|
Boon posted:I actually looked this up because it's too stunning to me. Goddamn. It's actually not very surprising. Obama doesn't need to veto legislation because he can have Harry Reid do that instead.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Joementum posted:It's actually not very surprising. Obama doesn't need to veto legislation because he can have Harry Reid do that instead. I think he's stunned by the Act itself. It is a pretty galling piece of legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Speaking of galling, what are the odds the GOP is going to try for another government shutdown this year?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Speaking of galling, what are the odds the GOP is going to try for another government shutdown this year? They won't do it before the elections because the deck is already stacked in their favor. If it will happen again it will be in 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They won't do it before the elections because the deck is already stacked in their favor. If it will happen again it will be in 2015. During the primary season of the 2016 elections, perhaps? People like Cruz looking to put their odious face on newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
The Ryan-Murray agreement in December locked in a two year deal on the budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I think he's stunned by the Act itself. It is a pretty galling piece of legislation. Can you explain how? From reading descriptions of it seems that it could be kinda bad, but only cause it got vetoed and its from republicans. So is it a matter of the details in it or was it named the exact opposite of what does?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Can you explain how? From reading descriptions of it seems that it could be kinda bad, but only cause it got vetoed and its from republicans. So is it a matter of the details in it or was it named the exact opposite of what does? It would have made it significantly easier for banks to continue the mortgage robosigning practices because they could find whatever county had the loosest notary public requirements in the nation and set up a big robosigning shop there for every piece of loan documentation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Can you explain how? From reading descriptions of it seems that it could be kinda bad, but only cause it got vetoed and its from republicans. So is it a matter of the details in it or was it named the exact opposite of what does? It was basically an act to require federal and state courts to recognize any notarized document that another state had recognized. This includes (and was intended to mainly be for the use of) making foreclosure with bullshit robosigned foreclosure documents easier. e: Beaten by Joementum of course
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Ryan-Murray agreement in December locked in a two year deal on the budget. True, but the House GOP is stalling the appropriations process. The money is available to spend, but they're refusing to lay out a plan to spend it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It would have made it significantly easier for banks to continue the mortgage robosigning practices because they could find whatever county had the loosest notary public requirements in the nation and set up a big robosigning shop there for every piece of loan documentation. Wait Notary requirements are a county thing, atleast in some some states?! Holy crap that is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Wait Notary requirements are a county thing, atleast in some some states?! Holy crap that is terrible. The point is that you have to get someone local to the matter at hand involved with the legal paperwork.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Notaries are usually licensed through the county clerk after meeting state-based requirements, so it's not hard to imagine a world in which every mortgage in America gets processed through New Castle County, DE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's actually not very surprising. Obama doesn't need to veto legislation because he can have Harry Reid do that instead. For Oblammo to actually veto something first Congress would need to actually pass something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:For Oblammo to actually veto something first Congress would need to actually pass something. I'll have you know that our hardworking Congresspeople have passed multiple Save America and End Obamacare bills that Reid and Obama refuse to debate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They won't do it before the elections because the deck is already stacked in their favor. If it will happen again it will be in 2015. Joementum posted:The Ryan-Murray agreement in December locked in a two year deal on the budget. What are they looking to use for leverage September 30th then? Communist Zombie posted:Can you explain how? From reading descriptions of it seems that it could be kinda bad, but only cause it got vetoed and its from republicans. So is it a matter of the details in it or was it named the exact opposite of what does? It fast tracked foreclosures. Given the massive foreclosure fraud that was and still is ongoing, it is a bad idea
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The nuts were talking about doing one in September in the aftermath of the Cantor primary upset It's possible, just possible, that the Tea Party strategists have miscalculated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
You guys see the news about one of the original Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, saying that he agreed with conservatives that the subsidies wouldn't be available for states that didn't have an exchange? Gruber's saying he misspoke and I have no reason to doubt him. But here's the thing. The right-wing echo chamber is gloating like crazy about this smoking gun. The problem though, is that, if we assume this was the original intent, than that would mean Obama and his Dem minions intentionally wanted LESS people dependent on government subsidies. It completely obliterates one of their own dumbass, widely held, talking points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's possible, just possible, that the Tea Party strategists have miscalculated. Or its the lack of appropriations. Mr Interweb posted:You guys see the news about one of the original Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, saying that he agreed with conservatives that the subsidies wouldn't be available for states that didn't have an exchange? Gruber's saying he misspoke and I have no reason to doubt him. But here's the thing. The right-wing echo chamber is gloating like crazy about this smoking gun. The problem though, is that, if we assume this was the original intent, than that would mean Obama and his Dem minions intentionally wanted LESS people dependent on government subsidies. It completely obliterates one of their own dumbass, widely held, talking points. Yeah. Legally speaking it is nothing. Politically speaking it depends how much they can make it fly. And lets not act like consistency in talking points is part of being a Republican
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
So is there an appropriations act for beyond September 30 2014 or are we just going to play it by ear again and hope people don't listen to Ted Cruz?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
The Christian Science Monitor and others are reporting that Obama may be looking into executive amnesty of illegal immigrants. Needless to say, right wing news and opinion is gearing up to denounce his executive overreach and , if the White House is right, demand impeachment if he does. It looks like it'll be an interesting weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Maybe I am too optimistic but wouldn't trying to impeach the president lead to a huge rev up of the democratic party base in the elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The Christian Science Monitor and others are reporting that Obama may be looking into executive amnesty of illegal immigrants. Needless to say, right wing news and opinion is gearing up to denounce his executive overreach and , if the White House is right, demand impeachment if he does. Though the first link you posted states that if Obama were to make this decision that it wouldn't be until Summer's end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Pappyland posted:Though the first link you posted states that if Obama were to make this decision that it wouldn't be until Summer's end. Of course, but you might as well spin up the right wing hate machine now and keep it on full blast (see Sessions's call to "melt Congressional phone lines" over the issue in the fourth link) until Obama The weekend bit is because it'll be fun if this indeed blows up and basically dominates the Sunday talk shows. EDIT: I mean I lifted every one of those links from the current top Drudge headline, so I suspect they're already trying to get this to gain traction in the right wing op/ed sphere as we speak. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:You guys see the news about one of the original Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, saying that he agreed with conservatives that the subsidies wouldn't be available for states that didn't have an exchange? Gruber's saying he misspoke and I have no reason to doubt him. But here's the thing. The right-wing echo chamber is gloating like crazy about this smoking gun. The problem though, is that, if we assume this was the original intent, than that would mean Obama and his Dem minions intentionally wanted LESS people dependent on government subsidies. It completely obliterates one of their own dumbass, widely held, talking points. What I don't get is that if it was the intention of Obama and dems that people on state exchanges wouldn't get subsidies... why are people on state exchanges getting subsidies? Oh, and of course, why wasn't anyone warning people about this in the run up to passing the bill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Maybe I am too optimistic but wouldn't trying to impeach the president lead to a huge rev up of the democratic party base in the elections. It would be a good move for Obama actually specifically because it's something Reagan also did. If the impeachment may be incoming anyway, might as well choose your ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Maybe if Obama submitted the Simpson-Mazzoli act and scratch out "Ronald Reagan" and sign it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It would be a good move for Obama actually specifically because it's something Reagan also did. If the impeachment may be incoming anyway, might as well choose your ground. They've been heading off the "But Reagan..." slam for a while by occasionally and obliquely framing it as Reagan's one mistake on talk radio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They've been heading off the "But Reagan..." slam for a while by occasionally and obliquely framing it as Reagan's one mistake on talk radio. Yeah. Of course, nobody tried to impeach Reagan for his one mistake, either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah. Of course, nobody tried to impeach Reagan for his one mistake, either. Raising taxes in 1982?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The Christian Science Monitor and others are reporting that Obama may be looking into executive amnesty of illegal immigrants. Needless to say, right wing news and opinion is gearing up to denounce his executive overreach and , if the White House is right, demand impeachment if he does.  Hieronymous Alloy posted:It would be a good move for Obama actually specifically because it's something Reagan also did. If the impeachment may be incoming anyway, might as well choose your ground. Seriously, do it you dumb motherfuckers, impeach Obama for doing what Reagan did ~30 years ago, and make sure it's right before the Midterms for maximum hilarity/Democratic seat gain.
fade5 fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:Oh, and of course, why wasn't anyone warning people about this in the run up to passing the bill? If I'm not mistaken, it looks like highly paid lying lawyers scoured the law for slightly ambiguous language and then lied about how it is an issue and lied about how it might be confusing because there is no punishment for lying in this context, only benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:bin Laden was actually a huge dickhead who played a major part in the most harmful event to happen on American soil in sixty years and anyone who wasn't celebrating his death is either his friend or a holier-than-thou douchebag. Bin Laden started the "war on drugs"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Armani posted:Behold! http://easybib.com http://www.citationmachine.net/ doesn't beg you for money constantly or paywall APA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
effectual posted:Bin Laden started the "war on drugs"? that scoundrel tricked dubya into going into war in iraq
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
moller posted:http://www.citationmachine.net/ doesn't beg you for money constantly or paywall APA. Awesome, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:You guys see the news about one of the original Obamacare architects, Jonathan Gruber, saying that he agreed with conservatives that the subsidies wouldn't be available for states that didn't have an exchange? Gruber's saying he misspoke and I have no reason to doubt him. But here's the thing. The right-wing echo chamber is gloating like crazy about this smoking gun. The problem though, is that, if we assume this was the original intent, than that would mean Obama and his Dem minions intentionally wanted LESS people dependent on government subsidies. It completely obliterates one of their own dumbass, widely held, talking points. Surprise the comments were taken out of context quote:That seems to suggest he agrees with the recent court ruling. But he actually disagrees with the ruling. Indeed he seems to regard the ruling as ludicrous. That doesn’t look good. Until you realize that the quote was taken out of context, and that the comments immediately preceding the quote tells a very different story: “Yes, so these health insurance exchanges . . . will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law it says if the states don’t provide them the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting up its backstop in part because I think they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
moller posted:http://www.citationmachine.net/ doesn't beg you for money constantly or paywall APA. It's also wrong. Please just go pirate the appropriate style manuals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:It's also wrong. Please just go pirate the appropriate style manuals. How is Citation Machine wrong? I had multiple profs tell my classes to use that site to create citations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Fuckin' APA, MLA or 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 15:38
|
|
