US Senate Passes Employee Non Discrimination Act: GOP House Majority wont' even consider it.

While the radical and extremist tea party commentators have been mouthing off I've been busy at work. One of our smb's has relatively exploded with business. I oversee parts of it. I'm a market guy. I know the tea party right wingers yak about the market all the time. I've been working the market in different types of businesses for years after I got my first big taste of it working commercial real estate decades ago. The market works...but it means working it...not yakking about it with false commentary.

As to ObamaCare. Its obvious its rollout has been problematic. Ultimately the fed website will be fixed. State rollouts have had better success rates where they have been installed. People are signing up. Despite the every minute every blame statement of the GOP some people are finding lower costs and others with individual care are being hit by higher costs. Clearly the Obama statements about "you'll be able to keep your insurance" were misleading and inappropriate. But they might well have been requisite in light of a full scale attack on obamacare by the right wing.

That of course has been astonishingly bizarre as virtually every element of obamacare is based on original Conservative principles http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/03/ironic_challenge_affordable_ca.html

ObamaCare as it was rolled out was layed out in all of its mechanisms by the most conservative of organizations and think tanks: The Heritage Foundation.

Of course today's GOP or its teaparty wing has been badmouthing Conservatives for years and now that battle is just beginning.

I suspect that as it rolls out, more people will get insurance, more people will no longer be denied insurance for pre existing conditions, and in all that occurring more people will experience a level of personal freedom through greater access to health care and freedom from going bankrupt than existed in the past. Ah yes...those are good traditional conservative principles.

I know the tea party no longer believes in them.

 

Earl, your post is kind of long. I just glanced through it, but think it's nice you've decided to join the tea party. Happy soon to be Thanksgiving!

 

That's an understatement. The reason its "problematic" has more to do with the realities of the flawed law than the technical snafus.

 

Just "problematic". . .

Not disastrous, adverse, horrendous, dreadful, or atrocious - right?!

Sure, and since it's Obama he should get another pass. . . lol

 

Dave is timing his posts so he can spam the top of the thread on each new page. Funny stuff. I guess now that he has joined the Tea Party, I shouldn't complain.

 

Still don't have much time but I think I'll put this out there for the teaparty fanatics.

What does the tea party stand for? I'm not sure but its clear what they are against includingin no particular order)

1. Against women having control of their own health issues
2. Against raising wages
3. Against feeding poorer Americans
4. Against having health care
5. Against changing a health system that allows insurers to guarantee one will be sick or face financial ruin because of a pre existing condition
6. Against immigrants
7. Against the children of immigrants
8. Against veterans or others that receive government safety net payments if one is sick, disabled have less income, too old, too young etc.
9. Against workers having any say or rights
10. Against gay people
11. Against being against discrimination
12. Against expanding voting.

Mitt Romney was against 47% of Americans and the well off people that were about to give him money obviously approved of that.

Recently the teaparty was ardently against the government from functioning. That was the last step for conservatives. They are now running candidates against teaparty fanatics and in the two cases I've followed Conservatives have supplanted tea party fanatics.

The tea party in America has many of the characteristics of the lunatic fringes of Islamic religions who are against people expanding their rights.

 

I think the word "Obama" sort of encompasses all of the above.

 

Big news. The teaparty House of Representatives just gave further evidence of what they are against while describing what they are for: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/362721

The tea party is against freedom of speech. One can't speak out against an entity one opposes per this effort by the disfunctional tea party congress.

In fact its not just against freedom of speech..the tea party wants to make it expensive to speak freely. Its especially expensive if one speaks out against a tea party "favorite" such as wealthy oil companies.

Meanwhile the teaparty just told us what they are for. Rich oil companies.

 

I think you've confused "tea party" with democrats.

 

Oh, since he said we are against all of that shit, I guess we are?

LOL, where do you come up with this crap?! Other than CNN, MSNBC, etc. . .

 

Maybe it is best for people to keep quiet and tea party is just trying to save their life because otherwise Obama can decide to execute them with drones. After all in new USA, there is no need to charge someone, take them to court or convict them of anything before deciding to kill them.

 

You are confusing us with liberals.

See, liberals are more concerned with the "we are right, you are wrong" argument. Liberal extremists like Earl think that if they can prove their political opponents are wrong on one issue, then they are wrong on all issues and THAT is the classic definition of an extremist.

Meanwhile, most people (not liberals) are actually concerned about other people's well-being. The issue being with us is, O.K., Obama was wrong, but what's more important is how do we now take care of people that are suffering:
- the unemployed (at 13%),
- those still devastated by Sandy (homeless),
- those losing their health insurance (and dying),
- those getting their privacy brutally raped,
- those getting killed by Obama without trial or jury
...Shall I go on?

To people pretending to be liberals, suffering people are merely pawns. But in today's mess, to liberals these suffering people are an inconvenience, meant to be forgotten.

Their suffering is less important than being able to say "It's not Obama's fault". To them, blame is a solution.

Obama would like to to start a little war somewhere as a diversionary tactic, but it's clear that he is too indecisive to make any decision. If Hillary was in the White House you can bet things would be a lot better.

 

That's like saying cancer is problematic.

You mean the website that Obama awarded to a Canadian company for $400M, that sees less visitors/transactions per day than Target.com, and that could have been done properly by Amazon or Google or Microsoft for less than $80M?

In other news, hell has icicles.

By "misleading" do you mean LYING?

Did Elvis tell you this?