if he did, he would lose the fight over obamacare, - and that claim would be true.


However, if Respublicans are trying to remove the funding for other programs from the negotiating table, and Obama keeps it there, - it is Obama who's taking those programs hostage, plain and simple.


Hey Boris,

Since you've taken the position that it's the President who is taking hostages I just wanted to ask you something.

Why won't Speaker Boehner allow a vote on a clean continuing resolution? If we're pointing fingers I'm pointing at him now.


Posted on: 2013/10/7 15:03
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/5/10 16:36
Last Login :
8/2 12:44
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 912
Offline
I find it odd that Republicans attempt to use the term Obamacare as a pejorative.

This portmanteau has only positive connotations in most people's eyes.

Robin.

Posted on: 2013/10/5 1:58
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45
Last Login :
9/26 21:01
From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 170
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

HCResident wrote:

Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively.

So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy.



Your clue contradicts the facts. Here, Senator Reid made acceptance of obamacare a condition for the conference.

The honest description is "Democrats refuse to go to conference unless Republicans capitulate first".



No, it actually doesn?t contradict the facts. There are two bodies of the Legislative Branch. One of the two bodies is not willing to gut a law that was passed by both houses of congress, signed by the President and upheld by a conservative majority Supreme Court. It happens all of the time. The founders of our nation specifically designed things this way to make sure that one party, or one small faction, cannot force its will on the nation.

The Senate is simply not going to negotiate on the ACA, so anyone that is reasonable would understand that you sit down and come to an agreement on what you can. And even if the Senate were to suddenly capitulate to the will of the House Republicans, and gutted the health care law, the President would veto it. And it takes two thirds of both chambers of congress to override a veto which doesn?t exist in this case. These are simply the facts and part of the checks and balances built into our governing system.

So you want us all to believe that it is the Democrats and President Obama who are the hostage takers. What fantasy world do you live in? Why would the democratically controlled Senate and the President agree to gut a law that they passed and believe in? If the Republicans are not happy with that law, then the constitution has built in a way for them to do this - convince the American people that your ideas and policies are best and then get enough of your party elected to repeal the law and/or alter it to your liking.

Oh, by the way, we just had an election where the ACA (or Obamacare as the Republicans want to call it) was one of the major issues contended. Funny thing is, Barack Obama won by 5 million votes and won 61% of the total Electoral College votes. In addition, the Democrats picked up 2 seats in the Senate and 9 seats in the House compared to the previous congress. It sure doesn?t seem like the American people spoke out very strongly against the healthcare law.

But even after an election where the Republicans lost the Executive Branch and lost seats in both houses of the Legislative Branch, they want to thumb their nose at the constitution that they claim to love so much and shut down the government because they can?t get their way under the rules set by that constitution. First they refuse to negotiate on the two versions of the passed budget resolutions because they know they?ll never get what they want and then they choose to shut down the government as a last resort. That is simply extortion and it?s just insanity. And quite frankly the Republicans who know that there is enough votes between both parties to end this mess right now, the same ones who love to throw around the idea of impeachment, should probably be impeached themselves for their total disregard for the constitution and the American people.

I?m sorry everyone doesn?t agree with your beliefs about governing and the direction of our country. I?m sure it sucks for you, just as it did for many of us under the Bush/Cheney years. But we live in a country with a constitution that put checks and balances into place and when we don?t get our way, we have to live with the outcome or work to change it through the proper process. Otherwise, we?ll be just some banana republic at the whim of whomever can grab power at any given moment.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 15:01
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#21
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/10/13 2:56
Last Login :
2019/2/15 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
This is an indefensible tactic by House Republicans to try to get their way plain and simple. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. It passed muster with the Supreme Court who found the law constitutional. If Republicans don't like it they should repeal the law. But they can't get the votes so they stamp their feet and say they don't like the law and that the only way we'll get the government back is by making it go away. That looks like a very unlikely outcome.

Wait until the Dems use this tactic when they're in the minority in the House and can't get their way. The Republicans will be screaming bloody murder.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 4:36
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
Quote:

HCResident wrote:

Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively.

So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy.



Your clue contradicts the facts. Here, Senator Reid made acceptance of obamacare a condition for the conference.

The honest description is "Democrats refuse to go to conference unless Republicans capitulate first".


Posted on: 2013/10/4 3:51
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3008
Offline
Quote:

shadrack wrote:
... Thank you Fox News.


I gave up watching both Fox and CNN. Very little news. Just boring and predictable opinions from the same jackasses.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 3:30
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45
Last Login :
9/26 21:01
From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 170
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
No, sorry. However you dress it up, the essence is simple:

The side that tries to keep the hostage in the war zone, - is the side that is guilty of hostage taking. The side that is trying to remove the hostage from the war zone, - is not guilty.

That is it.

Republicans have passed the budget that would fund lots of programs. Now, you can claim that Obama can't sign that budget because if he did, he would lose the fight over obamacare, - and that claim would be true.


However, if Respublicans are trying to remove the funding for other programs from the negotiating table, and Obama keeps it there, - it is Obama who's taking those programs hostage, plain and simple.


Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively.

So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy.

Wonder why the Republican lead House doesn't want to go to conference? Could it be that they know it will never make it out with all their ridiculous demands in tact?

Talk about a bunch of spoiled rotten imbeciles.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 2:40
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
No, sorry. However you dress it up, the essence is simple:

The side that tries to keep the hostage in the war zone, - is the side that is guilty of hostage taking. The side that is trying to remove the hostage from the war zone, - is not guilty.

That is it.

Republicans have passed the budget that would fund lots of programs. Now, you can claim that Obama can't sign that budget because if he did, he would lose the fight over obamacare, - and that claim would be true.


However, if Respublicans are trying to remove the funding for other programs from the negotiating table, and Obama keeps it there, - it is Obama who's taking those programs hostage, plain and simple.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 1:26
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#16
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/9/16 14:12
Last Login :
2020/2/27 14:10
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 47
Offline
Thanks for correcting me ... dates were wrong but my sentiments stay the same. ... :)

Quote:

boomer wrote:
Quote:

luvHomeMyJC wrote:
In the '80s we sent a man to the moon, invented the internet, broke the atom to unleash a new era of man. In 2013 we shut down the world's only superpower based on ideology. Is this the beginning of the fall or Rome? Saddened ... and Disappointed !!


80's? Man to the moon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

Last time a man was on the moon was 1972.


Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:54
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/17 1:11
Last Login :
1/28 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1182
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.



Are you kidding me? Republicans forced a shutdown and took away funding for every single piece of our federal government, and now you're trying to start pinning this on Democrats because they won't vote for piecemeal funding that is a blatant attempt to score political points?

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:48
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#14
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/10/13 2:56
Last Login :
2019/2/15 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:

So, the overwhelming mood here is that Sites is right and veterans are an important bargaining chip for the Democrats.



You've got that reversed, the GOP is using veterans as "an important bargaining chip"


And Sires was right to vote no.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:42
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#13
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/10/13 2:56
Last Login :
2019/2/15 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.



What's your point?



The House needs to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:39
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#12
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/10/13 2:56
Last Login :
2019/2/15 19:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 70
Offline
Quote:

luvHomeMyJC wrote:
In the '80s we sent a man to the moon, invented the internet, broke the atom to unleash a new era of man. In 2013 we shut down the world's only superpower based on ideology. Is this the beginning of the fall or Rome? Saddened ... and Disappointed !!


80's? Man to the moon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

Last time a man was on the moon was 1972.


Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:36
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/27 17:56
Last Login :
2015/4/10 4:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 402
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.



I am a war veteran and support the "no" vote. It is not a clean bill and is an irresponsible act that cloaks the reality that 80 Tea Party radicals are holding the country hostage.

It is obvious that John Boehner and the House Republicans are hiding behind the legacy of the people who served our country with honor to avoid the political criticism of their government shutdown. They think that we're as dumb as their 19% who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters.

Like other scams that House Republicans have tried, the speaker?s use of a vet as a human shield operation is a disgrace. The Tea Party Republicans in their severely gerrymandered districts wrap themselves in the American flag while imposing their undemocratic world view on the rest of us. They undermine everything that defines freedom and governance. Thank you Fox News.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:21
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1202
Offline
No, the overwhelming sentiment is that the ACA is the law of the land. It was passed by both houses of Congress, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and withstood over 40 attempts to repeal. The House cannot now hold up the country because they didn't get their way. This is childish.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 13:01
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/4/2 11:56
Last Login :
2018/10/5 14:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 728
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.


Sires? That isn't the story.

The story is an unnecessary bill sponsored by John ?Texans Should Always Run Texas? Culberson. On top of that, they had the stones to call it the Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act. What a self-serving load.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:59
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45
Last Login :
9/26 21:01
From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 170
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:

So, the overwhelming mood here is that Sites is right and veterans are an important bargaining chip for the Democrats.



No, I think the mood here is that you can't have it both ways. It's not alright to defund the veterans anymore than it's alright to force thousands of small children out of their Headstart classes.

It's immoral, at least in my opinion, to place a higher value on one life more than the other. Yes the veterans served our country and deserve to be looked after. But these children are our future and deserve not to be left behind.

So as far as I am concerned, if you're not as concerned about everyone else who is being left to fend for themselves, then I don't really give the rest of your argument that much weight.

Oh and by your own argument on another thread, maybe the veterans should make due with the situation they have and not ?go down the use-social-security-goodies road.? I don?t agree with that, but either apply your principals to everyone or STFU.

Quote:

borisp wrote:

While actually the story that the article tells is: Lonegan decided not to go down the use-social-security-goodies road, and made his own way, despite the disability.


Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:49
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#7
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/9/16 14:12
Last Login :
2020/2/27 14:10
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 47
Offline
Personally I don't think anyone is right or anyone is wrong ... personally they failed to do their job and the sad part is people - the American will play the consequences for the Electoral's in-action. Wish there was a way to fire them all or hit a "reset" and "reboot".

Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:39
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#6
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/9/16 14:12
Last Login :
2020/2/27 14:10
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 47
Offline
In the '80s we sent a man to the moon, invented the internet, broke the atom to unleash a new era of man. In 2013 we shut down the world's only superpower based on ideology. Is this the beginning of the fall or Rome? Saddened ... and Disappointed !!

Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:37
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline

So, the overwhelming mood here is that Sites is right and veterans are an important bargaining chip for the Democrats.


Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:34
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#4
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/9/16 14:12
Last Login :
2020/2/27 14:10
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 47
Offline
The House Republicans are proposing to pick and choose which Fed departments to fund in the order of their perceived priority. That is just bull**it. Just because the Veterans may be their voter base they decide to keep the VA related departments funded vs the EPA or any other regulatory govt. dept is just playing politics.

What happened to Nationalism? I think there should be a law against Congress members for putting 800k fed employees on the hook. It is just morally wrong (if such a benchmark holds) that congress gets paid and the fed employees do not.

Rep Ted's declaration of donating his paycheck to charity is a sham cause he's actions have put 800k+ fed employee families at risk for no fault of theirs. His contribution to charity will just earn him tax credits but what about the grocery bill and mortgage payments of the 800+ fed employees.

Pres Obama is right in the sense - one party or one branch of govt cannot have the power to shutdown the entire govt. That too for political points! Just about now I am saddened at the state of affairs of where this nation is headed.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 10:57
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/9 11:28
Last Login :
2018/1/6 18:15
Group:
Banned
Posts: 410
Offline
Nobody should succumb to this tea party blackmail.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 10:25
 Top 


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45
Last Login :
9/26 21:01
From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 170
Offline
Quote:

borisp wrote:
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.





Good. God knows we have to bring the deficit down. They are part of the 47% after all. **sarcasm...btw**

Posted on: 2013/10/3 2:44
 Top 


Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 699
Offline
On October 2nd, the House passed HJ Res. 72 to restore the funding for the veterans' benefits during the shutdown.

Sires voted NO.




Posted on: 2013/10/3 2:25
 Top 








[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017