Magox

Which parts of the law don't you like? Is it? A) High premiums? B) Mandate for coverage? C) Taxes on the medical device makers? D) Minimum essential benefits portion of the law?

Oh, so it's because of the insurance companies. I see.

Great highlights

Did you read the article or for that matter the comments below? That was quite the read.

Looks like Brexit was sold on a bunch lying promises. I guess it's ok since they are not on the side of the "elites".

One of the online trademarks of the alt-righty's are to post things for shock value. It's a form of trolling that I've become pretty familiar with over the past year.

Oh I see, but the title of the article that I am viewing says There were a lot of solid points made in that article and the fact that the leaders of the Brexit helped push this through on false premises should provide pause. Sorta reminds me of "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". I would say for those that are supportive of Brexit, you should try to remain consistent. People bashed Obama for his lies to push through Obamacare, they should do the same for Farage.

I'm not here to comment on what Bman implied with his statement but the Brexit vote was not a "conservative" vote. It was a vote against the status quo, a vote against free trade, a vote against more immigration and a vote of frustration for the middle class. Their anxieties are well-placed but I'm not so sure that their votes were. To be honest, I haven't read enough of the pros and cons to form a sound opinion on whether or not the vote will be a net positive but I'd venture to guess that it won't be. Also, I'm not sure that I've heard the term "elites" as often as I've had to describe the opposition as much as I've heard over these past few days. Is that the new populist parroted term that the cool kids are saying now a days?

Love the book and in a way helped shape my views as a growing young kid. Having said that, who are the aggrieved here? Did the pigs end debate? If so, I must have missed that with this Brexit vote.

The alt-righties would love it, after all they are fascists.

You work with Lybob?

My argument is not that things are perfectly fine the way they are but rather that it was an inevitable evolutionary process of global economics. By the way, what was the alternative?

I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats were the party of isolationists and populism. It wasn't but just a few years ago when I was discussing/arguing with Lybob, Birdog and Gator about the inevitability of globalization and that no trade deal was the main culprit for jobs being shipped overseas but rather technology and cheap labor abroad with the combination of overzealous demanding unions. I suspect if you ask them about BREXIT they feel conflicted on one hand that their beliefs of a "global order" being weakened seems like a win but on the other they see many of their progressive buddies now admonishing the results as a victory for "xenophobia", intolerance and isolationism. They must truly be confused. Whereas a sizable portion of the GOP are now no longer for free markets or reforming S.S/Medicare but rather this nationalistic brand of populism which is completely devoid of sound reasoning and forethought. It's a visceral reaction to this meandering economy we've had for the middle class and it's much easier to blame immigrants for taking their jobs (which is complete and utter horseshit) and jobs being shipped overseas because of trade deals being brokered by pols. These aren't abstract scapegoats, they are simple to understand and are opinions that are easy to put together. Sort of like when liberals argue many of their points, they don't require deep thinking but rather just playing on the heartstrings of voters that are easy to connect with their policy proposals. More often than not these sort of proposals that are born from these sentiments are misguided and develop through a bubble of misinformation. When pols such as Jeff Sessions are claimed to have a "pulse" of the American people from once reliable free market capitalists then I know things are going awry for the GOP. I have almost as much in common with some lefty's than I do with these righties. This isn't even the "right" that I once knew, it has redefined itself into some hodgepodge of political demagoguery. I know there are plenty of people in the center such as myself that are clamoring for a viable third party, I suppose if there is anything that may come out of this that could be positive is the clear signal that the two party system is need of more competition.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. Just never heard him make mention of the alt-right until now. Even though from all the alt-righties I've had the pleasure to meet on social media, he's text book.

I knew you were an alt-righty.. And yes, Dante would be a perfect fit for your clan.

Free trade is/was inevitable, it's a matter of adaptation. Also Joe, "free trade" in itself may not have been good for the American manufacturing laborer, but increases in technology and cheap labor overseas were just as much if not more to blame as "free trade". You also stated that it was good just for CEO's and the bottom line of these companies. That's not true. The U.S has always been a consumer nation, we consume more goods than anyone, and it's not even close. What "free trade" has done is brought down the cost of goods consumed and for a country like the U.S, that's kind of important.

I guess I have to spell it out. That: You don't know that it's not an act of for a lack of better terms "Islamic terrorism". Or That you don't subscribe to the theory that Lone wolf Jihadism is a form of Islamic terrorism.

Either A) You don't know that or B) You don't believe the "lone wolf" form of Jihadism falls "under the umbrella of terrorism".

It's like watching you guys Add 7 + __ = ___ And all of you have the correct answer somehow.

This could be the case, but that wouldn't explain the previous suspicions from the FBI which led to him being on the terrorist watch list. This isn't the first time he's sympathized with those folks out east. Also, for a guy that likes hairy man-ass why would he want to visit the middle east? It's not the Mecca of hairy man-ass lovers, ya know. Having said that, I do think he targeted Gays because of some sort of internal conflict that he has going on, but I also believe that he was inspired by the Jihadist movement. So, I think it's a combination of the two.

Mark Levin supported Trump on a host of issues and gave plenty of cover to him when it most mattered which was during the infancy of his campaign. Levin is the epitome of a talk radio huckster and the only reason why he began going after Trump was because Cruz and Trump began getting into it. In regards to being GOP leadership's fault, we've already discussed this ad nauseum, anyone who has a lick of sense understands that the government shutdown was never ever ever going to work. Just about everyone who personally knows Ted Cruz understands that he did it only for himself and his ambitions to be the nominee. How about Tom Coburn? There isn't a more sincere solid conservative than Tom Coburn. It was a farce. How about Jeff Sessions: Do you want me to bring up all the times Cruz has shown himself to be a political opportunist? I'm not talking about on a few occasions but a consistent clear pattern of political expediency. Sure, you can say "They all are". To a degree the vast majority of politicians who have ambitions for reaching higher office do, but Cruz's is on another level and for someone who sells himself as the real deal, it wreaks of anything but the real deal. Azalin, he didn't do this for you, not for the American people but he did it to build up his cred among the media hucksters and the most conservative of voters who bought into this. Think about it for a minute, we had 45 senators at the time which means we would have had to flip 15 democratic senators to break the filibuster. If you really believe there was an inkling of a chance of that happening then we really can't go further with this discussion. Not to mention that we had a president who would never even come close to considering signing off on doing away with his Signature "accomplishment". You have personal testimonials of people that know Cruz that state on the record that he knew this wasn't going to work and even if you don't want to accept that, all you have to do is use common sense. People have unrealistic expectations and to be honest truly do not understand the basic concept of the separation of powers. Obama won, had the house and Senate and then passed Obamacare after the Scott Brown elections with some procedural chicanery using the reconciliation process which was legal. Do you want to dispute the legality of that? Fine, so let the courts hash it out, which they did. This argument that "we elect the house the senate and nothing gets done to stop Obama" is simply not rooted in reality. What has Obama been able to pass through the house and senate since the GOP has taken the Senate or for that matter house? This is what happens in divided government, there is a check on each opposing parties agenda. The only things that Obama has been able to do is pass executive orders, which we know or at least we should know that there isn't much the opposing party can do other than somehow try to mount a legal challenge to some of those executive orders which is what is being done. Some people say, "we have the power of the purse", well.....Not exactly. Yes, Congress can limit the total amount of money that is to be dispersed but there are many ways the executive branch can distribute those funds. What the endgame look like? Step 1: Shutdown the government Step 2: ???? Step 3: Obama backs down? That will never happen. The House and Senate best hopes of being able to reverse Obama's Obamacare and executive actions is through the presidency and maintaining the Senate and House. That's how it needs to be done, not through self-aggrandizing attempts to sell die hards a bill of goods. I have very little respect for Ted Cruz, I believe him to be a part of the problem. However, I mostly blame the media hucksters for this debacle. They've proven themselves to be interested in mostly one thing and that is ratings and $$$$. All they have to do is capture a small segment of the Conservative movement and with that they make bank. In order to do that all they have to do is continuously perpetuate the myth that the "establishment" let them down by not being able to stop Obama by feeding them continuous gobs of misinformation. Ted Cruz recognized this and seized upon it and almost won the nomination because of it. Unfortunately for him, Trump was able to sell an even more repugnant yet effective bill of goods to GOP primary voters. Also, LA Bills, you say that not much has been done because of these elections, I wholeheartedly disagree. Not just for the reasons that I had mentioned but look at all the successful reforms that Governors and local/state officials have been able to implement over the past few years. The reforms on taxations, reducing the stranglehold of unions and other measures have been very significant and you can thank that to those elections that were won.

I blame the Conservative talk radio/media hucksters and their gullible base of followers who believe their **** MUCH more than GOP "leadership"

I Know I'm generalizing here but it seems to me that most liberal justices rule with the heart.

He's been playing his supporters for fools all along.

How are you certain about this? I'm guessing I have received the same bit of information that you have and there is actual credible evidence from the perpetrator that this is "islamic" terrorism. Sure, it could be a case of him attempting to misdirect everyone into believing that this is something different than what he has said, but that is pure speculation. What I'm saying is that based on the public information that has been released if there were to be some sort of a panel to define what his motives were, the evidence would suggest that it is "islamic" terrorism.