Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Lying About Lies: Why Credibility Matters to Obama (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/lying-about-lies-why-credibility-matters-to-obama-20131105)

National Journal | Ron Fournier

* The president is trying to reinvent the history of his you-can-keep-it promise on health care.

The president is trying to reinvent the history of his you-can-keep-it promise on health care.

In a speech Monday night to his political team, Obama said: "Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it ... if it hasn't changed since the law passed."

No, no, no, no, no--that's not what the Obama administration said. What it said was:

"That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." – President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009, during the debate over health insurance reform.

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you.  It hasn't happened yet.  It won't happen in the future." – Obama, remarks in Portland, Ore., April 1, 2010, after the bill was signed into law....

Watch the video (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/04/obama_what_we_said_was_you_can_keep_it_if_it_hasnt_changed_since_the_law_passed.html#.UnjKZRPT2H1.twitter) of Obama reinventing history with the "what-we-said-was" construction. Notice how he is looking at notes. Remarkably, this was not an off-the-cuff remark; it was written, reviewed, and approved by senior White House officials, then recited by the president. An orchestrated deceit.

Full article at the link, above

My question:  What does this portend for the ENDA debate?  More lies?  More misdirection?

"Things are not always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden."
-Phaedrus

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
-Townshend

The Diane Rehm show had a nice discussion on this yesterday: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-11-04/analysis-president-obamas-leadership-and-management-style

QuoteMy question:  What does this portend for the ENDA debate?  More lies?  More misdirection?

You know it's bad when the administration has to resort to asking we not trust our lying eyes. Nixon resigned for the good of the country over a much smaller less relevant lie. Obama should follow his lead and do the same, but hell will freeze over first.

BTW, will the EDNA law matter if passed by congress and signed by obama? This president picks and chooses which parts of laws he upholds and which he 'rewrites' or ignores all together. Obama is probably the most impeachable president in history. He has no credibility, his words no longer mean anything.

Quote from: Nikko on November 05, 2013, 09:53:42 PM
You know it's bad when the administration has to resort to asking we not trust our lying eyes. Nixon resigned for the good of the country over a much smaller less relevant lie. Obama should follow his lead and do the same, but hell will freeze over first.

BTW, will the EDNA law matter if passed by congress and signed by obama? This president picks and chooses which parts of laws he upholds and which he 'rewrites' or ignores all together. Obama is probably the most impeachable president in history. He has no credibility, his words no longer mean anything.

Evidence please? Preferably not from Faux News...

Mind you there is alot to be upset about... escalation in the use of drones and collateral civilian causalities that they cause would be my primary concern. However, Nixon, Johnson, and Reagan were no angels when it came to using illegal actions to conduct policy. What makes Obama the worst in your eyes?

Personally I'm disappointed that he has not been aggressively liberal enough in policies or we really would have a socialist single payer health system - like the rest of the civilized industrial world!

Yukari, I responded to the OP, please don't get us sidetracked... AGAIN.  :angel:

Most people do not know yet what Obamacare is exactly.
Healthcare reform has been needed but both parties have dropped the ball.
The executive branch, starting with Bush and now with Obama has become
way too powerful. It picks and chooses which laws are actually enforced,
while funding cronies, maintaining corporate welfare, and feeding the
military/corporate complex. The government avoids transparency and relies on secrecy.
Yes, credibility is gone. We cannot trust our own govt.

There was a very nice, elderly lady, sitting at my Rite Aid pharmacy, at a table set up near the front door.  She was there to sign people up under the ACA.  She had her laptop computer and a manual.

I greeted her as I went in, then, on my way out I asked her how "business had been." She replied, "Kinda slow.  The website is down again."

Looking at me, with my pony tail, jeans, and bright orange t-shirt, I probably seemed like a "friendly" to her.  So I got a truthful answer.

LOL, they're looking for healthy enrollees in the pharmacies?  Beats the emergency rooms and ICU I guess... :D

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 05, 2013, 11:04:45 PM
There was a very nice, elderly lady, sitting at my Rite Aid pharmacy, at a table set up near the front door.  She was there to sign people up under the ACA.  She had her laptop computer and a manual.

I greeted her as I went in, then, on my way out I asked her how "business had been." She replied, "Kinda slow.  The website is down again."

Looking at me, with my pony tail, jeans, and bright orange t-shirt, I probably seemed like a "friendly" to her.  So I got a truthful answer.

Gee, a trillion bucks to harass people at a pharmacy. At least the girl scouts sell a product people want.

President Obama Covers Up an Old Lie With a New One (http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/president-obama-covers-up-an-old-lie-wit)

Reason.com | Phil Sunderman

If you're a fan of comic books or other types of serial fiction, you're probably familiar with the concept of the "retcon"—a made-up word that stands for "retroactive continuity."

For the not-so-geeky, the basic idea is that the authors of some long-running storyline change previously established facts within the narrative. Often the idea is to facilitate new storylines, or, less generously, to help struggling serial writers work themselves out of some difficult plot corner they've written themselves into....

I wonder if President Obama is a comic book fan. Because with the updated version of his oft-repeated promise that individuals who like their health plans can keep them, he's essentially retconned himself.

Here's how Obama described his promise yesterday: "Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed."

This isn't just an update. It's a backwards revision. Obama is not just changing his claim going forward—he's attempting to alter what he said in the past as well.

Full article at the link

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront-media.reason.com%2Fmc%2Fpsuderman%2F2013_11%2Fbarack-obama-spiderman--large.jpg%3Fh%3D411%26amp%3Bw%3D290&hash=b86647eedd31a59edb5d20c978e46f3236211ec2)

QuoteFor the not-so-geeky, the basic idea is that the authors of some long-running storyline change previously established facts within the narrative. Often the idea is to facilitate new storylines, or, less generously, to help struggling serial writers work themselves out of some difficult plot corner they've written themselves into....

I'm glad you remembered I would likely be reading this (see bold), I'm assuming by not-so-geeky you mean SLOW!  ;)

The new Star Trek movies stay more true to the story line of the 60's Star Trek series than Obama does to his first term. Interesting twist, they've sought Hollywood's help recently to spin some of this stuff, they may very well be doing 'retcon'.

Report: 4 ObamaCare sign-ups in Delaware (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/189515-report-4-o-care-sign-ups-in-del)

The Hill | Elise Viebeck
6 November 2013

Delaware has seen only a handful enrollments in its new ObamaCare insurance exchange, which is served by HealthCare.gov, according to an informal survey of community groups.

The Associated Press reported that four patients had signed up for coverage as of Wednesday. The figure came from conversations with organizations hired to provide guidance within the marketplaces.

Officials blamed the low enrollment figures on problems with the federal enrollment website and delays in background checks for outreach workers, according to the AP.

Another 218 people reportedly created accounts that could help them purchase health plans in the future, while 31 completed applications without yet buying a healthcare plan....

A major insurer in North Carolina reported receiving only one enrollment so far as of Wednesday.

Article at link above - emphasis mine

  My Dr. had me apply for disability.  I applied online and it said that I gave the proper info.  But my Dr. says that that usually takes two months for a reply of any kind for extra papers, proof, accepted or not.  This Canadian healthcare computer program fiasco may delay even that!  Some of the people who handle the disability applications and investigations may be called in to help fix this fiasco! 

  Joelene

Something to be aware of when considering signing up:

John McAfee founder of McAfee, Inc. said the online component of Obamacare "is a hacker's wet dream" that will cause "the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities."
For starters, McAfee said the way it is set up makes it possible for fake websites be set up to fool people to think they're signing up for Obamacare.
"It's seriously bad," McAfee said. "Somebody made a grave error, not in designing the program but in simply implementing the web aspect of it. I mean, for example, anybody can put up a web page and claim to be a broker for this system. There is no central place where I can go and say, 'OK, here are all the legitimate brokers, the examiners for all of the states and pick and choose one.'"
"Instead, any hacker can put a website up, make it look extremely competitive, and because of the nature of the system — and this is health care, after all — they can ask you the most intimate questions, and you're freely going to answer them," he continued. "What's my Social Security number? My birth date? What are my health issues?
According to McAfee, there's not a quick fix — and as long as it set up this way, it could be a playground for computer hackers.
"Here's the problem: It's not something software can solve," McAfee continued. "I mean, what idiot put this system out there and did not create a central depository? There should be one website, run by the government, you go to that website and then you can click on all of the agencies. This is insane. So, I will predict that the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities — I mean, you can imagine some retired lady in Utah, who has $75,000 dollars in the bank, saving her whole life, having it wiped out in one day because she signed up for Obamacare. And believe me, this is going to happen millions of times. This is a hacker's wet dream. I mean I cannot believe that they did this."

Seriously, you may hate the ACA as much as you want, but it has nothing to do with Enda.  Nothing.  It's not Obama's baby and it only just recently got his support even though it took forever.  The fact is it passed the senate for the first time and it's in the Republican house's hands at this point.   Obama isn't a member of congress.  He can only veto or sign legislation that has been passed.  Nor can he force it to reach the floor of the house. If he vetos the legislation, then attack him.  For now, the dems are supporting it and Boehner won't even allow a vote.  Even if ENDA  didn't get the support it deserved in the past the past, it's finally getting the attention it needs.  So, no Obama's credibility is irrelevant to the ENDA discussion.  What matters is that it gets passed and signed into law.   I hope the speaker comes to his senses and will allow a vote on a very important issue.  Obama and the Senate came around, now lets make the Republicans in the house do the same. Let's work together instead of bickering about partisanship and get something important accomplished,

Also, let's not conflate two subjects that are totally different.  Healthcare policy differs from anti-discrimination legislation.  For the record, I'm not an Obama lover as some may think.   Just because I'm a lefty doesn't mean that I don't have the ability to see different perspectives. I have my own issues with him and concerns over the implementation of the ACA.  Still, it has nothing to do with ENDA.   For example, Bush lied about Iraq, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get anything done during his 2nd term because of his credibility issues.  I may not like most of what he did, but it doesn't mean he couldn't accomplish anything or that all of his future actions were related to his decision with Iraq.  People should look at each individual issue for what they are instead of looking at who is supporting what.  The issues is what's important.  I'd wholeheartly support the Republicans if they backed Enda and the dems rejected it.  It's not about the politicians in question, but the actual legislation that is being disscussed.  Dislike Obama and the ACA, but base your opinion on ENDA for what it is and not because of who supports it. 

Just my two cents. 

[ENDA is] not Obama's baby and it only just recently got his support even though it took forever.

That's true.  But the question is whether the "support" is real, or a political show.  Mr. Obama's history with ENDA has been rather sordid, much like his relationship with the truth.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 09, 2013, 11:26:41 AM
[ENDA is] not Obama's baby and it only just recently got his support even though it took forever.

That's true.  But the question is whether the "support" is real, or a political show.  Mr. Obama's history with ENDA has been rather sordid, much like his relationship with the truth.

However, he is not the legislative branch.  Even if his support is phony, it doesn't really matter because he doesn't control the votes in the house.  Unless he vetos it when it gets to his desk, which he won't, his approval (phony or not) will only help gain support for ENDA.  After all, it finally passed the Senate for the first time and his verbal support likely influenced the democratic caucus. The ball is now in Bohener's court and he seems to be very honest about his disagreement with the bill.  Obama has nothing to do with this at this very moment.  I understand disliking the president and his policies, but getting upset about how his support is phony when he isn't the one blocking it or preventing it from passing it seems odd to me.  The only reason to criticise the president in this particular case is for attempting to bring up ENDA and changing his initial ambivalence. For those that oppose it's passage, I can understand being upset, but not for those who want it.  It depends on where you stand. 

Quote from: learningtolive on November 09, 2013, 12:30:50 PM
However, he is not the legislative branch.  Even if his support is phony, it doesn't really matter because he doesn't control the votes in the house.  Unless he vetos it when it gets to his desk, which he won't, his approval (phony or not) will only help gain support for ENDA.  After all, it finally passed the Senate for the first time and his verbal support likely influenced the democratic caucus. The ball is now in Bohener's court and he seems to be very honest about his disagreement with the bill.  Obama has nothing to do with this at this very moment.  I understand disliking the president and his policies, but getting upset about how his support is phony when he isn't the one blocking it or preventing it from passing it seems odd to me.  The only reason to criticise the president in this particular case is for attempting to bring up ENDA and changing his initial ambivalence. For those that oppose it's passage, I can understand being upset, but not for those who want it.  It depends on where you stand.

I don't think you understand the problem. Obama is campaigning for money on something he just happened to now be in favor of, so that the Senate will pass something and send it the House, so they can call the opposition names in the media and further campaign on some promise or another. They could have done ENDA anytime they felt like it, but because they want you to be begging them for some scrap, they held it till they could use it to their own political advantage. It's quite beautiful in its brutality and for that, I have to give them credit. Of course we won't know who gets what waivers and which parts of whatever law are passed he will choose to ignore. Probably enough to piss off as many people as possible.

In case you're curious, let's look at who gets a waiver from the greatest new healthcare system every created, because it's so great that we just had to have it:

Quote from: The following is a list of businesses, unions, and government agencies exempted from Obamacare according to a July 2012 article from the "Free Republic"24 Hour Fitness, Allied Building Inspectors IUOE Local 211 Welfare Fund, Alpha Omega Home Health, LLC, Andersen Corporation, Bowman Sheet Metal Heating & Air-conditioning, Bricklayers Insurance & Welfare Fund, Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union No. 60, Carey Johnson Oil Co, Inc, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany, Cement Masons' Local No. 502 Welfare Fund, City of Bloomington VEBA Health Savings Plan, City of Burnsville, City of Olathe, Clausen Miller PC, Crystal Run Village, Inc, Delta Apparel, Discovery Benefits, Dr. Trailer Repair, Inc., Employer-Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Health and Welfare Fund, Entrust, Fabri-Quilt, GC Harvesting, Inc., Glen Curtis, Inc. #2143, Heritage Christian Services, IBEW Local 3 NYC Electrical Division Health & Welfare Fund, Indiana Area UFCW Union Locals and Retail Food Employers' Health and Welfare Plan, Ingham County, Innovative Driver Services Company, Integrity Data, Inter-County Hospitalization Plan, Inc., Jakov P. Dulcich & Sons, Jefferson Rehabilitation Center, JLG Harvesting, Inc., Johnson Machine Works, Kent County, Laborers' District Council of Virginia Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Laborers National Health and Welfare Fund, Local 1245 Health Fund, Local 237 Teamsters Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corp. Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Local 295 Welfare Fund, Local 381, Group Insurance Fund, Local 805 Welfare Fund, Marble Industry Trust Fund, McGregor Schools ISD #4, MJ Soffe, MO-Kan Teamsters and Welfare Fund, Mounds View Public Schools, MVP, North State Bank, North States Industries Inc, Pathways Inc., Pavers and Road Builders District Council Welfare Fund, Phoenix Children's Academy, Roofers Local 8 Insurance & Trust Fund, San Bernardino IHSS Public Authority, SCC Healthcare Group, LLP, Schenectady ARC*, Schoharie County ARC, Sieben Polk Law Firm, Sitel, Inc., Southern Graphic Communication Health Fund, Springbrook Standalone HRA, St. Lawrence NYSARC, Sunview Vineyards of California, Inc., Tandem Eastern Inc. / Consolidated Transport Systems, Inc., Taylor Farms, Teamsters Union Local # 35, The Day Care Council/Council of Supervisors and Administrators Welfare Fund, The Public Authority of San Luis Obispo County, The, University Financing Foundation, Inc., The Village of Newark Non-Union Employee Plan, Theatrical Stage Employees Local On, Tuff Shed, Inc., U.A. Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Plan, UFCW & Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Health & Welfare Fund, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, UFCW Local One Health Care Fund, Ulster Greene ARC, Westminster-Canterbury of Lynchburg, Wine and Liquor Salesmen of NJ, A-1 Transport, AIDS Council of Northeastern  New York, Avon Central School District, Azeros Health Plans, Inc., Benton County, Bessey Tools, Inc., Canandaigua City Schools, City of Eagan, City of Shakopee Post-Employment Health Care Savings Account Plan , Community Work and Independence Inc., Continuing Developmental Services, Crystal Cabinet Works, Inc., CU Answers, Inc., Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate and Barrel, First National Bank of Dietrerich, Franziska Racker Centers, Fridley Public Schools Health Savings Plan, FSA/SUNYAB-Campus Dining and Shops, Genesee County ARC, Genesee County Economic Development Corp Health Reimbursement Account, Grand Island Central School District, Hammondsport Central School District, Imperial Wholesale, Inc., Learning Disabilities Association of Western New York, Minnesota State Retirement System Post-Employment Health Care Savings Plan - City of Roseville, Naples Central School District, Naples Central School District Support Staff, Newark Central School District, Niagara-Wheatfield CSD Self Funded, Panama Central School District, People 1st Health Strategies, Inc., Pipe Fitters' Welfare Fund, Local 597, Ron Clark Construction Health reimbursement Arrangement*, Sherman Central School District, Silver Creek Central School District, Sodus Central School District, Telco Construction, Town of Albion, Town of Chenango, Town of Lockport, Twin City Die Casting, Western Area Volunteer Emergency Services , Westfield Academy, Williamson Central School District, American Radio Association Plan, Carpenters Health and Security Trust of Western Washington, Communicare Health Benefits Trust, District Council 1707 Local 389 Home Care Employees Health & Welfare Fund, Health and Welfare Plan of the Laundry, Dry Cleaning Workers & Allied Industry Health Fund, Workers United, Northern Illinois and Iowa Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, Prell Services, United Food and Commercial Workers Retail Employees and Employers Health and Welfare Plan, A-1 Realty, AABR, ABCO Diecasters, Alfred P. Sloan, Alizio & Galfunt, All American Heating and AC, Allied Pilots Association, Amherst Central School District, AristaCare at Meadow Springs, Arthur Sanderson& Sons, Associated General Contractors of ND Employees, Autistic Service, Inc., Bartech Group, Basf Fuel Cell, Inc., Battery Park City Authority, Battery Park City Conservancy, Benefit Analysis Inc., Blaze SSI, Blue Beacon, Board of Trustees for the Operating Engineers Local 101 Health and Welfare Fund, Business Wire, Cargo Ventures, Carnegie Corporation of NY, Carpenters Local No. 491 Health & Welfare Plan, Central Laborers' Welfare Fund, Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, City of Cottage Grove, City of Inver Grove Heights, City Of Roseville MN, Clinton Management, Cloquet Area Fire Department, Cohen Partners, Community Bank of Bergen County, Community Mainstreaming, Contract Cleaners Service Employees Benefit Trust, Cornerstone Search Group, D & D Ag Supply and Construction, Inc., Dial Senior Management, Inc, Douglaston Development, Dr. Margaret Andrin, MD, FACOG LLC, Dynasil Corporation, Echo Molding, Eighth District Electrical Benefit Fund, Electrical, Workers Health and Welfare Fund, Enterprise Concrete Products, LLC Texas, Epilepsy Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation Northeastern New York, Evans Chemetics, Excellus Health Plan, Fairport Central School District, Goodwill Industries of Central Indiana, Gregory Packaging, Gulf Coast Health Care, Handcraft Manufacturing Corporation, Haver Analytics Health Waiver, Health Care Employees Dental and Medical Trust, Hiawatha Medical, Inc., Highfield Gardens Care Center, Hirsch International, Hotel, Restaurant & Bar Employees Health and Welfare Fund, Hypex Inc., IBEW Local Union No. 126 Health and Welfare Fund, International Union of Operating Engineers, Supplemental Benefit Fund Local 409, Interstate Connecting Components, Jacobson Family Investments, J-B Wholesale Pet Supplies, JKL International, Jump, Scutellaro, and Co., LLP, KC International dba Ekman Recycling, Kerwin Communications, Kingstown Capital Management, Koellman Gear Corporation, Kramer Electronics, Lakeview Subacute Care Center, Langan Engineering and Financial Services, Inc., LBDD, League of Minnesota Cities, Leisure Properties LLC d/b/a/ Crownline Boats, Liberty House Nursing Home, Lifetime Assistance, Inc, Lincoln Hall, Local 888 UFCW, Maharishi University of Management, Mamiya America Corporation, Mandt Reiss & Associates PLLC, Margaret P. Muscarelle Child Dev. Center, Merrill Farms LLC, Micelli Motors, Inc., Midwest Asphalt Corporation , Midwest Teamsters, Monroe County, Nassau County Chapter, NYSARC, Inc, NCHC, Inc., New York State Assn. for Retarded Children Erie Co., Chapter dba/Heritage Centers, NJ Society of CPAs, North Greece Fire District, Northern Minnesota-Wisconsin Area Retail Food Health & Welfare Fund, Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, Parkview Care and Rehab, PCB Machining Solutions, PCB Piezotronics, Philadelphia Macaroni Company, Phoenix Partners Group, LP, Privilege Underwriters, Inc., Progressive AE, Quadrant Capital Advisors, Inc., Regency Management Group, LLC, Rhoads Industries, Roofers Local #96 Health & Welfare Fund, Rowe and Company, Inc., Rush-Henrietta Central School District HRA, Security Benefit Fund of the Uniformed Firefighters Association of New York City, SEIU Health and Welfare fund, 2000, Seneca Cayuga ARC, Service Employees 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, Sierra Video Systems, SMEG, Strategic Industries, Superior Officers Council Health and Welfare Fund, Teamsters Local Union 966 Health Fund, Techno Source USA, The Alternative Living Group, Inc., The Arc of Otsego (Otsego County Chapter NYSARC, Inc.), The Arc of Rensselaer County, The City of Cloquet, The Henry Luce Foundation, The Maritime Aquarium of Norwalk, Inc., The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Rehabilitation Center, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Topco, Totino Grace High School, Urstadt Biddle Properties, W.H. Reaves & Co., Inc., Walder, Hayden & Brogan, PA, Walters-Morgan Construction, Inc, Wellspring Advisers, West Bergen Mental Healthcare, Westchester ARC, Westchester JCS, Western Beef, Hollow Metal Trust Fund, Theatrical Teamsters Local 817 IBT Welfare Fund, Vestal Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc., AccessAbility, Inc., Ackerman Oil Employee Benefit Trust, Albany County Chapter, NYSARC Inc., DBA New Visions of Albany, American Eagle Outfitters, Basin Disposal, Bengard Ranch, Inc., Bestway Rental, Inc, Big Lots, Inc., Byrd Harvest, Inc., Cardinal Hayes Home for Children HRA plan, CDS Administrative Services, LLC, Center for Energy and Environment, City of Brooklyn Park, D'Arrigo Bros. Co. of California, Defender Services, Inc., DineEquity, Inc, Green Leaf Distributors, Inc., IBEW Local Union No. 728, Family Healthcare Plan, Joseph Gallo Farms, Life Benefit Plan, Luther Automotive Group HRA, Metrics Inc., Nueces County Appraisal District, Ocean Properties Ltd, P-R Farms, Inc., SEIU Health & Welfare Fund, Sports Arena Employees' Local 137 Welfare Fund, Staywell Saipan Basic Plan, Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 355 Health and Welfare Fund, Communications Workers of America, Local 1180 Security Benefits Fund, Health and Welfare Fund of the Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. Police, Department City of New York, Man-U Service Contract Health and Welfare Fund, Paschall Truck Lines, Inc., SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, Highmark West Virginia Inc. d/b/a Mountain State Blue Cross Blue Shield, Advocacy and Resource Center, Amalgamated, Industrial and Toy & Novelty Workers of America, Local 223 Sick Benefit Fund, Atlanta Plumbers & Steamfitters Fringe Benefit Funds, Aurora Consulting Group, Inc., Brock Enterprises, Inc., Central Texas Health and Benefit Trust Fund Locals 520, 60 & 72, Electricians Health, Welfare &, Pension Plans I.B.E.W. Local Union No. 995, Essex County Chapter NYSARC, Inc. dba Mountain Lake Services, Executive Management Services, Inc., Florida Laborers Health Fund, Fulton County Chapter, NYSARC, Inc., General Parts, LLC, Greystone program, Inc, Hacienda Harvesting, Inc., IBEW Local No. 640 and Arizona Chapter NECA Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Lone Star Park at Grand Prairie, Louisiana Electrical Health Fund, Maverick, Inc. Employee Health Care Benefits Plan, Memphis, Construction Benefit Fund, Mid-South Carpenters Regional Council Health and Welfare Fund, Mountain Lake Services, NECA-IBEW Local 480 Health and Welfare Plan, Plumbers and Pipefitters Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 719, Retiree Plan of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund, Richmond Community Services, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 177 Health and Welfare, Pension and Vacation Funds, Sheet Metal Workers' National Health Fund, South Central Laborers' Health & Welfare Fund, Southeastern Pipetrades Health & Welfare Fund, Telamon Corporation Health Reimbursement Arrangement, The ARC of Delaware County, UFCW Local 1262 and Employers Health & Welfare Fund, United Cerebral Palsy of Ulster County, Inc, Vincent B Zaninovich & Sons, Inc., Wayne ARC Standalone HRA Section 105 Plan, Wildwood Program, Allied Welfare Fund, Becker County Post-Retirement Health Care Savings Plan, Becker County VEBA, FIDUCIA, Triple-S Salud, Inc., B. R. Company, Britz Companies, ET AL Century Health and Wellness Benefit Plan and Trust, EBSA Foundation, Encore Enterprises, Faurecia USA Holdings, Goodwill Industries of Kentucky, Inc., Minnesota Cement Masons Health and Welfare Fund, Plumbers Local Union No. 690 of Philadelphia and Vicinity Health Plan, Robert Heath Trucking Inc, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Sunwest Fruit Company, Inc, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, WD Young& Sons, Inc., Atlantis Casino Resort Spa, United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona, Act Trust Mini-Med Plan, Allen's Family Food, Anderson Media Corporation, Blasters, Drillers & Miners Union Local No. 29 Welfare Fund, Care Initiatives, Inc., Cement and Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund Plan, COARC, Construction Workers Local 147 Welfare Fund, Crystal Run Healthcare, Diamondback Management Services, LTD, Freeman Metal Products, Hardwick Clothes, Inc., Hronis, Inc., International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, Isaacson Isaacson Seridan & Fountain, LLP, Katy Industries, Inc., Landscape, Irrigation and Lawn Sprinkler Industry Health and Welfare Plan and Trust, Local 298 Health Benefit Fund Plan, Local 803 Health and Welfare Fund, Louisiana Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, M.A. Mortenson, Maple Knoll Communities, Marshall Durbin Food Corporation, Minnesota Teamsters Construction Division, Name Brand, Inc., Oklahoma Goodwill Industries, PepsiCo, Inc, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 823 Health & Welfare Fund, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 6 Health and Welfare Fund, Regent Care Center, Rice Food Markets, Inc., Rice Food Markets, Inc., Ricker Oil Company, Skilled Health Care, Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund, Teamsters Local 445 Welfare Plan, Teamsters Local 210 Affiliated Health and Insurance Fund, Teamsters Welfare Fund of Northern, New Jersey Local 1723, The Durango Herald, The Talbots, Inc, Town of Frisco Medical Plan, Tudor Ranch, UNITE HERE Local 74 Welfare and Dental Trust, United Employees Health Plans, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000 and Kroger Dallas Health and Welfare Plan, United Service, Employees Union, Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW, WageWorks, Inc, IBEW Local 613 and Contributing, Employers Family Health Plan (Union), Advantage Benefits Company, LLC, Aerospace Contractors' Trust, AJFC Community Action Plan, Altisource Portfolio Solutions, American Heritage Life Insurance Company, Americare Properties, Inc., AMN Healthcare, Andrews Transport L.P., Anoka Hennepin Credit Union, APWU Health Plan Conversion Plan, Aspen Snowmass, ATCO Rubber Products, Inc, Baylor County Hospital District, Belk Farms, Bricklayers Local 1 of MD, VA and DA, Cardon & Associates, Inc, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg, Central Mills, Civil Service Bar Association Security Benefit Fund, Cotton Belt Inc., CPC Logistics Health & Welfare Plan, Delmarva, United Food and Commercial Workers, Dole Food Company, EchoStar, First Acceptance Corporation, Fontanese Folts Aubrecht Ernst Architects, PC, Forest Products Inc. Group Health Plan, Fruhauf Uniform, Direct Labor, Golden State Bulb Growers, Inc., Greater Kansas City Laborers Welfare Fund, Grower's Transport LLC, Heartland Automotive, Helfman Enterprises, Inc., Hoosier Stamping and Manufacturing Corp., Horizon Bay Realty LLC, I.B.E.W. Local 1249 Insurance Fund, Ingomar Packing Company, LLC, Integra Healthcare, Inc. (Integrity Home Care), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Trade Unions Health and Welfare Fund - Local 713, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 295-295C Welfare Trust Fund, International union of Operating Engineers, Local Union Number 137, Iron Workers Local Union #28 Health and Welfare Fund, Lamanuzzi & Pantaleo, Living Resources, Local 1102 Amalgamated Welfare Fund, Local 1102 Health & Benefit Fund, Local 1102 Welfare Fund-- Lerner Employees, Local 272 Welfare Fund, Local 338 Affiliated Benefit Funds, Madelia Community Hospital, Max Homes, Loc, Medical Development Corporation, Mesa Air Group, Mesa Packing, Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund, Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Mission Linen Supply, NFI Industries, Operating Engineers Local 835 Health and Welfare Fund, Opportunity Resources, Inc. Health and Welfare Plan, Orange County AHRC, Orscheln Industries, Pacific Risk Management, Pearson Candy Company, Pinnacle PRM, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 430 Health and Welfare Fund, Progressive Logistics Services, Pure Air Filter Sales & Service, Rancho Maria PRM, Reiter Affiliated Companies, Retail, Wholesale & Dept. Store Union Local 1034 Welfare Fund, Rio Farms PRM, Sensient Technologies Corp, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund, SFN Group, Sheet Metal Workers Funds of Local Union 38, SMWIA 28, Southeast OBGYN, PC, Southern CA Pipe Trades Trust Fund, Southern Operators Health Fund, Stonebridge Hospitality Associates, Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., Teamsters Local, 522 Welfare Fund Roofers Division, Teamsters Local Union 72 Welfare Fund, Telesis Management Corporation, Texas Carpenters and Millwrights Health and Welfare Fund, The Mentor Network, The Wada Farms, Inc., The Wilks Group, Inc. dba Ashley Furniture Homestore, The Wright Travel Agency, Town of Grand Island, Trans-System, Inc., True Leaf Farms, UFCW Local 371 Amalgamated Welfare Fund, United Crafts Benefits Fund, United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Local No. 348 Health & Welfare Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 New Hampshire, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1459 and Contributing Employers Health and Welfare Fund, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464a, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 911, Varsity Contractors, Inc., Waffle House, Weckworth Manufacturing, Western Express, Inc., Western Harvesting  PRM Health Plan, WG Yates and Sons Construction Company, World Class Automotive, Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Alaska Pipe Trade U.A. Local 367 Health and Security Trust, Amalgamated National Health Fund, American Farms, PRM Health Plan, American Growers Cooling, PRM Health Plan, AUTO, LP, dba AutoInc. Health Benefit Plan, Better Way Partners, LLC, Big Valley Labor, PRM Health Plan, CB Harvesting, PRM Health Plan, City of Rockwall, Cocopah Nurseries, Inc., Express Harvesting, PRM Health Plan, Fallen Oak Packing, PRM Health Plan, FirstCarolinaCare, Insurance Company on behalf of Longworth Industries, Foot Locker, Inc., Fresh Express, G&H Farms,PRM Health Plan, Gill Ranch, PRM Health Plan, Gill Transport, PRM Health Plan, Gills Onions, PRM Health Plan, Green Valley Farm Supply, PRM Health Plan, Greencroft Communities, Growers Express, PRM Health Plan, Hall Management Group, Inc., IH Services, Independent Group Home Living Program, Inc, King City Nursery, PRM Health Plan, Meijer Health Benefits Plan/Primary Care Option, Mission Ranches, PRM Health Plan, Moore's Retread & Tire of the Ark-La-Tex, Inc., NOITU Insurance Trust Fund, Payroll Solutions, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630 Welfare Fund, Seco Packing Transcorr, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1000, United Wire, Metal & Machine Health & Welfare Fund, Western Growers Assurance Trust, Wisconsin United Food & Commercial, Workers Unions and Employers Health Plan, 1199SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund, A. Duda & Sons, Inc., Adecco Group, Inc., Biomedic Corporation, Buffets, Inc., Carington Health System, Cleveland Bakers Teamsters, Club Chef LLC, Columbia Sussex Mgmt, LLC, CRST International Inc., Darr Equipment, Co., DC Cement Masons Welfare Fund, Deaconess Long Term Care, Diamond Comic Distributors, Inc., ECOM Atlantic, Inc., FW Walton, Inc., G4S Secure Solutions, GC Services, L.P. & First Community Bancshares, Inc., Guardsmark, LLC, Indiana Teamsters Health Benefits Fund, Knox County Association for Retarded Citizens, Laundry and Dry Cleaning Workers Local No. 52, Mars Super Markets, Inc., MPS Group, Inc., Nexion Health, Noodles & Company, Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacy, Quality Integrated Services, Inc., RE Rabalais Constructors, LTD, RREMC LLC, Security Forces Inc., Shirkey Nursing, Social Service Employees Union Local 371, Spindle, Cooling, & Warehouse, Strauss Discount Auto, Sunburst Hospitality, Susser Holding Corp, Telescope Casual Furniture, Teletech Holdings, Inc., The Brinkman Corporation, The LDF Companies, United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Mount Laurel, NJ), United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1459, Universal Orlando, Valley Services, Inc., United Food and Commercial Workers and Participating Employers Interstate Health and Welfare Fund, Protocol Marketing Group, Sasnak, Star Tek, Adventist Care Centers, B.E.S.T of NY, Boskovich Farms, Inc, Café Enterprises, Inc., Capital District Physicians, FleetPride, Inc., Gallegos Corp, Hensley Industries, Inc., Jeffords Steel and Engineering, Laborers' International Union of North America, Local Union No. 616 Health and Welfare Plan, O.K. Industries, Service Employees Benefit Fund, Sun Pacific Farming Coop, SunWorld International, LLC, UFCW Allied Trade Health & Welfare Trust, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1995, HCR Manor Care, IBEW No.915, Integra BMS for Culp, Inc., New England Health Care Employees Welfare Fund, Wiliamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company, Aegis Security Insurance Company, Alliance One Tobacco, Asbestos Workers Local 53 Welfare Fund, Assurant Health (2nd Application), Captain Elliot's Party Boats, Carlson Restaurants, CH Guenther & Son, CKM Industries dba Miller Environmental, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan, Darden Restaurants, Duarte Nursery, Employees Security Fund, Florida Trowel Trades, Ingles Markets, Meijer, O'Reilly Auto Parts, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 123 Welfare Fund, Sun Belt, UFCW Local 227, Uncle Julio's, United Group, US Imaging, Vino Farms, AdvantaStaff, Inc, Agricare, Alaska Seafood, American Fidelity, Convergys, Darensberries, Gowan Company, Greystar, Macayo Restaurants, Periodical Services, UniFirst, Universal Forest Products, UFCW Maximus Local 455, American Habilitation Services, Inc, GuideStone Financial Resources, Local 25 SEIU, MAUSER Corp., Preferred Care, Inc., Ruby Tuesday, The Dixie Group, Inc., UFCW Local 1262, Whelan Security Company, AMF Bowling Worldwide, Assisted Living Concepts, Case & Associates, GPM Investments, Grace Living Centers, Mountaire Corporation, Swift Spinning, Belmont Village, Caliber Services, Cracker Barrel, DISH Network, Groendyke Transport,  Inc, Pocono Medical Center, Regis Corporation, The Pictsweet Co., Diversified Interiors, Local 802 Musicians Health Fund, MCS Life Insurance Company, The Buccaneer, CIGNA, Greater Metropolitan Hotel, Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, GSC-ILA, The Allied Industries Health Fund, Harden Healthcare, Vernon Sheltered, Workshop, Inc. Health and Welfare Plan #501, I.U.P.A.T, Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., Transport Workers, United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, Aegis, Aetna, Allflex, Baptist Retirement, BCS Insurance, Cryogenic, Fowler Packing Co., Guy C. Lee Mfg., HealthPort, Jack in the Box, Maritime Association, Maverick County, Metropolitan D.C. Paving Industry Employees Health and Welfare Fund, PMPS-ILA, PS-ILA, QK/DRD (Denny's), Reliance Standard, Tri-Pak, United Agricultural Benefit Trust

But, you know, he's a real man of the people.

Did Obama exempt 1,200 groups, including Congress, from Obamacare?

"The first part of Scalise's statement refers to one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies and other organizations regarding the law's restrictions of annual benefit caps.

Yep, you read that correctly. He is referring to a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law."



The Pinocchio Test

Scalise's use of the word "exempted" is much too expansive. He gives the impression that vast segments of politically connected "groups" have been excused from the health care law when in fact he is mostly  referring to a one-year waiver that was intended to make the transition to the new system easier for people with bare-bones insurance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 09, 2013, 10:52:28 PM
I don't think you understand the problem. Obama is campaigning for money on something he just happened to now be in favor of, so that the Senate will pass something and send it the House, so they can call the opposition names in the media and further campaign on some promise or another. They could have done ENDA anytime they felt like it, but because they want you to be begging them for some scrap, they held it till they could use it to their own political advantage. It's quite beautiful in its brutality and for that, I have to give them credit. Of course we won't know who gets what waivers and which parts of whatever law are passed he will choose to ignore. Probably enough to piss off as many people as possible.

In case you're curious, let's look at who gets a waiver from the greatest new healthcare system every created, because it's so great that we just had to have it:

But, you know, he's a real man of the people.

I never said he was a man of the people nor did I say this the ACA is the greatest thing ever.  What I did say is that with ENDA, he is at least backing our community.  Perhaps it's only for political show.  I myself suspect this is a ploy for campaign fundraising and making an issue for the 2014 campaigns.  Nonetheless, at least we are getting ENDA brought up and addressed even if it comes from selfish intent.  Politicians are selfish by nature and it's not shocking that they only act in their own self interest.  At least this time it coincides with lgbt rights.  And if the Republicans don't wish to fall into Obama's campaigning tactic, there is a simple solution: hold a vote for ENDA and support it.  Republicans have much more to gain from embracing the lgbt community than backing away.  Social conservatives aren't going to vote for the dems and it may sway some independent voters to reconsider the republicans.  Bohener could make this happen, but he refuses a vote.  Personally, I disagree with him, but I also think it's a bad political move on his part.  In any case, if you want ENDA passed, Obama is not the enemy at this moment in time.  Like I said, you can dislike a person for many reasons, but still back something they endorse.  I was no fan of Bush and thought he was deceitful over Iraq, but that did not prevent me from considering all of his positions and agreeing with him when I felt he was right (even if that was a rare occurrence).  So, I suggest people consider the same thing with Obama.  Even if someone is perceived to be the enemy or wrong at times, it doesn't mean that they can't ever be right or be an ally in some instances.  I don't like seeing things in black and white.

As for the ACA, I'm not getting into that debate.  I notice that it is building walls around us and there is open hostility and passive aggressiveness going on with the topic.  If people could openly exchange ideas and consider different views, it would be fine.  But it is only turning into bickering as emotions are very high and stances are unwavering on both sides of the aisle.  It's something I have no interest in getting involved with; especially since it's a beautiful Sunday morning and I finally have a day to relax from all the stress of my weekly work schedule.  All I will say is that ENDA is not the ACA and any attempt to draw a connection is really unfair.  They are entirely separate bills and the president isn't the author of ENDA.

QuoteI never said he was a man of the people nor did I say this the ACA is the greatest thing ever.  What I did say is that with ENDA, he is at least backing our community.  Perhaps it's only for political show.  I myself suspect this is a ploy for campaign fundraising and making an issue for the 2014 campaigns.  Nonetheless, at least we are getting ENDA brought up and addressed even if it comes from selfish intent.  Politicians are selfish by nature and it's not shocking that they only act in their own self interest.

Wow, that comes awfully close to a typical woman's rationalization of her abusive husband or boyfriend. I was expecting to read at some point, you got the black eye from a 'fall'.

If he doesn't have credibility, how can anyone trust he won't soon throw us under the bus? Unless you read the legislation, how can you trust it says what he claims? Hello... "If you like your doctor and insurance, you can keep them. Insurance costs are going to decline $2,500 per family on average". etc.

Acting desperate rarely if ever works out well.

The following article is a good read to understand how our nation has found itself with no credible leadership at the very top...

http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/new-york-times-obama-cheerleading-harms-the-nation/ (http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/new-york-times-obama-cheerleading-harms-the-nation/)

Quote from: Nikko on November 10, 2013, 10:40:59 AM
Wow, that comes awfully close to a typical woman's rationalization of her abusive husband or boyfriend. I was expecting to read at some point, you got the black eye from a 'fall'.

If he doesn't have credibility, how can anyone trust he won't soon throw us under the bus? Unless you read the legislation, how can you trust it says what he claims? Hello... "If you like your doctor and insurance, you can keep them. Insurance costs are going to decline $2,500 per family on average". etc.

Acting desperate rarely if ever works out well...

Please read the history of ENDA before claiming it is his legislation.  It's not his bill.   This isn't the ACA.  It's been around long before him and he has only recently backed it.  His promises aren't what's important as you can actually see what's in the bill yourself if you wish http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.815: .  All that matters is that he doesn't veto it and that his verbal support gains enough approval for it to be passed in the house (which won't happen because Bohener won't allow a vote).  His secret intentions mean nothing to me as all politicians are motivated by self interest. I don't love my politicians or the system, but I work with what we have and try to make the best changes possible.  You have to be a realist and realize how things work. If anyone thinks that anyone in Washington has credibility or is a man or women of the people, they are wrong.  There are too many special interests groups for someone to represent every person at all times.  That's be a political realist and understanding how the system actually operates.  It's pluralism. 

Secondly, claiming that I sound like a victim of spousal abuse does a great disservice to women who have been victimized and is a very poor analogy.  I know people that have and take offense to that comparison. 

Edit.

For some reason I can't link it properly.  In any event, read "S.815 -- Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013" which is posted on thomas.loc.gov.  You can make up your own mind without Obama's interpretation. 

While I hate Wikipedia, I think it's probably a good introduction for those who are unfamiliar with the bill and it's history.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

I find it hysterically hypocritical that some people focus on Obama's lukewarm interest in ENDA while totally ignoring outright bigotry against us by the GOP. Talk about misplaced priorities!

As for ENDA, Obama will never get the chance to sign it - because of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Paul Broun, and many many more transphobic haters in the GOP who will block it from ever being brought to a vote. That is a far bigger crime against trans folk than anything Obama has done or not done, yet I see zero discussion of this open bigotry by radical right wing religious extremists while there is constant carping that Obama came to the party late. Well at least he's AT the party now, which is more than can be said for Republicans in any way, shape, or form.

I want you to look at this list (http://www.transunitedforobama.org/uploads/1/1/2/9/11297030/trans_accomplishments.pdf) (PDF!) and tell me what the GOP has done for transgender people over the last 13 years, 8 of which were of Republican rule of everything and the last few years of Republican control of the House.

It seems to me the biggest obstacles that trans folk have in our lives, access to healthcare, preventing us from being fired just for being trans, are things that the GOP wants to keep as they are. They WANT you fired for being trans. They WANT to deny you healthcare for being trans. As one Republican said, trans people are "yucky", or as another said, we're "freaks", or as another said, we should be "in camps".

Compared to the party that calls us "yucky", "freaks", and deserving to be "in camps", Obama is an angel. And no, he's not an angel in reality, just compared to the horrors of the GOP's transphobic bigotry.

So this carping about Obama sure seems to be rather misplaced. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is trying to do something that just might be possible if it were allowed to come to a vote. It's the Ted Cruz crazies who are trying to keep transgender people oppressed, not Democrats.

Quote from: LizMarie on November 10, 2013, 11:15:59 AM
I find it hysterically hypocritical that some people focus on Obama's lukewarm interest in ENDA while totally ignoring outright bigotry against us by the GOP. Talk about misplaced priorities!

As for ENDA, Obama will never get the chance to sign it - because of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Paul Broun, and many many more transphobic haters in the GOP who will block it from ever being brought to a vote. That is a far bigger crime against trans folk than anything Obama has done or not done, yet I see zero discussion of this open bigotry by radical right wing religious extremists while there is constant carping that Obama came to the party late. Well at least he's AT the party now, which is more than can be said for Republicans in any way, shape, or form.

I want you to look at this list (http://www.transunitedforobama.org/uploads/1/1/2/9/11297030/trans_accomplishments.pdf) (PDF!) and tell me what the GOP has done for transgender people over the last 13 years, 8 of which were of Republican rule of everything and the last few years of Republican control of the House.

It seems to me the biggest obstacles that trans folk have in our lives, access to healthcare, preventing us from being fired just for being trans, are things that the GOP wants to keep as they are. They WANT you fired for being trans. They WANT to deny you healthcare for being trans. As one Republican said, trans people are "yucky", or as another said, we're "freaks", or as another said, we should be "in camps".

Compared to the party that calls us "yucky", "freaks", and deserving to be "in camps", Obama is an angel. And no, he's not an angel in reality, just compared to the horrors of the GOP's transphobic bigotry.

So this carping about Obama sure seems to be rather misplaced. Politics is the art of the possible. Obama is trying to do something that just might be possible if it were allowed to come to a vote. It's the Ted Cruz crazies who are trying to keep transgender people oppressed, not Democrats.

Dems have their own bad history with the lgbt community and have often ignored us.  Enda was ignored by Obama and Senate leaders for a long period and that isn't nor shouldn't be forgotten.  However, they are slowly warming to us and we should acknowledge the slow progress that is being made.  I suspect it's due to self interest, but that's okay.  All politicians act in that way.  Now, I say it's time we focus on the republicans and show them why we are an important community they can't reject.  Sooner or later they will have to embrace us or face the political penalty.  I think we should have a positive message towards the likes of Boehner by showing him what our support or at least lack of opposition could mean to him and his party.  Come to the table with what we have to offer and eventually they will come around.  The lgbt community is a strong force and they will have to listen to us at some point or realize there are consequences. That's what happened with the dems, and I believe it will eventually happen to the Republicans.  It's just unfortunate that the social conservatives still have a hard grasp over the party.  The Republicans should be opening their tent instead of closing it. 

I should also note that not all opposition to Enda is strictly social.  I disagree with the opponents of the law, but not all of them are homophobic or transphobic.  Some are just hardcore libertarians who support a businesses' right to do whatever it pleases.  I don't agree with that view, but it is different from those who are bigoted against us.  We as left wingers and trans people don't like being falsely labelled or having poor assumptions made about us because of our belief's and life style, so let's also try to respect the same dilmena that others face. 

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 09, 2013, 11:26:41 AMsordid, much like his relationship with the truth.

Okay, but honestly, is that really a new-to-Obama thing or isn't it really more of a just-about-every-politician-ever-especially-president kind of thing?

Quote from: LizMarie on November 10, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

As for ENDA, Obama will never get the chance to sign it - because of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Paul Broun, and many many more transphobic haters in the GOP who will block it from ever being brought to a vote. That is a far bigger crime against trans folk than anything Obama has done or not done, yet I see zero discussion of this open bigotry by radical right wing religious extremists while there is constant carping that Obama came to the party late. Well at least he's AT the party now, which is more than can be said for Republicans in any way, shape, or form.

I suppose these bills would get a better chance of surviving the House's oversight if there wasn't half a dozen extra non-related pork barrel attachments. A lot of good bills get the thumbs down because some congress person attaches a "little gift" for his/her state to it.

As for which party suppressed blacks, raided Social Security and your pension plans, do your homework before getting so worked up over who you think the good, bad and ugly are. Meanwhile, I'd champion the idea of term limits for all congresspeople and banning lobbyists from approaching congress or the White House.

As for the reasons some here seem so hateful toward the President, it springs from the fact that this president has told lies to cover his lies, more so than any other president of record and has created a large number of czars unprecedented in American history to enable him to circumvent the Constitution and operate in a lawless manner. Those who are paying attention are upset and sick of being treated like morons. The fact that other people still blindly refuse to see it is because they are more interested in party loyalty and bickering than acknowledging the truth, but to quote the President's former pastor, "The chickens are coming home to roost" your eyes will be opened when you feel the pain and you will know the truth albeit too late.

Learningtolive,

I've known real libertarians and while I disagree with them, I can almost always continue to talk to them. What passes for "libertarianism" in the GOP today is a thinly veiled religious "gospel of wealth" cloaked in flag and bible. And it's easy to detect these people. A fellow who was a huge Romney supporter and was so outraged that Obama won re-election swore he had become a Libertarian. But knowing his positions, I asked how he felt about laws against GLBT persons. Not equality laws, but actual laws against GLBT persons, criminalizing sodomy, oral sex, etc. He was all in favor of those. I asked him about whether he was pro-choice or not, and of course he was not. I asked him if he supported mandated fetal ultrasound laws, and he did. I asked him whether he supported three strikes rules and the continued war on drugs, and he did. I asked him if he supported prison sentences for non-violent offenses, such as marijuana possession, and he did. I asked his opinion on the wars that Bush started and he was still all gung ho about those.

At that point I started to tick off the Libertarian party's actual positions, and he got angrier and angrier. I reminded him that these are the things the Libertarians stand for, not just "Republicanism with more free market". That's one reason Ron Paul moved away from the Libertarian Party - his views were not fully in sync with the party's views.

The vast majority of "libertarian" Republicans I've met are just social conservatives trying to dress up their religious bigotry with something they think sound intellectual. Paul Ryan is like that and before his death, conservative pastor and firebrand, Chuck Colson took Ryan to task for his hypocrisy. Eric Cantor has openly discussed his admiration of Patrick Henry and Henry's focus on small government, yet Cantor doesn't tell us why Henry was focused on limited government. Henry's rationale for limited government was summed up when he screamed at his fellow Virginia delegates to the Constitutional convention, after reading the new constitutions expansive powers as, "They'll free your n*****s!!" And yes, he said that. And yes, that is the basis of the history of the "limited government" movement in the United States.

It's no coincidence that the tea party is strongest in the old confederate states. It's no coincidence that the secession talk almost all comes from old confederate states, even after ulta-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote (when asked directly about secession), "I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." No right to secede. This from the most conservative jurist on the Supreme Court, yet the tea party continues to beat that drum.

There are legitimate fiscal conservatives in the GOP but those people are constantly being drowned out by the radical religious social conservatives. Those people are why Romney tacked hard right during the primaries then tried to shift back to the center during the national campaign. Those people are the ones that lost, almost universally this last Tuesday as a plethora of moderate or even true liberal candidates were elected, even in states like Virginia.

I was a Republican once. I walked away as I witnessed the internal racism grow worse instead of better, as the party became more and more extreme, with many demands that mirror demands the Taliban has made in Afghanistan. Barry Goldwater foresaw this coming and was not the least bit kind to the religious extremists.

Quote
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them...

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

Until the GOP steps away from the right wing religious insanity, I will continue to believe that they pose the single greatest threat to the existence of this republic. These people are a typhoon of danger while Obama is just some morning breeze in comparison.


To Shantel,

• The GOP opposed Social Security.
• The GOP opposed Medicare.
• The GOP opposed the Civil Rights Act and Goldwater expressly ran against it in 1964. The Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act? Dixecrats, many of whom switched parties to become Republicans.
• The GOP has continued to use the "Southern Strategy", first formulated by Kevin Phillips, then refined by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove. This is a strategy of using veiled racism to appeal to southern white racist voters, hence the "conservative south".
• The GOP's usage of racism is so blatant that in 2005, Ken Mehlman, chairman of the RNC, felt compelled to apologize publicly for the GOP's racist electioneering history over the last 50 years.
• The GOP grew government to its largest size ever, 3 million employees under Reagan. (Obama has reduced it to the level that LBJ was at 50 years ago.)
• The GOP fabricated an entire tower of lies about WMDs to invade Iraq. Bush's lies dwarf Obama's and Bush deserves to be tried for war crimes and so does Cheney.
• Bush doubled the federal debt while the GOP quietly said not a word. Obama has increased the federal debt by about 55% so far and the GOP hypocritcally screams as if it's the end of the nation. (Note - that's exactly what the GOP claimed Social Security, then 30 years later Medicare would do - destroy the country.)
• Bush went from a balanced budget to a final deficit of $1.4 trillion dollars. Obama has steadily reduced the annual deficit to where FY2013's estimate now looks to be as low as $600 billion or so (final numbers not yet in).
• The last fiscally responsible Republican? Ike, who also warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, to which the GOP appears bound at the hip now.

Neither party is lily pure and Republicans who keep pointing at Abe Lincoln need to study the history of the last 50 years to see how far from the party of Lincoln the GOP has fallen.

If you step back objectively and look at the fiscal facts of the last 13 years specifically, the big spending party is the GOP. The more fiscally responsible party is the Democrats right now.

Finally, as for pork barrel attachments, give the president a line item veto. It works in many other modern industrial nations, from Germany to Japan. And if you refuse to grant the line item veto, well, amendments are part of the horse trading in real politics. Issues, as much as I would wish otherwise, never occur in a vacuum.

Quote from: Shantel on November 10, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
I suppose these bills would get a better chance of surviving the House's oversight if there wasn't half a dozen extra non-related pork barrel attachments. A lot of good bills get the thumbs down because some congress person attaches a "little gift" for his/her state to it.

As for which party suppressed blacks, raided Social Security and your pension plans, do your homework before getting so worked up over who you think the good, bad and ugly are. Meanwhile, I'd champion the idea of term limits for all congresspeople and banning lobbyists from approaching congress or the White House.

As for the reasons some here seem so hateful toward the President, it springs from the fact that this president has told lies to cover his lies, more so than any other president of record and has created a large number of czars unprecedented in American history to enable him to circumvent the Constitution and operate in a lawless manner. Those who are paying attention are upset and sick of being treated like morons. The fact that other people still blindly refuse to see it is because they are more interested in party loyalty and bickering than acknowledging the truth, but to quote the President's former pastor, "The chickens are coming home to roost" your eyes will be opened when you feel the pain and you will know the truth albeit too late.

Shantel,

Let's be honest that the opposition to ENDA is not related to pork barrell spending and has more to do with either social conservatism or libertarian economic views.  I've seen the house vote in favor of a lot of bills with pork attached to it.  Why is ENDA special to them?  I'm not really sure what attachments there have been to the bill that aren't related to employment discrimination itself, but I would be interested in hearing them.  Either way, that isn't why Boehner said he won't allow a vote on it, so the point is moot even if that's what your concern is. 

I like you Shantel, so I will ask you to consider something.  Isn't it possible that some of us are not interested in defending party loyalty, but we actually happen to agree with the president on this one particular issue and feel that this is so important that we must defend ENDA and those who back it?  And maybe some of us do see what's going on and happen to have a different perspective than others here?  I will not be so foolish to say my view is definitive, but it hurts when others belittle your perspective.  Asking questions and challenging people politely is fine, but let's not assume the other person is blind.  I hate when the left does it to the right and vice versa.  Disagreement with another person doesn't necessarily make them morons nor does it make you right or the other person correct.

Here is what we know, Enda passed the Senate and has the President's approval.  The only roadblock at the moment is the house which is in Republican control.  Obama may be a self interested politician, but I fail to see why he is the cause of ENDA not getting passed at this moment.  Obama has dropped the ball in the passed, but for whatever reason (probably midterm elections) he has made a stand and it's passed the Senate for the first time.  Now, the ball is in Boehners court and he can pass it and do away with Obama's strategy if he wishes to do so.  Right now, Obama has little to do with Enda and this debate makes no sense.  Blame Obama for the things that he may have earned it from, including his past relectance to pass enda,  but his current support for Enda in 2013 isn't one of them if you hope for the bill to pass.  Obama's support for gay marriage may be artificial, but it did a lot to increase approval ratings for it.  The same can be said of ENDA.  That's why this debate makes no sense.  If people wish to complain about the ACA, that's fine.  But let's not compare apples and oranges.  They aren't one of the same just because the president happens to support both.  And for the record, I would fully embrace Boehner on this issue if he turns around as I expect many others would.  Instead of getting mad at Bohner for doing so or creating a topic to address his flip flopping, I would support his change of heart even if it was for selfish purposes.  Sometimes it really is about the issue and not from who it comes from or why.  As long as Enda is passed and we continue to make social progress, I am happy. 

Quote from: Shantel on November 10, 2013, 01:44:51 PM

As for which party suppressed blacks, raided Social Security and your pension plans, do your homework before getting so worked up over who you think the good, bad and ugly are. Meanwhile, I'd champion the idea of term limits for all congresspeople and banning lobbyists from approaching congress or the White House.

They all moved over to the republican party which is why the majority of blacks now belong to the democratic party.
Do your homework!

Quote from: LizMarie on November 10, 2013, 02:14:39 PM

Learningtolive,

I've known real libertarians and while I disagree with them, I can almost always continue to talk to them. What passes for "libertarianism" in the GOP today is a thinly veiled religious "gospel of wealth" cloaked in flag and bible. And it's easy to detect these people. A fellow who was a huge Romney supporter and was so outraged that Obama won re-election swore he had become a Libertarian. But knowing his positions, I asked how he felt about laws against GLBT persons. Not equality laws, but actual laws against GLBT persons, criminalizing sodomy, oral sex, etc. He was all in favor of those. I asked him about whether he was pro-choice or not, and of course he was not. I asked him if he supported mandated fetal ultrasound laws, and he did. I asked him whether he supported three strikes rules and the continued war on drugs, and he did. I asked him if he supported prison sentences for non-violent offenses, such as marijuana possession, and he did. I asked his opinion on the wars that Bush started and he was still all gung ho about those.

At that point I started to tick off the Libertarian party's actual positions, and he got angrier and angrier. I reminded him that these are the things the Libertarians stand for, not just "Republicanism with more free market". That's one reason Ron Paul moved away from the Libertarian Party - his views were not fully in sync with the party's views.

The vast majority of "libertarian" Republicans I've met are just social conservatives trying to dress up their religious bigotry with something they think sound intellectual. Paul Ryan is like that and before his death, conservative pastor and firebrand, Chuck Colson took Ryan to task for his hypocrisy. Eric Cantor has openly discussed his admiration of Patrick Henry and Henry's focus on small government, yet Cantor doesn't tell us why Henry was focused on limited government. Henry's rationale for limited government was summed up when he screamed at his fellow Virginia delegates to the Constitutional convention, after reading the new constitutions

expansive powers as, "They'll free your n*****s!!" And yes, he said that. And yes, that is the basis of the history of the "limited government" movement in the United States.

It's no coincidence that the tea party is strongest in the old confederate states. It's no coincidence that the secession talk almost all comes from old confederate states, even after ulta-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote (when asked directly about secession), "I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." No right to secede. This from the most conservative jurist on the Supreme Court, yet the tea party continues to beat that drum.

There are legitimate fiscal conservatives in the GOP but those people are constantly being drowned out by the radical religious social conservatives. Those people are why Romney tacked hard right during the primaries then tried to shift back to the center during the national campaign. Those people are the ones that lost, almost universally this last Tuesday as a plethora of moderate or even true liberal candidates were elected, even in states like Virginia.

I was a Republican once. I walked away as I witnessed the internal racism grow worse instead of better, as the party became more and more extreme, with many demands that mirror demands the Taliban has made in Afghanistan. Barry Goldwater foresaw this coming and was not the least bit kind to the religious extremists.

Until the GOP steps away from the right wing religious insanity, I will continue to believe that they pose the single greatest threat to the existence of this republic. These people are a typhoon of danger while Obama is just some morning breeze in comparison.


To Shantel,

• The GOP opposed Social Security.
• The GOP opposed Medicare.
• The GOP opposed the Civil Rights Act and Goldwater expressly ran against it in 1964. The Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act? Dixecrats, many of whom switched parties to become Republicans.
• The GOP has continued to use the "Southern Strategy", first formulated by Kevin Phillips, then refined by Lee Atwater and then Karl Rove. This is a strategy of using veiled racism to appeal to southern white racist voters, hence the "conservative south".
• The GOP's usage of racism is so blatant that in 2005, Ken Mehlman, chairman of the RNC, felt compelled to apologize publicly for the GOP's racist electioneering history over the last 50 years.
• The GOP grew government to its largest size ever, 3 million employees under Reagan. (Obama has reduced it to the level that LBJ was at 50 years ago.)
• The GOP fabricated an entire tower of lies about WMDs to invade Iraq. Bush's lies dwarf Obama's and Bush deserves to be tried for war crimes and so does Cheney.
• Bush doubled the federal debt while the GOP quietly said not a word. Obama has increased the federal debt by about 55% so far and the GOP hypocritcally screams as if it's the end of the nation. (Note - that's exactly what the GOP claimed Social Security, then 30 years later Medicare would do - destroy the country.)
• Bush went from a balanced budget to a final deficit of $1.4 trillion dollars. Obama has steadily reduced the annual deficit to where FY2013's estimate now looks to be as low as $600 billion or so (final numbers not yet in).
  

{The last fiscally responsible Republican? Ike, who also warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, to which the GOP appears bound at the hip now.[/li]
[/list]

Neither party is lily pure and Republicans who keep pointing at Abe Lincoln need to study the history of the last 50 years to see how far from the party of Lincoln the GOP has fallen.

If you step back objectively and look at the fiscal facts of the last 13 years specifically, the big spending party is the GOP. The more fiscally responsible party is the Democrats right now.

Finally, as for pork barrel attachments, give the president a line item veto. It works in many other modern industrial nations, from Germany to Japan. And if you refuse to grant the line item veto, well, amendments are part of the horse trading in real politics. Issues, as much as I would wish otherwise, never occur in a vacuum.

I don't disagree that there are many social conservatives in libertarian clothing, but I don't want to make false assumptions about people either.  I've seen a lot in life and realize it's hard to label people at times.  In the case of ENDA, you and I both agree it is the sensible thing to do.  Having said that, I do know people that do oppose ENDA for concerns that aren't inherently transphobic or homophobic.  I don't agree with them, but it's not fair to lump them in with bigots if that's not who they are.  For example, I disagree with Obama on some issues, but I support him in this case.  Does that mean I have to defend his every action or intention? No.  I think the same can be said of some who are on the right.  Having said that, I think most of the opposition in the house does stem from social conservatism and not so much libertarianism.  There are some swayed by business lobbyists, but most are afraid of having a transgender co-worker.  Still, it doesn't mean that everyone who is a Republican feels that way or that those who aren't in favor or ENDA think transgender individuals are lesser.  It's important not to stereotype people until you know what's in their heart and why they feel the way they do.  As trans women we know what it's like to be unfairly lumped in with other groups and to have false assumptions made about our character.  As hard as it can be to detach ourselves from our political views, let's give every individual the same chance to explain themselves without being lumped into the group of bigots.  I know people here that don't support Enda, but I wouldn't call them bigots even if I honestly believe they are wrong.   Let's all see that life isn't always black or white and neither are people.  There are many aspects of our character and our beliefs. 

QuoteI find it hysterically hypocritical that some people focus on Obama's lukewarm interest in ENDA while totally ignoring outright bigotry against us by the GOP. Talk about misplaced priorities!

What you see as outright bigotry, I see as legitimate disagreements over policies. They believe creating all these special classes of people damages this country, and based how everyone argues these things, I see their point. I support the right for homosexuals to marry, but most conservatives believe marriage has religious ties and it's a union between a man and a woman. The overwhelming number of republicans I know support civil unions that would carry the same rights and benefits as marriage. Given this isn't acceptable, I have to wonder if there isn't an assault on religion on some level. What term applies to that? BTW, I'm not religious, I do respect religion however.

If you want to see outright bigotry, look at what's acceptable to do to women and blacks who are republicans. It's sad and appalling.

Quote from: Nikko on November 10, 2013, 02:47:29 PM
What you see as outright bigotry, I see as legitimate disagreements over policies. They believe creating all these special classes of people damages this country, and based how everyone argues these things, I see their point. I support the right for homosexuals to marry, but most conservatives believe marriage has religious ties and it's a union between a man and a woman. The overwhelming number of republicans I know support civil unions that would carry the same rights and benefits as marriage. Given this isn't acceptable, I have to wonder if there isn't an assault on religion on some level. What term applies to that? BTW, I'm not religious, I do respect religion however.

If you want to see outright bigotry, look at what's acceptable to do to women and blacks who are republicans. It's sad and appalling.

I would say it's only an assault on religion if the churches had to hold a same sex ceremony or were forced to recognize that union in some way.  Otherwise, it's really not an assault on the religious to have gay marriage.  The church can still exercise it's free speech and reject whatever they want on a moral basis. They just need to realize other people exist that don't agree with their views and they shouldn't have to be forced to live by them.  The government shouldn't be controlled by religious beliefs.  That is meant for one's private life where someone may hold whatever view that they may. 

There is bigotry from all sides of the spectrum and we should always be mindful of that.  However, one side isn't preventing people from getting employed for being women or blacks.  Remember those classes are protected by anti-discrimination policies.  I still fail to see why it's different for gays or trans individuals.  Hell, I would say the same about straight people.  Imagine if a gay company refused to hire a straight employee solely on the basis of their sexuality?  Well, that would be equally as bad as what goes on today with the lgbt community.  I respect your disagreement, but I really don't understand it even though I realize you aren't coming from a place of hate. 

QuoteImagine if a gay company refused to hire a straight employee solely on the basis of their sexuality?

I can't help but wonder if that's not a valid reason. Hooters doesn't hire a lot of women and no male waiters that I'm aware of.

If a company feels a transgender person wouldn't work in a certain position because their clients would object, is that not similar to the Hooter's situation or a Gay company that is concerned about hiring someone who wasn't outwardly gay?

I do feel a law should apply to everyone, instead of having it apply to certain groups, if bigotry is rampant, isn't it better to craft the language so companies must make hiring decisions based on a person's qualifications only? But then, don't most companies? I don't know.

I have no doubt trans people who are out and expressing themselves in their proper gender face discrimination by many companies and certainly for certain types of positions. Our professions, like our healthcare, is a vital issue for nearly everyone. It deserves a very well thought out approach, not this "well we're getting attention and that's what matters most".

Quote from: Nikko on November 10, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
I can't help but wonder if that's not a valid reason. Hooters doesn't hire a lot of women and no male waiters that I'm aware of.

If a company feels a transgender person wouldn't work in a certain position because their clients would object, is that not similar to the Hooter's situation or a Gay company that is concerned about hiring someone who wasn't outwardly gay?

I do feel a law should apply to everyone, instead of having it apply to certain groups, if bigotry is rampant, isn't it better to craft the language so companies must make hiring decisions based on a person's qualifications only? But then, don't most companies? I don't know.

I have no doubt trans people who are out and expressing themselves in their proper gender face discrimination by many companies and certainly for certain types of positions. Our professions, like our healthcare, is a vital issue for nearly everyone. It deserves a very well thought out approach, not this "well we're getting attention and that's what matters most".

I never said that what matters most is that we're getting attention.  You make me sound like a shallow fool.  What I said was that getting Enda passed is a priority and we should actually work towards getting passed then complaining about not liking who endorses it.  This is a very important issue to our community and many of us will back the advancement of our minority group.   That shouldn't be a surprise.  You may not have faced discrimination for being trans (and I don't know what your gender is or your transition status) but you should look at the violence statistics against our community and see all the hateful comments people make about us.  It's likely to overflow into the job market (the employment rates don't lie). We are still an under-represented minority and sometimes you have to work with people you don't like or agree with all the time.  That's part of life.  And if Obama is taking up the mantle, even if for reasons that are selfish, then I will work with him on this issue.  Like I said before, I'm no fan of Bohener or Canter, but I would say the same thing if they backed it.   That's not the same as saying "at least we get attention".   It's about getting something important passed. 

I'm all for anti-discrimination policies for everyone, but enda isn't gay or trans specific.  It simply states that people should not be discriminated in employment solely on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.  And I have no problem if there is discrimination against a prospective employee if they lack the skill set or don't meet the qualifications, but they shouldn't be discriminated on the basis they are lgbt.  What you see as something not well thought out, is what I see to be a basic right that we should have and something that effects our community. 

QuoteYou may not have faced discrimination for being trans (and I don't know what your gender is or your transition status) but you should look at the violence statistics against our community and see all the hateful comments people make about us.

Really??.... Really?  (that's a slight bit presumptuous. I'm a 'conservative' (actually libertarian) transgender person. What me ever face discrimination?? There's like five of us on the whole planet!  :D)

Of course I've been discriminated against, it's happened often. EVERYONE has dealt with discrimination. It can make you weak or it can make you stronger, it's made me stronger.

Many companies often settle lawsuits with special classes even though no real discrimination was present, termination was based on poor performance. Doesn't matter, a lottery system has been established and yes many people do take advantage. I believe the bad apples in this situation spoil the whole bunch. I've already discussed this, this makes getting employment more difficult for these classes.

I'm not wanting to discuss the merits of ENDA any longer, my recent posts were regarding bigotry versus legitimate political issues.

Quote from: learningtolive on November 10, 2013, 08:12:46 AM
I never said he was a man of the people nor did I say this the ACA is the greatest thing ever.  What I did say is that with ENDA, he is at least backing our community.  Perhaps it's only for political show.  I myself suspect this is a ploy for campaign fundraising and making an issue for the 2014 campaigns.  Nonetheless, at least we are getting ENDA brought up and addressed even if it comes from selfish intent.  Politicians are selfish by nature and it's not shocking that they only act in their own self interest.  At least this time it coincides with lgbt rights.  And if the Republicans don't wish to fall into Obama's campaigning tactic, there is a simple solution: hold a vote for ENDA and support it.  Republicans have much more to gain from embracing the lgbt community than backing away.  Social conservatives aren't going to vote for the dems and it may sway some independent voters to reconsider the republicans.  Bohener could make this happen, but he refuses a vote.  Personally, I disagree with him, but I also think it's a bad political move on his part.  In any case, if you want ENDA passed, Obama is not the enemy at this moment in time.  Like I said, you can dislike a person for many reasons, but still back something they endorse.  I was no fan of Bush and thought he was deceitful over Iraq, but that did not prevent me from considering all of his positions and agreeing with him when I felt he was right (even if that was a rare occurrence).  So, I suggest people consider the same thing with Obama.  Even if someone is perceived to be the enemy or wrong at times, it doesn't mean that they can't ever be right or be an ally in some instances.  I don't like seeing things in black and white.

As for the ACA, I'm not getting into that debate.  I notice that it is building walls around us and there is open hostility and passive aggressiveness going on with the topic.  If people could openly exchange ideas and consider different views, it would be fine.  But it is only turning into bickering as emotions are very high and stances are unwavering on both sides of the aisle.  It's something I have no interest in getting involved with; especially since it's a beautiful Sunday morning and I finally have a day to relax from all the stress of my weekly work schedule.  All I will say is that ENDA is not the ACA and any attempt to draw a connection is really unfair.  They are entirely separate bills and the president isn't the author of ENDA.

Then perhaps you should drop it there, instead of constantly posting exhaustive diatribes about it. It would appear your stress free beautiful Sunday turned into another screechy affair. Congrats.

Quote from: Nikko on November 10, 2013, 05:43:16 PM
Really??.... Really?  (that's a slight bit presumptuous. I'm a 'conservative' (actually libertarian) transgender person. What me ever face discrimination?? There's like five of us on the whole planet!  :D)

Of course I've been discriminated against, it's happened often. EVERYONE has dealt with discrimination. It can make you weak or it can make you stronger, it's made me stronger.

Many companies often settle lawsuits with special classes even though no real discrimination was present, termination was based on poor performance. Doesn't matter, a lottery system has been established and yes many people do take advantage. I believe the bad apples in this situation spoil the whole bunch. I've already discussed this, this makes getting employment more difficult for these classes.

I'm not wanting to discuss the merits of ENDA any longer, my recent posts were regarding bigotry versus legitimate political issues.

There are at least three of us here!  And one other, oZma, got chased away.  That was a shame too.

We are a minority within a minority, and by not walking in lockstep with many here, we tend to be marginalized.

Quote from: LizMarie on November 10, 2013, 11:15:59 AM

As for ENDA, Obama will never get the chance to sign it - because of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Paul Broun, and many many more transphobic haters in the GOP who will block it from ever being brought to a vote. That is a far bigger crime against trans folk than anything Obama has done or not done, yet I see zero discussion of this open bigotry by radical right wing religious extremists while there is constant carping that Obama came to the party late. Well at least he's AT the party now, which is more than can be said for Republicans in any way, shape, or form.

Of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Paul Ryan, which is the only one who has ever cast a vote in favor of the ENDA bill?

LOL, yep, Paul Ryan.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 10, 2013, 08:12:15 PM
There are at least three of us here!  And one other, oZma, got chased away.  That was a shame too.

We are a minority within a minority, and by not walking in lockstep with many here, we tend to be marginalized.

Well, you know you can always count on progressive liberals who are the self proclaimed champions of diversity to attack anyone who doesn't want to be part of their socialist collective. I wouldn't join that lot if you paid me. Which. ironically enough, is how they amass a vast chunk of their supporters.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 10, 2013, 08:17:30 PM
Of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Paul Ryan, which is the only one who has ever cast a vote in favor of the ENDA bill?

LOL, yep, Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan Helped Kill Trans-Inclusive ENDA

"According to a 2010 Roll Call article, Ryan pushed bill sponsor — and out gay Democrat — Rep. Barney Frank to drop the protections for transgender Americans, saying he could not vote for the bill if it included such language."

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,126397.0.html

Quote from: michelle gee on November 10, 2013, 10:43:46 PM

Paul Ryan Helped Kill Trans-Inclusive ENDA

"According to a 2010 Roll Call article, Ryan pushed bill sponsor — and out gay Democrat — Rep. Barney Frank to drop the protections for transgender Americans, saying he could not vote for the bill if it included such language."

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,126397.0.html

The Dems controlled the House.  Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.  The Republicans had no real say in the matter.  And once it passed, neither Barry nor Joe in the Senate would bring bring it up.  The Dems in the Senate took a powder.

What flavor Kool-Aid today?

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 10, 2013, 10:53:42 PM
The Dems controlled the House.  Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.  The Republicans had no real say in the matter.  And once it passed, neither Barry nor Joe in the Senate would bring bring it up.  The Dems in the Senate took a powder.

What flavor Kool-Aid today?

I was just pointing out that while Ryan did indeed support it but ONLY if TG protection were not incuded.
This topic has been discussed at Susan's previously (follow the link),feel free to make your comments there.

The spiteful Kool-Aid reply is not needed.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 10, 2013, 10:53:42 PM
The Dems controlled the House.  Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.  The Republicans had no real say in the matter.  And once it passed, neither Barry nor Joe in the Senate would bring bring it up.  The Dems in the Senate took a powder.

What flavor Kool-Aid today?

Barry was against gay marriage until the 2012 Presidential election rolled around, then he had a 'growth' spurt in his thinking. I know he had a change of heart because he said so!!  Yes, Obama said so... and when Barry speaks >>  :eusa_liar:

In all seriousness, I believe the frequency of the blatant lies from this President must have a psychological disorder associated with it. I've never seen anything like this, not even close.

Quote from: Nikko on November 11, 2013, 12:09:15 AM
Barry was against gay marriage until the 2012 Presidential election rolled around, then he had a 'growth' spurt in his thinking. I know he had a change of heart because he said so!!  Yes, Obama said so... and when Barry speaks >>  :eusa_liar:

In all seriousness, I believe the frequency of the blatant lies from this President must have a psychological disorder associated with it. I've never seen anything like this, not even close.

It's not just his lies, it's how far his devotees will go to justify his lies, believe them, or compare his actions to W. I guess when you can tell people that raising your debt doesn't raise the debt, and that is taken as fact, there's not much you can do. Too many people want govt to do things for them that they'll believe anything.

Quote from: michelle gee on November 10, 2013, 10:43:46 PM

Paul Ryan Helped Kill Trans-Inclusive ENDA

"According to a 2010 Roll Call article, Ryan pushed bill sponsor — and out gay Democrat — Rep. Barney Frank to drop the protections for transgender Americans, saying he could not vote for the bill if it included such language."

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,126397.0.html

From what I have read/been told, Barney "Douche Rocket" Frank removed the trans protections in the bill. He isn't a big fan of Trans folks & removed them for that reason alone(Nothing to do w/ Ryan)! Actually, if were discussing liars... Barney Frank is a World class liar among other things.

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 10, 2013, 07:56:43 PM
Then perhaps you should drop it there, instead of constantly posting exhaustive diatribes about it. It would appear your stress free beautiful Sunday turned into another screechy affair. Congrats.

Tiffany,

My involvement in this thread had nothing to do with the affordable care act.  I see no 'exhaustive diatribes" about the healthcare law in this thread nor am I interested in doing that again. All of my posts were related to ENDA and the current political situation that exists around getting it passed.  People keep trying to tie two policies together that simply are not one of the same.  And ENDA, whether you agree politically or not, is very important to the lgbt community (at the very least, on a social level).  Why must you be snarky with me?  Just because we differ in opinion doesn't make either one of us the enemy.  I try to avoid most of these conversations because I see that it tends to do that, but Enda is very important to the lgbt community and it's something that we can unite under instead of fight about.  Why can't we come together and fight for something that we both have in common rather than argue about our differences? 

Quote from: Nikko on November 10, 2013, 05:43:16 PM
Really??.... Really?  (that's a slight bit presumptuous. I'm a 'conservative' (actually libertarian) transgender person. What me ever face discrimination?? There's like five of us on the whole planet!  :D)

Of course I've been discriminated against, it's happened often. EVERYONE has dealt with discrimination. It can make you weak or it can make you stronger, it's made me stronger.

Many companies often settle lawsuits with special classes even though no real discrimination was present, termination was based on poor performance. Doesn't matter, a lottery system has been established and yes many people do take advantage. I believe the bad apples in this situation spoil the whole bunch. I've already discussed this, this makes getting employment more difficult for these classes.

I'm not wanting to discuss the merits of ENDA any longer, my recent posts were regarding bigotry versus legitimate political issues.

Let me apologize for that statement.  I meant to say you may or may not have faced discrimination for simply being trans, not imply that you haven't.  However, there are plenty of libertarian trans people.  I encounter a lot of them on this site and irl.  So, don't worry about being some rarity, lol.  Keep being you and don't worry about it.   It's more common than you may think which is a good thing.

As for your view on Enda, I don't share it, but I do appreciate your view.  I can sympathize with your concerns as it is coming from a good place and based on real perceived flaws and not that of transphobia. 

Quote from: DanicaCarin on November 11, 2013, 02:07:21 AM
From what I have read/been told, Barney "Douche Rocket" Frank removed the trans protections in the bill. He isn't a big fan of Trans folks & removed them for that reason alone(Nothing to do w/ Ryan)! Actually, if were discussing liars... Barney Frank is a World class liar among other things.

I believe Frank put gender protection in initially but removed them because he couldn't get it passed.  So, you're right that it has nothing to do with Paul Ryan, Republicans, but I don't think Frank is transphobic.  The democratic house at that point in time was simply unwilling to give workplace protections to trans people.  I think this important to remember because hearts can change, sometimes for selfish reasons.  Therefore, it is important for us all to remember the Republican house is where the democratic house used to be.  I have faith that at some point the Republican party will realize the potential benefits they have to embracing our community and believe we need to effectively lobby their caucus.  It might happen this year, probably not, but it would be nice.  Eventually, the tent will have to open up. 

Hey learningtolive,

I was never impressed with Frank to begin with, so maybe I have a bias?  He totally skeeves me out! He's creepy, dirty, and looks/acts like the type of guy who runs around hitting on all the young interns(But then isn't that the norm for the folks in Washington?). From doing searches online regarding the politics of the LGBTQ community, and how the G's, L's, & B's feel about us T's. One of the names that kept popping up was Barney Frank. The impression I got was that he really doesn't understand/like us much. That we(Trans folks) were not "worth" the political capital", mentally ill, or otherwise not cool enough for the "powers to be" in the LGB community to be concerned with. He's out of office now, so its a mute point, but I would not hold my breath waiting for old  Barney to come out in support of the Trans community, at least in any meaningful way.  :-\

Quote from: DanicaCarin on November 11, 2013, 02:07:21 AM
From what I have read/been told, Barney "Douche Rocket" Frank removed the trans protections in the bill. He isn't a big fan of Trans folks & removed them for that reason alone(Nothing to do w/ Ryan)! Actually, if were discussing liars... Barney Frank is a World class liar among other things.

That's what I read in the roll call article as well. It also mentioned there were some democrats that had a problem with this last minute transgender protection language as well, that tells me Barney Frank pulled it out ( :embarrassed:) to avoid putting democrats on record as being against ENDA...

...excuse me while I go clear my mind.............................................. :'(

Speaking of why credibility matters...

I just watched the laying of the wreath ceremony at Arlington cemetery.  It brought tears to my eyes but not for the usual reasons.

Credibility, character, honor, integrity, etc., they matter.  :(

It looks as if this thread is settling down a bit, but please be aware that ad hominem attacks and excessive snark will get this thread shut down. Let's keep it civil, folks.

BTW, I would not call a libertarian a conservative although there are such things as a libertarian conservatives and conservative libertarians...

Quote from: learningtolive on November 11, 2013, 05:36:24 AM
Tiffany,

My involvement in this thread had nothing to do with the affordable care act.  I see no 'exhaustive diatribes" about the healthcare law in this thread nor am I interested in doing that again. All of my posts were related to ENDA and the current political situation that exists around getting it passed.  People keep trying to tie two policies together that simply are not one of the same.  And ENDA, whether you agree politically or not, is very important to the lgbt community (at the very least, on a social level).  Why must you be snarky with me?  Just because we differ in opinion doesn't make either one of us the enemy.  I try to avoid most of these conversations because I see that it tends to do that, but Enda is very important to the lgbt community and it's something that we can unite under instead of fight about.  Why can't we come together and fight for something that we both have in common rather than argue about our differences? 

People tie them together, along with everything else this regime does, because they are policies based on controlling people and are another part of the fundamental transformation of this country. I do not need, require or want a law to make me more equal. These divisive politics based on race, age, gender, orientation, etc. have little to do with anything but securing more life long voters and driving a further wedge between our society. I have nothing in common other than my transliness, and that's not enough. I am an individual and I would prefer the government to be as unobtrusive as possible in my life.

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 11, 2013, 09:24:34 PM
I do not need, require or want a law to make me more equal. These divisive politics based on race, age, gender, orientation, etc. have little to do with anything but securing more life long voters and driving a further wedge between our society. [. . . ] I am an individual and I would prefer the government to be as unobtrusive as possible in my life.

My problem with having anti-discriminatory employment laws is that it's so hard to actually prove you were discriminated against at work. I know right now if I came out as trans at work, they wouldn't just say "ah, disgusting! you're fired!" Employers are smarter about this stuff now, and not many would actually do that. What would happen to me is that I'd just basically get laid off, or they'd find something I legitimately did screw up and use that on me. How would I prove I was fired for being trans, enough to satisfy a court of law or mediator ? Ugh, it'd be extremely difficult since I do screw  up sometimes and work does get really slow in the winter. . . they'd have a good argument.

However, I'd be fine having lgbt protections that actually help those who can prove discrimination.

Someone above (or maybe it was in a related thread) said that these types of laws make employers not want to hire groups with protected status. But, what about someone who transitioned and passes 100% ? Employers wouldn't be able to tell when hiring the person (assuming nothing in his/her past work or school history gives it away), but they could still use protection if he/she gets outed somehow after being hired. Also, if any links to reputable cites are available to show that employers don't hire protected groups, I'd like to see the statistics so I can be better informed about this. Just in casual glances at society, it seems like protected groups are getting more and more hires in the workplaces and colleges/universities are becoming more diverse; I am sure some of this is just societal acceptance of different groups, but I am sure the laws didn't hurt. For people with disabilities, after the ADA was passed there was more hires of disabled people (although their employment rates are still extremely low and many only work part-time or are self-employed) if I remember correctly from an employment law class I had to take a few years back and said briefly here (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm) near the top under the Employment Opportunities heading. Also, from that same employment law class, racial protections have helped a lot of African Americans who were discriminated against by employers for their race, there's plenty of case law to support this, but A-Americans are still being hired. And, there's also the case (can't remember the name right now, but the movie North Country was based on it) about female discrimination, and yet women are still being hired more often in "men's work".

I could see how the ACA can be obtrusive in your personal life, but I don't really see how ENDA is obtrusive to your personal life (unless perhaps you own a business and hire/fire people yourself).



As for credibility, all politicians lie so I am not surprised when any politician does. It's not right, but it's kind of expected. I also don't vote for someone and expect to like everything they do or say, and I figure they'll either flip flop or legitimately change their minds on some issues. For Obama's statement on insurance policies not changing/being discontinued, I am slightly confused on why some people depended so much on that in the first place; the law isn't going to make policies NOT change, I figured all along that policies would either change or get cancelled if the insurance company didn't think it was financially viable or in compliance with the ACA after it's implementation. It's not up to the President to say: "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what" because of course the insurance company can take away what they sell, and change it and offer something else. When I first heard that, I just kind of assumed he was saying something more along the lines of "we the government aren't going to take away private insurance", but any plan would need to comply with the new ACA rules. As for ENDA, like the first few sentences of this paragraph here, I also expect politicans to use distractors to take away from actions that would make them unpopular among their base. I can still support these distractors if they're something I agree with, but I (and other voters) just need to remember the ugliness and not get blinded by the distractors when it comes time for the next election.

Edit: to fix typo

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 11, 2013, 10:04:34 PM
It's not up to the President to say: "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what" because of course the insurance company can take away what they sell, and change it and offer something else. When I first heard that, I just kind of assumed he was saying something more along the lines of "we the government aren't going to take away private insurance", but any plan would need to comply with the new ACA rules.

But that's what he said. Repeatedly. Over and over again. This is a typical tactic of big government authoritarians. It is essentially, "If you like what you have, you can keep it, but we're going to regulate it out of existence and force you into what we think is best for you." This is basically his stance on coal power. "I'm not going to ban it, I'll just make it so that you'll go bankrupt." So he gets to blame insurance companies for complying with his law which results in millions of peoples lives being disrupted and of course, every liberal in the land will go along and blame insurance companies for being greedy, evil, evil-greedy etc. This is their technique and they're not even hiding it anymore.

All these workforce laws are just one form of coercion or another against employers. I do not want a law that forces my employer to accept me, if they can not do that on their own then I am happy to find one who does. It's a philosophy thing. Let employers hire and fire whoever is best for the job. Instead most employers have to hire a platoon of paper pushers to make sure they are in "compliance" with the mountain of regulatory BS they have to deal with.

About Obama's statement, I agree, he did say it repeatedly when he shouldn't have. I am just more surprised that there was people out there who actually relied on a politician's statement.

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 11, 2013, 10:30:11 PM
All these workforce laws are just one form of coercion or another against employers. I do not want a law that forces my employer to accept me, if they can not do that on their own then I am happy to find one who does. It's a philosophy thing. Let employers hire and fire whoever is best for the job.

I am also just curious as to your opinion. If a prospective employee should just go somewhere else if they're not wanted for non-employment reasons by a particular employer, does that also extend to patrons of businesses who could just go elsewhere if certain businesses don't like their kind? Did the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) decision go too far and create an obtrusive government by trying to end segregation among private businesses in the South?

QuoteAbout Obama's statement, I agree, he did say it repeatedly when he shouldn't have. I am just more surprised that there was people out there who actually relied on a politician's statement.

This illustrates perfectly why I don't want lying, deceitful, politicians who you should never trust a word they say, who ruin every thing they touch and have never done anything productive in their lives, to have control over my life in this way (controlling my healthcare)!  Seriously, really?

It's not just Obama, I wouldn't trust any over simplified statement given by anyone. I little independent investigation and thought would allow a person to think differently. After Watergate, a lot of trust got eroded from public officials, so I usually (no matter who it is, Clinton, Bush, Obama. . . ) am surprised when anyone just says "oh [President, Senator, whoever] said X so it must be true". Am I saying it's okay to lie? No. Is it okay to mislead? No. Do we know people do it? Yes, so take everything with a grain of salt.

And Nikko, I think you may be assuming I am a total brainwashed liberal supporter. I've voted Republican many times (mainly in local races), and I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. I am not defending anyone by saying that voters should use their brains and do some independent thinking and research before just trusting someone's statement.

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 12, 2013, 08:29:14 AM
It's not just Obama, I wouldn't trust any over simplified statement given by anyone. I little independent investigation and thought would allow a person to think differently. After Watergate, a lot of trust got eroded from public officials, so I usually (no matter who it is, Clinton, Bush, Obama. . . ) am surprised when anyone just says "oh [President, Senator, whoever] said X so it must be true". Am I saying it's okay to lie? No. Is it okay to mislead? No. Do we know people do it? Yes, so take everything with a grain of salt.

And Nikko, I think you may be assuming I am a total brainwashed liberal supporter. I've voted Republican many times (mainly in local races), and I didn't vote for Obama in the primary. I am not defending anyone by saying that voters should use their brains and do some independent thinking and research before just trusting someone's statement.

'Everybody does it'? This is the usual fall back when liars get caught. Everybody doesn't do this. You're trying to make Obama's character mainstream, it is NOT.

I've known from day one Obama has no character and lies as naturally as I breath. But many people only have the words of their leaders to go on, I understand there are people who can't see things for what they are like I do. I don't condemn them as fools. I think to smear the victims of this fraud as fools is outrageous. I get annoyed many people don't wise up too sometimes. But right now, millions of Americans are being hurt. Thousands of people who have chemotherapy scheduled, heart surgery, and other major surgeries are losing their coverage! The WSJ had an op-ed of a woman in this situation, she's losing her doctor and her coverage and the replacement plans she can't afford. I can't be flippant in these situations, it makes me mad as hell.

With all due respect, I don't know how you vote and haven't assumed anything, but it's not a time to blame the victims in this debacle. It's inappropriate IMO. Just sayin'.

(BTW, Watergate is your transformative experience regarding trust in government?  Mine is all of history, I believe I've done a little more research than thou  ;))

I do support bringing any fraud to light, and I do think we should make more laws/better enforce existing laws to hold politicians more accountable. We have laws that protect consumers from business fraud, SEC regulations are to protect investors from fraud, so we should also hold politicians accountable for fraudulent or misleading statements. Obama oversimplified the statement, he should've fully explained it to better inform voters who either are unable or just won't figure things out on their own.

Also, I am aware politicians have lied for all of history, not just Watergate. I do understand I am not as intelligent as you though. ;)

Anyways, I am out of here. We both basically agree on the premise but it seems like there's still no meeting of the minds and it seems like there's just attempted point scoring for different teams going on.

QuoteWe have laws that protect consumers from business fraud

We do for private sector companies, but not for government run programs which I'm certain the ACA designed goal is. There is no recourse regarding the government. They say no to your chemotherapy treatment because you're too old (hey, just take a pain pill yo).... tough luck, there's no next step, there's no hiring an attorney to sue your healthcare provider, etc.

QuoteAnyways, I am out of here. We both basically agree on the premise but it seems like there's still no meeting of the minds and it seems like there's just attempted point scoring for different teams going on.

I'm just much more skeptical I think, but I also understand there are good people we can elect to represent us, so I do my part in doing that. I believe we should hold people accountable, even politicians (especially politicians). I believe we're in this mess because there's no real accountability at the moment. If we're largely on the same page, I must have misunderstood some things you said. It happens.

Quote from: Nikko on November 12, 2013, 10:55:08 AM
We do for private sector companies, but not for government run programs which I'm certain the ACA designed goal is. There is no recourse regarding the government. They say no to your chemotherapy treatment because you're too old (hey, just take a pain pill yo).... tough luck, there's no next step, there's no hiring an attorney to sue your healthcare provider, etc.

I'm just much more skeptical I think, but I also understand there are good people we can elect to represent us, so I do my part in doing that. I believe we should hold people accountable, even politicians (especially politicians). I believe we're in this mess because there's no real accountability at the moment. If we're largely on the same page, I must have misunderstood some things you said. It happens.

Please quote for me the exact portion of the law whereby the government can deny you chemotherapy. All treatments remain the decision of you and your doctor under the ACA. There are no "death panels". This is not government run healthcare. This is simply healthcare insurance regulations. That is all that it is. Assertions to the contrary are false and since no such provision exists in the law that I have ever found, I am asking you to substantiate the above claim by providing the exact citation of US Code whereby the government can now make decisions about your healthcare.

Quote from: LizMarie on November 12, 2013, 10:07:27 PM
Please quote for me the exact portion of the law whereby the government can deny you chemotherapy. All treatments remain the decision of you and your doctor under the ACA. There are no "death panels". This is not government run healthcare. This is simply healthcare insurance regulations. That is all that it is. Assertions to the contrary are false and since no such provision exists in the law that I have ever found, I am asking you to substantiate the above claim by providing the exact citation of US Code whereby the government can now make decisions about your healthcare.

Her point is not having any recourse should govt decide to do something. For example, Canada and it's glorious single payer system was ruled that their advisory board could decide life ending procedure's despite a families wishes by their supreme court. Just because something is not written into Obamacare today doesn't mean the door isn't open to these possibilities and that we don't have examples of what happens.

But we could discuss Sections 3403 and 10320 of Obamacare, IPAB if you want. Howard Dean called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on." Over the past three months, 22 democrats have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill.

Of course IPAB promises they will never, ever, ever do anything like that. Because we know we can trust them to keep their promises. Especially when people like Donald Berwick are put in charge: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'" I mean, he was just the presidents appointee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

Also, government regulations designed to control private industry while still maintaining an appearance of private ownership used to be more affectionately known as fascism. That's what makes them a bunch of liars. They pass these regulations then claim no ownership in the consequences of what happens when their regulations take effect, at which point they pose themselves as the solution to the problem they created.

But I'm wasting my time.

Quote from: LearnedHand on November 12, 2013, 07:18:33 AM
About Obama's statement, I agree, he did say it repeatedly when he shouldn't have. I am just more surprised that there was people out there who actually relied on a politician's statement.

Millions of people believed him because it was a staple in his speeches for a year. And when I tried to warn people this was going to happen to them, they would tell me over and over again that he said "You can keep your insurance, so shut up."

QuoteI am also just curious as to your opinion. If a prospective employee should just go somewhere else if they're not wanted for non-employment reasons by a particular employer, does that also extend to patrons of businesses who could just go elsewhere if certain businesses don't like their kind? Did the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States) decision go too far and create an obtrusive government by trying to end segregation among private businesses in the South?

It still happens today and we get into cases involving whether bakery owners have the right to not bake a gay wedding cake or whatever. I have a business, do I have the right to decline a client if I disagree with the product they want me to work on? Do banks have a right to decline financial transactions of their customers because they dislike their business? Do business owners have a right to run their business based on their religious beliefs? What happens when government is involved with housing and finance, deciding who is allowed to live where? Do people have the right to hold socially unacceptable beliefs?

But that particular case was about upholding the Civil Rights Act on the basis of the Commerce Clause. The commerce clause was widely blown open in Wickard v Filburn, which is something I do have a problem with, since it expanded the government to regulate nearly all economic activity on an unlimited basis and still does today. Although, ironically enough, they continue to prohibit the sell of healthcare insurance across state lines. The idea that the government would enact wheat production limits and set prices is horrific enough, but FDR, his new deal and his court packing scheme blew the constitution to shreds and we have essentially been adrift ever since. This is the same lot of progressives who rounded up 100,000+ citizens and threw them into internment camps based on an executive order which was also upheld as constitutional by the supreme court! Korematsu V US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States)?

I find it nearly incomprehensible that our nation must rely on government regulations to control wheat growing to stop racist business owners from being racist. We fought a war over this and then government Jim Crow laws were created. We could try sticking with the whole "created equal" thing for a change and be done with it. Instead we find ourselves with mountains of regulations and rulings which we somehow need to wade through in order to try and be decent citizens. And it goes on and on, with each successive expansion of government either ignoring or rewriting the society to suit it's needs.

It's difficult to make nuanced arguments around civil rights laws because we fundamentally know racism and discrimination is wrong. We've always known it is wrong. We had multiple civil rights laws passed for nearly a century before 1964, including the 14th and 15th amendments, but government or the court kept interfering in one form or another. Did people sit down and say "oh well, it's the law of the land" after the court ruled on Dredd Scott? Or Plessy? Those who said "We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred" were vindicated 50 years later.

The supreme court is not infallible. Neither is the government, not by a long shot.

Sorry, I wrote a lot but it's difficult to articulate these things, especially in the context of a forum post.

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 12, 2013, 10:49:55 PM
Her point is not having any recourse should govt decide to do something. For example, Canada and it's glorious single payer system was ruled that their advisory board could decide life ending procedure's despite a families wishes by their supreme court. Just because something is not written into Obamacare today doesn't mean the door isn't open to these possibilities and that we don't have examples of what happens.

Pure specualtion thats like saying the sky could fall!

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 12, 2013, 10:49:55 PM
But we could discuss Sections 3403 and 10320 of Obamacare, IPAB if you want. Howard Dean called IPAB "essentially a health care rationing body" and "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them. Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on." Over the past three months, 22 democrats have signed on to the House IPAB repeal bill.

"His critique begins by claiming that the board "is essentially a health-care rationing body," even though the legislation specifically states that the board is not allowed to make any recommendations that would ration care."

Of course IPAB promises they will never, ever, ever do anything like that. Because we know we can trust them to keep their promises. Especially when people like Donald Berwick are put in charge: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'" I mean, he was just the presidents appointee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

Here is what he really said: BERWICK: We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

Indeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that they currently use cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2010/07/08/beck-distorts-berwick-comment-to-claim-appointm/167455

Also, government regulations designed to control private industry while still maintaining an appearance of private ownership used to be more affectionately known as fascism. That's what makes them a bunch of liars. They pass these regulations then claim no ownership in the consequences of what happens when their regulations take effect, at which point they pose themselves as the solution to the problem they created.

What do you call a healthcare provider that has 88% of the market in a state? Monopoly! That is exactly what they have in many states.
"The American Medical Association in Chicago released a study Wednesday showing that "anticompetitive market power is widespread for each of the three most popular managed care plans in the U.S.," and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has a "near-monopoly. Alabama too BCBS has 88% of the market."
http://www.grbj.com/articles/75593-blue-cross-market-share-represents-near-monopoly-according-to-ama

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 12, 2013, 10:49:55 PM
But I'm wasting my time.

You certainly are!

Since Medicare has been in existence it has fought for and kept prices down. You lack historical authenticity for the charge that the "might" do this. That is fear mongering at its worst. The US might nuke its own cities someday too, right? So let's not be absurd here.

But healthcare is already rationed - by price. While you may think this is morally acceptable, many of us do not.

The primary causes of high prices in healthcare in the United States are the AMA (by colluding with medical colleges to control the supply of physicians) and from primarily Republicans (but some Democrats as well) who have granted numerous anti-trust exemptions to the healthcare industry over the last 60 years. Far right wing conservative blogger, Karl Denninger, in his book "Leverage" has an entire chapter devoted to this problem but very few other financial commentators discuss the impact of anti-trust exemptions on US healthcare. What other industry is allowed to quote prices after the fact? What other industry is allowed to have private boards enforced by state and local governments that issue "certificates of need" to limit the opening of new clinics? The entire rise in healthcare costs has nothing to do with the federal government and has been going on at an average of 9% annually since Reagan was president. That's approximately 4 doublings after 30 years (shorthand rule of 72) and that number is consistent with the prices that Medicare has seen too - from $53 billion in 1980 to $900 billion now. Likewise, private costs have soared as well, again because we do not regulate healthcare providers or insurers.

Insurers increased their profits 500% from 2001 to 2008 - from $2.5 billion profits among all healthcare insurers in 2001 to $12.5 billion in 2008. You ask where your increased healthcare dollars go? They go to insurance CEOs who have steadily raised their own salaries and bonuses to obscene levels.

If you want to attack the problem, pure free markets are not the way to go with an inelastic commodity like healthcare. Instead I suggest studying why Germany has a single payer healthcare system that is totally privately funded and spends just 9% of GDP to cover 98% of the population (versus our 18% of GDP to cover 74%), achieving longer life spans, far lower infant mortality, and far lower rates of chronic disease than in the US. The German system, to me, looks like pure genius. They removed profit seeking in the two least beneficial sectors of the healthcare chain, left in profit seeking for nurses, doctors, and small clinics, and the results are nothing short of amazing.

The German healthcare solution teaches that the "profits at any cost" mantra is nonsense and that we should ask where and when we want profit seeking to occur or not occur. That's a lesson that our grandparents learned during the Great Depression when they set up things like Municipal Utility Districts and granted limited but regulated monopolies to things like power companies and phone companies. It's a shame we're having to relearn that lesson.

I would also caution against assuming the ACA itself is to blame for cancellations. Thus far there are estimates of approximately 4 million cancellations nationwide, yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent and the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter.

That's 25% of the cancellations across the entire country are fraudulent cancellations! Kentucky fined another insurer for fraudulently cancelling 65,000 policies.

The question free market advocates now have to ask themselves is if "free market" entities will behave in such clearly irrational and illegal manners, then why shouldn't we regulate these entities far more heavily?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/10/1254596/-Another-Health-Insurer-Caught-Falsely-Cancelling-Thousands-of-Health-Plans?detail=facebook

I wonder if this debacle will enlighten some folks out there that laws are not magic spells that can conjure resources out of thin air.

I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

Quote from: Shantel on November 13, 2013, 09:38:23 AM
I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

Good idea Auntie, I'll pick up the Super Soakers.  ;D


Debates are good for democracy, but we need to respect the opinions of others. Not everyone is going to agree, but we can still talk for the hopes of better understanding.

Quote from: Shantel on November 13, 2013, 09:38:23 AM
I'd participate but the voices are getting entirely too shrill, may I suggest dueling pistols?

Well that would totally ruin the element of surprise!

QuoteBut healthcare is already rationed - by price. While you may think this is morally acceptable, many of us do not.

Correct, it's axiomatic. Under free markets each individual determines their ration. Up until obamacare, you could self-insure up to a reasonable deductible and pay around 100-140 dollars a month. The vast majority of Americans could afford this. Under government run programs, a government bureaucrat determines your ration. Hmmm... I trust my decisions over some political hack, will we have enough IRS agents to run the death panels? They quite busy targeting Tea Parties and individual donors of republicans!

QuoteI wonder if this debacle will enlighten some folks out there that laws are not magic spells that can conjure resources out of thin air.

I hope so, if it does, then this dark cloud will have a silver lining after all...

This article discusses and has some ACTUAL federal government funded ads for obamacare. This is not a hoax, these are confirmed ads. Juxtapose these with parents sitting around their kitchen table who have lost their current insurance (they were promised they'd be allowed to keep) because of the 'ACA' law, and are trying to figure out where they're going to get the additional $10,000 a year to pay for coverages they don't need.   

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/ (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/)


Regarding Obama's credibility crisis, this is very good....

http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destroying-his-credibility/ (http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destroying-his-credibility/)

Quote from: LizMarie on November 13, 2013, 01:31:33 AM
I would also caution against assuming the ACA itself is to blame for cancellations. Thus far there are estimates of approximately 4 million cancellations nationwide, yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent and the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter.

That's 25% of the cancellations across the entire country are fraudulent cancellations! Kentucky fined another insurer for fraudulently cancelling 65,000 policies.

The question free market advocates now have to ask themselves is if "free market" entities will behave in such clearly irrational and illegal manners, then why shouldn't we regulate these entities far more heavily?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/10/1254596/-Another-Health-Insurer-Caught-Falsely-Cancelling-Thousands-of-Health-Plans?detail=facebook

I am sorry, but virtually none of what you wrote is accurate.  Not even your tabloid source (DailyKos) goes that far.

... yet in California alone, 900,000 of these cancellations have been found fraudulent...

Nothing has been found fraudulent.  Two cancelled policy holders have made allegations, and then only about "tens of thousands" of policies.  Allegations are not proof, and anyone can bring a law suit for any reason.  I could sue you for emotional distress for posting such misrepresentations!  (I would lose, just as the plaintiffs here will lose.) Let us see what the source (IBTimes) Kos quoted actually said ...

"The lawsuits, filed Monday in Superior Court, may signal an emerging customer pushback against the approximately 900,000 cancellations in California alone of individual health insurance policies that will take effect Dec. 31....

"The two lawsuits allege that Anthem Blue Cross, California's largest insurer and a unit of insurance giant WellPoint Inc. (NYSE:WLP), deceptively enticed tens of thousands of Californians to switch out of their grandfathered plans, a practice known as "twisting," in violation of a state law and to cut its own costs."

There are no findings that 900,000 cancellations are fraudulent.

"... the state is taking Blue Cross to court over this matter."

The state has taken no action.  Please read:

"The plaintiffs are Catherine Coker and Paul Simon, who has battled melanoma and ulcerative colitis, according to the Los Angeles Times....

"The plaintiffs says that Anthem played up the possibility, even likelihood, that premiums of grandfathered plans could go up sharply and failed to mention the possible consequences of replacing a grandfathered plan. Further, the insurer misrepresented that certain Obamacare-required benefits like no pre-existing condition limits for dependent children would be available only in non-grandfathered health plans, when in fact such benefits must be incorporated into grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans, the lawsuits argue."

The allegation is that the insurance companies followed the law as written and regulated!!  That is exactly  what the law says ... non-conforming policies must be upgraded, and if a policy is changed in the slightest degree, it must be cancelled.

Insurance companies can not lawfully, or economically, be forced to make available all of Obamacare goodies at the cost of the old policy.  That is socialist nonsense.

Why is it that all of the Obamaphiles here feel the need to misrepresent things so badly?  This law is a disaster for not just the trans community, but for the nation.  Nothing this Administration says can be trusted in the least.

Quote
Correct, it's axiomatic. Under free markets each individual determines their ration. Up until obamacare, you could self-insure up to a reasonable deductible and pay around 100-140 dollars a month. The vast majority of Americans could afford this. Under government run programs, a government bureaucrat determines your ration. Hmmm... I trust my decisions over some political hack, will we have enough IRS agents to run the death panels? They quite busy targeting Tea Parties and individual donors of republicans!

The only plans that actually covered more than a limited amount of major medical cost closer to $700 or more per month. I have tried to get private insurance and not once have I found anything for less that was worth even having.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 13, 2013, 02:20:08 PM

The only plans that actually covered more than a limited amount of major medical cost closer to $700 or more per month. I have tried to get private insurance and not once have I found anything for less that was worth even having.

Just not true (well, maybe for you and the plan you were seeking and the state you reside). Mine was $120 a month and went to $180 a month once obamacare was passed 3.5 years ago. As I say, I self-insure my routine care, I only want coverage for major illness. I'm losing it in a month and a half with no alternatives at the moment.

For all of you on employer plans, this is coming your way next year... and time does fly.  Many suspect employers will drop employees, and those who don't may begin to drop family members from their plans.

Actually, it seems to be happening aready..... (story below)

"Officials at one one of the nation's oldest and most elite historically black colleges are citing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the reason they have cancelled a school-wide affordable health care plan they had offered students.

The official website for Bowie State, a Maryland public school less than an hour's drive from Washington D.C., explains that Obamacare's new regulations would force the cost of the insurance to rise from $50 to $900 a semester."

http://campusreform.org/?ID=5235 (http://campusreform.org/?ID=5235)

Quote from: Nikko on November 13, 2013, 11:10:03 AM
This article discusses and has some ACTUAL federal government funded ads for obamacare. This is not a hoax, these are confirmed ads. Juxtapose these with parents sitting around their kitchen table who have lost their current insurance (they were promised they'd be allowed to keep) because of the 'ACA' law, and are trying to figure out where they're going to get the additional $10,000 a year to pay for coverages they don't need.   

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/ (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/11/12/gross-new-ad-obamacare-is-a-good-plan-for-promiscuity/)

LIES! These are not funded by the Govt.

Quote from: michelle gee on November 13, 2013, 06:09:41 PM
LIES! These are not funded by the Govt.

I told you it would be hard to believe. It's for real.

Quote from: michelle gee on November 13, 2013, 12:28:38 AM
Pure specualtion thats like saying the sky could fall!

lol, we look at past events to predict future actions and one reason we limit govt is because every time they have said they would never do something, they turned around and did, usually "for our own good." Patriot act, anyone?

QuoteHere is what he really said: BERWICK: We can make a sensible social decision and say, "Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds." We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

Did I miss something? I merely left out the part where he gets even worse. Sorry, I will fully quote the horrible, damning things these progressives say in the future.

QuoteIndeed, insurance companies already ration care. The insurance industry has already admitted that they currently use cost benefit analyses to determine health care coverage. In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Wellpoint chief medical officer Dr. Sam Nussbaum told co-host Steve Inskeep that "where the private sector has been far more effective than government programs is in limiting clinical services to those that are best meeting the needs of patients." Former CIGNA senior executive Wendell Potter testified in front of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick" and that insurers "dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2010/07/08/beck-distorts-berwick-comment-to-claim-appointm/167455

In the private sector, you have recourse. The assertion here is that evil insurance companies are rationing your care but we, the govt, can ration it even better and you will have no alternative. You are effectively making the case that health care is already rationed but benevolent govt in all it's glory would never dare such a thing. Except Medicare has a higher denial rate than any private insurance company. Sorry, those are just facts provided by the AMA who you quote below.
Report Card (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf)

QuoteWhat do you call a healthcare provider that has 88% of the market in a state? Monopoly! That is exactly what they have in many states.
"The American Medical Association in Chicago released a study Wednesday showing that "anticompetitive market power is widespread for each of the three most popular managed care plans in the U.S.," and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has a "near-monopoly. Alabama too BCBS has 88% of the market."
http://www.grbj.com/articles/75593-blue-cross-market-share-represents-near-monopoly-according-to-ama

Yet, you advocate a single payer system? Is there such a greater monopoly than, 1?

QuoteYou certainly are!

LMAO, I feel like this must be a parody account of cut and paste statements. Even the av makes it look like you're talking out of your ass.

This thread is pathetic.

Quote from: Nikko on November 13, 2013, 10:32:33 AM

Correct, it's axiomatic. Under free markets each individual determines their ration. Up until obamacare, you could self-insure up to a reasonable deductible and pay around 100-140 dollars a month. The vast majority of Americans could afford this. Under government run programs, a government bureaucrat determines your ration. Hmmm... I trust my decisions over some political hack, will we have enough IRS agents to run the death panels? They quite busy targeting Tea Parties and individual donors of republicans!

This is the thing I'll never understand, especially in the trans community. We have such unique and individual circumstances, yet so many people are willing to turn over the decisions in the lives to somebody they will never even know. And that just because they like this administration, they're going to feel the same way if/when an evil republican is in office?

Those colorado ads are atrocious, but I found this the other day. MyCancellation (http://mycancellation.com)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fe8dfd26902303a1f128cb9cca46e5df7%2Ftumblr_mw7o1jjZ7g1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=0b4c636eaea37670da7947d5912baf317a2b45b2)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F7e2799321e3b0f1fdfd1b07e2399cb1d%2Ftumblr_mw7o25zVZy1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=2ccfc285aac3e1d42efb3bca394d29b86cf5a64f)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2F91d6a26dfc8613c17f8f1fea84dc69b8%2Ftumblr_mw7o4asRP71smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=64d76ac598e6a4e9898fbfb16b2a1ef60dd87436)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Fd1b2726b61a61da5553b0d62a06fd63f%2Ftumblr_mw7o5h2gQx1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=d6f7dd5a4d65df14183f8733e1ab999ff2ac7e60)

There are millions of lives being thrown into chaos by this, and you're right, the employer mandates are going to pile up tons more next year. Meanwhile some 100,000 people have actually signed up for this disaster? And what do these sycophants care about, Obama's poll numbers.

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 13, 2013, 10:34:47 PM

LMAO, I feel like this must be a parody account of cut and paste statements. Even the av makes it look like you're talking out of your ass.

In this stage of my transition I am not out and prefer not to show my face at this time but you somehow feel this is ok to attack my av pic?
How classless! Duly reported.

Quote from: michelle gee on November 13, 2013, 10:53:15 PM
In this stage of my transition I am not out and prefer not to show my face at this time but you somehow feel this is ok to attack my av pic?
How classless! Duly reported.

Sorry, but I do think it's a little tacky to have a butt av. Maybe you would consider something more tasteful ???

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 13, 2013, 10:48:20 PM
This is the thing I'll never understand, especially in the trans community. We have such unique and individual circumstances, yet so many people are willing to turn over the decisions in the lives to somebody they will never even know. And that just because they like this administration, they're going to feel the same way if/when an evil republican is in office?

Those colorado ads are atrocious, but I found this the other day. MyCancellation (http://mycancellation.com)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Fe8dfd26902303a1f128cb9cca46e5df7%2Ftumblr_mw7o1jjZ7g1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=0b4c636eaea37670da7947d5912baf317a2b45b2)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2F7e2799321e3b0f1fdfd1b07e2399cb1d%2Ftumblr_mw7o25zVZy1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=2ccfc285aac3e1d42efb3bca394d29b86cf5a64f)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2F91d6a26dfc8613c17f8f1fea84dc69b8%2Ftumblr_mw7o4asRP71smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=64d76ac598e6a4e9898fbfb16b2a1ef60dd87436)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Fd1b2726b61a61da5553b0d62a06fd63f%2Ftumblr_mw7o5h2gQx1smcjxbo1_500.jpg&hash=d6f7dd5a4d65df14183f8733e1ab999ff2ac7e60)

There are millions of lives being thrown into chaos by this, and you're right, the employer mandates are going to pile up tons more next year. Meanwhile some 100,000 people have actually signed up for this disaster? And what do these sycophants care about, Obama's poll numbers.

I wish I could give you +1, but I do not know how.  I think, maybe, I need more posts.  Please keep posting the truth for our community to see.  This is too important to be shouted down by "sycophants."

Quote from: TiffanyT on November 13, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Sorry, but I do think it's a little tacky to have a butt av. Maybe you would consider something more tasteful ???

Maybe you should also!

This topic has descended into insult and personal attack.

Locked