Text 4760, 178 rader
Skriven 2012-11-09 00:17:16 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
   Kommentar till text 4743 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Food for thought
========================
Hi Roy,

>> but on a number of issues and candidates, NOT just the president.

> Mostly misinformed by the liberal press and their silence on the subject
> of the worst economy since the great depression. Thing is, this country is
> headed for one that will go down in history as even worse than that.

If there is ANYTHING I personally feel that both parties should have brought up
it is climate change/global-Warming/Call-it-what you want. Don't deny it's
there, because everyone sees what's coming down these days.  Luckily, we live
in what's considered a "good" area, so we won't be affected.

>> For instance the Democratic party maintained it's hold on the senate
>> and _gained_ 3 seats..

> Meanwhile, a retiring Texas Rep senator was replaced by yet another Rep
> senator.

Yep.. but no gains.

>> the house failed to recover back to the Democratic party because of
>> redistristring that has taken place..

> The house actually gained more Rep seats...

If you are calling congress, "the house".. you are wrong.

>> Our own district is a perfect example of this, moving a strong
>> democratic city and county (Ithaca and Thompkins County) to the midst
>> of a barren Republican wasteland.

> Welcome to hell. Our district was reduced to Dem wasteland by a 3
> panel federal court who had Dems sitting in a majority.

What's even more ridiculous for us is that the part of NYState that the plugged
us INTO is not even where we physically belong :)  Hmm.. maybe that's a good
reason for ME to get politically involved in the area <g>.

>> . this is just a typical example of the redistricting that has taken
>> place in congressional districts.

> Nationwide.

Of course.. I thought that was understood.

>> That redistricting was due to the Tea Party win of 2010 and it
>> allowed them to fix the win for the election to the house.

> Wrong. Redistricting is due to the census taken all over the US in
> 2010...it happens every 10 years.

> Read your Constitution, 14th Amendment; "2. Representatives shall be
> apportioned among the several States according to their respective
> numbers."

> If the word 'apportioned' overwhelms you, let me know.

Oh please Lol..

http://tinyurl.com/d42fesy

says it all.. so don't take my word for it being absolute crap.

>> In the end though, the Tea Party lost.

> The Tea Party didn't have much to do with it. Not to mention that they are
> as down on misguided Reps as they are down on misguided Dems. If a
> congressperson isn't doing his job, then of course, they need to be shaken
> up a bit or replaced, whichever works for the betterment of the country.

Yes indeed..except the tea party never had anything to do with the democratic
party..

>> Conservatives lost.

> Just the WH, but not in Texas.

Not "just".. the democratic party also strengthened the Senate.. and won the
White House again, will eventually most likely appoint a supreme court justice
as well..

>> Tax cuts lost.

> You'll (your company) end up paying more.

I doubt that one _big_ time..

>> Gay-bashing lost.

> 1st Amendment says I can still call a faggot a faggot, a queer a queer.

Don't do that in public..

>> Repealing Obamacare lost.

> Good thing your parents aren't still alive to suffer what retirees will
> suffer with little to no healthcare. (not to mention your future)

If they were still here, they'd be able to survive, and not have to purchase
vouchers for insurance they couldn't afford !!!

polictifact.com says:

"That means seniors would no longer have the guarantee of Medicare -- they'd
get a voucher to buy private insurance. And if it doesn't keep up with costs,
well, that's the seniors' problem. It was estimated that Gov. Romney's running
mate, his original plan would force seniors to pay an extra _$6,400_ a year."

Glad YOU could have afforded that one :)

> Meanwhile the trend will be doctors retiring early (because they can't
> afford to stay in practice under the conditions of Obamacare)

BS.. All the doctors I know are doing more than FINE financially and there is
no reason to think that will change.

> and not many
> new medical students entering college to take their place because their
> future income would be in jeopardy.

Not from all the statistics I've seen.  Costs are astronomical yes.. who's
fault is that?  haha.. it didn't START 4 years ago, did it? And everytime we
see OUR doctor, he's got a student resident in tow.. :)

> Better to go into a field that is
> needed in the medical world, such as taking a census of the welfare
> recipients on Obamacare.

With Obamacare, you'll see lower cost of medications and more preventative care
coverage. You'll also be able to access the new health insurance exchange
programs..and protection if you've got pre-existing condions. That's already
here of course.

>now we are onto a big win in this country and you can count on
>> things being fixed here.

> Doubt it...with a 1% difference (50-49^) in the popular vote, there is no

I think you stopped watching Fox News too early? :)

> mandate to go forward.

As of this moment it's 50.5 for Obama and 48 for Romney.. with Obama popular
vote  lead larger than Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004.. and HEY.. Bush
declared HE had a mandate.. so.. doesn't that mean that Obama has Mandate???

Oh btw, regarding the house seats..

Democrats have already picked up 3 seats and lead in 5 of the 6 races
undecided...

> We're still a nation that is just as split as it
> was on Nov 5th and there will be no change in Washington, which is going
> to be the demise of this country.

The country is changing and your point of view represents fewer and fewer
people all the time.

> Watch the stock market, it went down 300+ points on Wednesday. That's
> because the NitWH was re-elected and now job creators will be downsizing
> and moving production offshore, not creating US jobs. Which is exactly
> what I'd be doing if I were still in business.

Why did the number of Private sector jobs declined during Bush's 8 years in
office?  And why is the number of private sector jobs increased during Obama's
4 years?  The facts paint just the opposite picture of the one that exists in
your fantasy world.

As a little addendum the number of pubic sector jobs increased during Bush's 8
years in office.. and declined during the first four years of Obama's years in
office.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)