Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

GOP

Started by Shantel, February 24, 2013, 05:22:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ltl89

Quote from: Shantel on May 18, 2013, 10:43:07 AM
Well this is true, but it takes a majority in congress and the will of the people to do that as opposed to the President creating czars and doing end runs around the constitution for the sake of implementing his own agenda. We don't have a king, supposedly we have a system of checks and balances which I sometimes wonder about.

The whole idea of separation of church and state sprung out of what happened in England where the king had set up the Church of England as the state religion. The authors of the constitution sought safeguards against that happening here. I am frustrated about people's attitudes towards the transgender community as well, but regardless of whatever religion or belief system people espouse it's there and it's more a part of human nature than of the basic tenets of any religious beliefs. The bigots do hide behind religion often twisting scripture and verse to make their point, but it doesn't make the religion bad, it's the people themselves that are flawed and evil. I often say that the word discrimination has been given a bad rap because I am discriminating about what I eat, what I wear, where I go, and even who I like and don't like, but some use discrimination for evil purposes and unfortunately no laws will change the condition of their hearts toward us.

Czars are really nothing new and it's been part of the political process for a while.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
These people are limited in their power and any action that is illegal can be monitored and they can be reprimanded by congress.  If congress fails to do there job in your eyes, that isn't because there is no checks and balances.  Perhaps they aren't being the proper watchdog.  And again, since the President is in charge of the executive branch he has the right to implement policy and manage his branch as he or she sees fit (as long as it does not violate any laws or abuses any regulation).  The role of the executive has expanded first under Lincoln and exploded under FDR.  One can disagree with it, but as long as no laws are being violated, it is legal.  This doesn't make our president a king.  They still have to follow the procedures outlined in the constitution and can't violate laws, regulations and codes of ethics.  The constitution does not require the president to receive Senate approval for every appointment even though it does require it for some.  This is something that many conservative legal scholars agree on and many republican presidents have practiced themselves.

Also, one can argue czars have been around longer than this.  Presidents usually had informal cabinets with advisers who informally oversaw particular areas.  I believe Andrew Jackson was the first with his Kitchen Cabinet. 

As for religion, I have no hate for it, but it has no place in government.  You have the freedom to believe and practice whatever you want; however, the state cannot endorse a particular religion.  This is in the constitution. Therefore, it is best to keep religion in the private sphere and out of our laws.  I prefer our government stay out of religion and allow people to freely practice their religion of choice in their private lives.

Lastly, bigots appear in all stripes.  I know plenty who are non religious and who are religious.  I also know plenty of wonderful religious people who are accepting.  But there is no denying that religious doctrine has been one of the most influential factors in promoting hate towards the lgbt community.  It's sad, but I don't see how one could read the bible or Koran and get a pro lgbt vibe from it.  Nonetheless, everyone interprets things differently and I have respect for people of all faiths.  If more deeply religious people were to see a positive biblical interpretation towards our community, I would be very happy even if I don't share their beliefs.
  •  

Shantel

Oh well, suffice it for me to say that I see that there is too much overreach and little accountability by the Executive branch and that needs to be changed lest we wind up with a dictatorship. This isn't about Obama either, it's a generalization concerning the office itself.

Finally, people will no doubt always speak and even vote within the dictates of their ethnic, cultural or religious belief system, it's what happens in a free society and we have no choice but to get over it unless of course some higher power suddenly gives everyone a lobotomy or a sudden heart change.
  •  

Joanna Dark

Alexander Hamilton, federalist Paper No. 85: But every amendment to the Constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently, whenever nine, or rather ten States, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly take place. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the first instance a complete Constitution.

***

The constitution was made to be changed every ten years in order to create a more perfect union. And to provide answer to those, the Democrats, that didn't want the adoption of a strong central government. The Federalist Papers are the single source of knowledge for understanding what Madison and Hamilton and Jay were thinking.

Of course, some don't like Hamilton. More Jeffersonian. I have answer:

"We must be contented to travel on towards perfection, step by step. We must be contented with the ground which [the new] Constitution will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will come for correcting what is amiss in it." --Thomas Jefferson to the Count de Moustier, 1788. ME 7:13

It is therefore clear that Constitution was meant to be changed and amended. The IRS is legal because the states will it and nothing more. And here is the kicker quote:

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:41

"Forty years [after a] Constitution... was formed,... two-thirds of the adults then living are... dead. Have, then, the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds who with themselves compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing, and nothing can not own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident [i.e., attribute]." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. (*) ME 15:42
  •  

Dark.Knight

Quote from: Shantel on February 24, 2013, 05:22:13 PM
Yesterday Lindsey Graham said that since congress was so pathetically lame about doing what Americans are paying them for that they all should consider taking a cut in personal pay and benefits.

Good plan but it will never happen since it's apparently all about them and not us.

I think its a great plan and you're right it will never happen.
I don't see how people can blame a man (President Obama) for things that takes branches to enforce. I'm sure Pres. Obama did not go BLAM new law! and screw this whole country, we have a system in place It takes more than A man.
Its not the Democrats or Independence or Republicans. Its a sense of entitlement, forgetting there job to serve the people, pride, and pointing fingers. I think the President has a genuine heart for the people, I also think the conservatives stuck in 1700 are afraid of change hints the term conservative. I also feel like the separation of church in state should be enforced way more, because our country seems to be creating all things in one religion and in a religion period (Christianity). Its political religion. Take out the religion and we would function way better, this is coming from a Christian.
My profile pic is my hairy pre-t face. I want to be stealth, but my music career may kill that. ;D I like muscle cars, kicks, fashion, music, planes etc. The name I chose for myself is Khai. I'm 22. My ftm Tumblr is: http://gentlemenfck.tumblr.com/
If you want to really know me hit my Tumblr.
  •  

Shantel

Dark Knight, I agree with you for the most part. It always seemed to me that congress people go to Washington with the best of intentions and then get sucked into the corrupt vortex of self-aggrandizement and untold perks from lobbyists until any and all decisions that they make are hinged on how badly they want to be re-elected and they are driven by special interest groups with a lot of financial clout to do their bidding. We (the little) people get kicked to the curb.
  •  

Ltl89

Ironically, one can point out how tied Senator Graham is to certain special interests http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists.  Even though we differ in our politics Shantel, I would love for there to be real campaign and lobbyist reform.  I wish conservatives and liberals could join together on this issue.   
  •  

Misato

I got a pretty good buzz one night and designed the yard sign for my "Senate campaign".

For my slogan I went with Green Day: "Everything Isn't Meant to Be Ok"

I sometimes fantasize performing American Idiot at my rallies cause I also think if Politicians didn't promise to save the world, we'd be better off.  I'm also willing to bet it would generate a lot of buzz.
  •  

Shantel

Quote from: learningtolive on May 18, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
Ironically, one can point out how tied Senator Graham is to certain special interests http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/24/12531/grahams-campaign-collects-bundle-lobbyists.  Even though we differ in our politics Shantel, I would love for there to be real campaign and lobbyist reform.  I wish conservatives and liberals could join together on this issue.   

Absolutely, I'm totally on board with that! You may remember when President Clinton put the Nafta agreements together? Congress on both sides of the aisle joined hands and signed it with lightening speed, not that it was going to really benefit we the little people, but because they could clearly see how it would benefit them personally. Meanwhile, they argue and bicker endlessly about most mundane points of daily government business. BTW - I'm not a Republican or a member of any political persuasion. I am an independent, conservative on fiscal matters and liberal on others and vote my conscience applying common sense as opposed to voting on emotional whims.
  •  

Jamie D

Quote from: Misato on May 18, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
According to my High School civics class, the constitution is a Living Document because it can be amended, as it was for the Bill of Rights.

Government, and those who report on it, sew too much FUD into the conversation for me these days.  Reminds of rabid OS X and Linux fans.  All this partisanship is equally childish in my eyes.  It's all about being right instead of trying to do the right thing.

Lastly, on God, I do like Joe Biden's approach.  I saw him on Meet the Press before the 2008 election and I think he said this one of the debates too, where he brought up that he's Catholic but it wouldn't be right for him to form policy around his religious beliefs.  I appreciate that because when it comes to government, politicians need follow George Carlin's second commandment "Keep thy religion to thy self!"  We have freedom of religion in this country after all, which then implies the people should have freedom from how any particular one is interpreted.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml

"Scalia favors 'enduring,' not living, Constitution"

In a lighthearted, plainspoken talk at Princeton University, Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia discussed his judicial philosophy of reading the U.S. Constitution on its textual basis and original meaning.

"The fairest reading of the text is what the law means," he said Monday, Dec. 10, to an audience of more than 700 at Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall. "When we read Shakespeare we use a glossary because we want to know what it meant when it was written. We don't give those words their current meaning. So also with a statute — our statutes don't morph, they don't change meaning from age to age to comport with the whatever the zeitgeist thinks appropriate...."

In the talk, Scalia primarily contrasted his philosophy of originalism with the common conception of a "living Constitution" that changes with society over time. One example, he said, was the issue of whether the death penalty ought to be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, and as some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court believe.

"There is absolutely no doubt that when the Eighth Amendment was adopted — nobody, nobody, not a single person, thought" it applied to the death penalty, Scalia said. "Nonetheless, my four colleagues thought that somehow it was within their power to say that's what the cruel and unusual punishment clause means today, even though it never meant that. ... That is what the living Constitution produces."

"I have classes of little kids who come to the court, and they recite very proudly what they've been taught, 'The Constitution is a living document.' It isn't a living document! It's dead. Dead, dead, dead!" Scalia said, drawing laughs from the crowd. "No, I don't say that. ... I call it the enduring Constitution. That's what I tell them."

In his view, that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws, Scalia said. The tendency to see the Constitution as a living document extends to a tendency to see what one wishes in it, Scalia said.


See link above for full article
  •  

Misato

I know a lot of people who aren't particularly good at their job or who think they know what they are talking about but don't.  Just because Scalia is on the Supreme Court doesn't imply he knows what he's doing in regards to the law.  Still, I do beleive he's trying his best.
  •  

Ltl89

I hate Anthony Scalia.  The man is a partisan hack who pretends that he loves to follow the original intent of the founders.  In reality, he always votes the conservative line even if it goes against his philosophy.  Not saying that the other justices aren't partisan, but I'm sick of his bs.

Read his concurrences, dissents and the majority opinions that he authors.  The man is a bigot who justifies not giving equal rights to gays.  He fears the "homosexual agenda" and even justified imprisoning a man because of his sexual preferences.  The fact that he dissented on Lawrence v Texas is really disgusting.  There are countless of other cases where the man shows what  a clown he really is, but I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on. 
  •  

Shantel

Quote from: learningtolive on May 20, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on.

A good plan for all of us. Even though I started this link for some now obscure reason, I don't usually care to become embroiled in religious or political discourse because we all have our own very diverse opinions, some set in concrete it would seem which only leads to vitriolic comments and behavior, personally I enjoy the serenity of being in a safe zone to discuss those things that we all share in common and would much rather not develop negative opinions about my sisters and brothers here at Susan's simply because they hold to different beliefs than I do. I will strive to avoid this thread and others like it for my own peace of mind, I'm sorry I initiated it as all it does is create angst in everyone and that's not what we are here for. Wishing you all my very best each day! ~Shan~
  •  

Sarah Louise

#52
Most all of the judges are "partisan" how do you think they get elected.  By promising to vote party line.
Nameless here for evermore!;  Merely this, and nothing more;
Tis the wind and nothing more!;  Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!!"
  •  

Ltl89

Quote from: Shantel on May 20, 2013, 11:25:28 AM
 

A good plan for all of us. Even though I started this link for some now obscure reason, I don't usually care to become embroiled in religious or political discourse because we all have our own very diverse opinions, some set in concrete it would seem which only leads to vitriolic comments and behavior, personally I enjoy the serenity of being in a safe zone to discuss those things that we all share in common and would much rather not develop negative opinions about my sisters and brothers here at Susan's simply because they hold to different beliefs than I do. I will strive to avoid this thread and others like it for my own peace of mind, I'm sorry I initiated it as all it does is create angst in everyone and that's not what we are here for. Wishing you all my very best each day! ~Shan~

I can agree with that sentiment.  I just have difficulty censoring myself when Scalia is brought up because of his open hostility to the LGBT community.  Nonetheless, I know that we all have our opinions and they differ.  All in all, I can respect that.  Besides, it would be odd if we all thought and believed the same things at all times.
  •  

Misato

I can't even get all heated up about this stuff anymore.  I hope that holds.  Though I should have qualified my last with "...trying his best as he sees it."

I just still wish there was a discourse about things in this country.  Instead we have Fox News, MSNBC the and The Daily Show just talking at each other.  People covering the news shouldn't be news.  Makes me think, as Bowling for Soup sang, high school never ends!

For the record I cared about the debt before it was cool.  In Bush V. Gore I was upset at those rebate checks Bush promised and gave us.  At that time I'm thinking, "We have a debt problem!"  But then I also think if government has a role in protecting us from Al Queda, it also has a role in protecting us from cancer.  Both are out to kill us after all.
  •  

Jamie D

Quote from: learningtolive on May 20, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
I hate Anthony Scalia.  The man is a partisan hack who pretends that he loves to follow the original intent of the founders.  In reality, he always votes the conservative line even if it goes against his philosophy.  Not saying that the other justices aren't partisan, but I'm sick of his bs.

Read his concurrences, dissents and the majority opinions that he authors.  The man is a bigot who justifies not giving equal rights to gays.  He fears the "homosexual agenda" and even justified imprisoning a man because of his sexual preferences.  The fact that he dissented on Lawrence v Texas is really disgusting.  There are countless of other cases where the man shows what  a clown he really is, but I'll focus on something I think most of us can agree on.

I have read his dissents and concurrences.  I find no bigotry, but rather a dedication to a limited and originalist interpretation of the Court's role, and a hesitancy to see the Court "make law."

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is crystal clear.

"I begin with the Court's surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it....

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."


The actual words of dissent suggest you misunderstood what it was about.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1
  •  

Ltl89

Quote from: Jamie D on May 20, 2013, 09:40:28 PM
I have read his dissents and concurrences.  I find no bigotry, but rather a dedication to a limited and originalist interpretation of the Court's role, and a hesitancy to see the Court "make law."

Scalia's dissent in Lawrence is crystal clear.

"I begin with the Court's surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Today's opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish--or indeed, even bother to mention--the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of today's majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it....

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."


The actual words of dissent suggest you misunderstood what it was about.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1

I won't go into a major argument about this.  The fact that he believes it was constitutional for Texas to imprison a man because they had gay sex is really disgusting.  I understand what it was about, but I see him time and time again use his strict interpretation to uphold conservative policies.  He may attempt to use a legal argument, but it's clear that he is using a strict texualist arguments to promote his political beliefs.  In the rest of the dissent he compares gay sex to bestiality and obscenity.  Then he follows it by saying that he believes that all the rest of the justices have " largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."  Yes, it is clear he can make an argument on a legal basis, but let's not hide what he really feels.  It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you have read up on Romer V Evans.  Do you agree with his decision there? 

Lastly, Scalia is not the only justice to do this.  Many of them vote based on their ideology.  It's just how it goes.  I happen to like Ginsburg, but I think she is just as partisan as Scalia.  Their votes on major cases are often politically charged and there's been research in political journals to confirm this is the case. Their constitutional interpretation does come into play in smaller cases, but on major headline cases you can guarantee they vote based on their individual ideology.  While it's possible that their ideology stems from their constitutional interpretation, I think it is quite the opposite.  People have an ideology and create a method of interpretation that can back up their beliefs. 
  •  

Shantel

On another note here is a non-partisan and very articulate letter to the  two U.S. Senators from Washington state, it doesn't call out any particular party and hits the nail right on the head!


April 3, 2013

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell

Washington, DC , 20510

Dear Senator:
I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related stresses shortly after his retirement. It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important - honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments. I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government. I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold. I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year! Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers. So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated 1.4 $billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year! And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America 's answer to the Saudi royal family. You have become the "perfumed princes and princesses" of our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. "Obama Care," a bill which no more than a  handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the "one percenters," consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two  rules you need to know - (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job. Your so-called "safety net" has become a hammock for the lazy. And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps - pretty much all Democrat voters - and the program is absolutely rife with fraud with absolutely no congressional oversight?

I would offer that you are not entirely to blame. What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves. It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role. To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a remarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 - 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I'm only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well. Tell me, is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses      costing the consumer more and more every day.

As I face my  final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me "You'll just have to take a pill," while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.

The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares. This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person's opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might  quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $17 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours,ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy this country I deeply love and put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power. For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. And that, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress. The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits. This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs. And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.

Sincerely,

XXXXX
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
  •  

Shantel

Quote from: kkut on May 26, 2013, 05:33:58 PM
Great letter Shantel, thanks for sharing  :)

Been missing you so much girlfriend, hope you stick around for awhile!
  •  

Misato

Obama care is currently my famlies only concrete hope to get decent medical insurance because of my employer's a discriminatory policies and my partner's employer doesn't even offer anything.  We can't buy on the market because pre-existing conditions.

Maybe in the days when you stayed at an employer for 30+ years the old system worked.  Healthcare needed to change with the times.  Just like the GOP will hopefully.  I know Republicans I like, but they are in the minority voices in their own party. What I don't know is if they are the minority in numbers.
  •