Why all these new guns laws and no economy cares? (Clinton: loans, house)

[MORebelWoman]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

When Republican districts learn how to build real cities, great universities, top notch public park systems, dynamic arts scenes, and tech startups, and part ways with the SBC, birthers, science denyers, tea partiers, and the nativists, I'll start giving consideration and respect to GOP policy and policymakers. Till then, not so much. They are, quite literally, the party of the bad parts of yesterday.

But you expect respect from us and for Obama, the country hater, too. Sounds just like a progressive. Like i said earlier...people like you will be begging us southern people to help you out when the sh** hits the fan. I guarantee it. So, go ahead and keep posting untruths and things you know very little about because it is humorous, to say the least. I do feel sorry for those of you who happen to be ignorant about the politics and history of this once great country.

[da jammer]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

When Republican districts learn how to build real cities, great universities, top notch public park systems, dynamic arts scenes, and tech startups, and part ways with the SBC, birthers, science denyers, tea partiers, and the nativists, I'll start giving consideration and respect to GOP policy and policymakers. Till then, not so much. They are, quite literally, the party of the bad parts of yesterday.

Please provide us with a list of "democrat districts" that are thriving, have low crime, healthy employment, Nascar tracks nice parks where families can go visit without being shot at by gangbangers, universities where students are taught and not indoctrinated and have parted ways with the likes of Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, the occupy lunatics, msnbc, AlGore, "Representative" (of what I have no clue) Barbara Lee et al and then maybe we can talk, until then "denyers" is spelled deniers and you are welcome

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

When Republican districts learn how to build real cities, great universities, top notch public park systems, dynamic arts scenes, and tech startups, and part ways with the SBC, birthers, science denyers, tea partiers, and the nativists, I'll start giving consideration and respect to GOP policy and policymakers. Till then, not so much. They are, quite literally, the party of the bad parts of yesterday.

Too funny. Let's see:

Detroit
North St. Louis
East St. Louis
Cairo Illinois

Just a few garden spot "democrat" districts.

[STLviaMSP]

MORebelwoman, you live in the Midwest, not ol' dixie. MO hasn't been the south for 150 years. Deal with it.

Re cities, without even thinking:

Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Madison, Des Moines, Omaha, Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago (pretty safe outside the south side), NYC, Boston, Ann Arbor, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Toronto, Cleveland, Montreal. Some of them have had to deal with the poverty of the great migration more than others, but they're all solid cities with a lot going on. Even STL is really getting its **** together, more slowly than I'd like, but without question.

[northbound74]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

MORebelwoman, you live in the Midwest, not ol' dixie. MO hasn't been the south for 150 years. Deal with it.

Re cities, without even thinking:

Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Madison, Des Moines, Omaha, Portland, Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago (pretty safe outside the south side), NYC, Boston, Ann Arbor, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Toronto, Cleveland, Montreal. Some of them have had to deal with the poverty of the great migration more than others, but they're all solid cities with a lot going on. Even STL is really getting its **** together, more slowly than I'd like, but without question.

You seem to be having a hard time defending Obamacare, so now it's a city versus rural thing, north versus south thing, or... whatever.
I'm not the south's biggest chearleader by any means, but I question whether or not you've actually been there. It's not as monolithic as movie industry eggheads try to make it sound.
Using cities as great examples of progressive politics is very flawed and shows how porous your arguments are getting. Seriously. Chicago? It's cool because it's enormous enough to have everything and a large body of water to look at. It's not great for it's steady stream of corrupt liberal leadership. I suppose that gives the city some "character", but no one is seriously going to say "now that's how you run a city!"
Using Canadian cities in an argument over American politics is just desperate.

I like cities. I really do. Even as a rural person at heart, I like the tall buildings, the energy, the grit, the history, the industry, the cultural contributions, and the old neighborhoods that are close-knit because they were built that way.
Most post-war suburbs bore me. Some are rather annoying when they aggressively go after the things the cities already provide without giving much thought to decay and sprawl. Not all, but some are like that. Many work harmoniously with their host city.

But here's the thing. Those suburbs, mostly conservative, generally do a far superior job in public service. Schools, parks, roads, you name it. Often with far lower taxes. Not everything is great with suburbs, but they're an easy way to debunk the "liberals do it better" argument.
Liberal universities get good marks because a majority of universities lean left and they like patting each other on the back. A lot.

Another thing to note, and probably the most important: cities are good or bad depending on how much pride it's residents take in it. That is the key. Not democrat or republican, conservative or liberal. Not even low taxes or high taxes.
It's the people who live there. How they view their own city easily shows through to anyone looking in from the outside.

As for someone from Missouri identifying with the south, that has been going on ever since Missouri was being settled.
The U.S. Census Bureau likes to put the whole state in the midwest to keep things tidy, which is fine, but large portions of it identify culturally with the south far more than the midwest.

[STLviaMSP]

Re cities and north/south, region is a big determinant of whether the law is supported or not, so it is absoultely relevant. I think the better places support the law. I was also responding to someone else's post. So what if I lumped in a few Canadian cities - that was simply to emphasize that they are better than some cities left off. I've been to Atlanta, and Houston, and San Antonio, and Miami, and NOLA, and St. Pete and Phoenix and Memphis and many smaller towns in the south - and they are not much to brag about. I bring them up because cities are the greatest example of our public investment - a concept that is directly related to how we care for one another, e.g. the ACA. As I said before, most of the arguments against the ACA are based on faulty math, and in the GOP's case a cultural predisposition to writing laws to benefit the clever/priveleged few rather than the average many. What you can't argue with is the new inability of insurers to drop people with preexisting conditions, the 80%/85% rule, the individual coverage mandate, and the ending of lifetime coverage limits. Those are unequivocally good things, and as the richest country in the world, doing this should be a no-brainer - the money is there, but only if we get serious about fixing the massive upward redistribution of wealth that has characterized the past 30 years. If the law is flawed, who the hell cares? The flaws will be fixed. When is the first draft of something ever right? Seriously? It's all this perfect is the enemy of good nonsense that keeps us from moving forward. Good is simply having a law with this scope and reach. We will iteratively get there, and hopefully there means a single payer system.

[Bideshi]

Guns, gays, illegals and abortion are all the cards he has.

[Flyover_Country]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

As I said before, most of the arguments against the ACA are based on faulty math, and in the GOP's case a cultural predisposition to writing laws to benefit the clever/priveleged few rather than the average many. What you can't argue with is the new inability of insurers to drop people with preexisting conditions, the 80%/85% rule, the individual coverage mandate, and the ending of lifetime coverage limits. Those are unequivocally good things, and as the richest country in the world, doing this should be a no-brainer - the money is there

Those things are all extremely expensive as I explained before. The money is NOT there, as we who actually work have to stomach a roughly doubling of our premiums from 2013 to 2014 to pay for it. Lo and behold, many companies are laying off folks to stay under the magic 50 employees mark and reducing hours to below 30/week to be able to legally not offer paying for this extremely expensive health insurance. The monthly jobs report in the past month strongly reflects this with the number of people involuntarily forced into part-time labor was roughly 300k.

If the law is flawed, who the hell cares? The flaws will be fixed. When is the first draft of something ever right? Seriously? It's all this perfect is the enemy of good nonsense that keeps us from moving forward.

Gee, I wish that the government had this amount of tolerance when it comes to the actual health care delivery. That is expected to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, and with twice the amount of time spent per patient as is done now and seeing twice the number of patients, all for half the price. Oh, and also with dealing with twice the amount of non-clinical busywork documentation, prior authorizations, and other crap to be done as well, as is required in Obamacare.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by STLviaMSP

If the law is flawed, who the hell cares?

Seriously? You cram major legislation down everyone's throats that effects 1/6 of the economy directly and the rest of the economy indirectly and this is your attitude?

And it's not just the people in rural districts you disdain that don't like this law:

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢


Health Care Law

55% View Health Care Law Unfavorably
in Politics
Email thisShareThis

Related Articles

• Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
• 35% Say Health Care Law Has Hurt Them; 19% Say It’s Helped
• 72% Favor Individual Choice When It Comes to How Much Health Insurance Coverage
• 59% Favor Free Market Over Government Control To Reduce Health Care Costs
• 2% Favor Congress Exempting Itself From Health Care Law
• Health Care Law Now Faces Biggest Challenge: American Consumers By Scott Rasmussen

Sign up for free daily updates


Monday, May 06, 2013
President Obama’s health care law is more unpopular than it has been for months.
Just 39% of Likely U.S. Voters now view the law at least somewhat favorably, while 55% share an unfavorable opinion of it, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 14% with a Very Favorable view and 40% with a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 3-4, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by MORebelWoman

But you expect respect from us and for Obama, the country hater, too. Sounds just like a progressive. Like i said earlier...people like you will be begging us southern people to help you out when the sh** hits the fan. I guarantee it. So, go ahead and keep posting untruths and things you know very little about because it is humorous, to say the least. I do feel sorry for those of you who happen to be ignorant about the politics and history of this once great country.

Republicans have been telling me this since i was in my 20's (40 Years ago)

"when the sh** hits the fan"

When is the sh** going to hit the fan. Have you been watching the news lately. The economy is humming along. WE are digging our way out of the mess the republicans stuck us with. Economist from all sides have said it couldn't be done by anyone in 4 years and we have came along way.

SO WHEN IS THE SH** GOING TO HIT THE FAN?