Texsox

The ACA was passed three years ago, then delayed until now. (as part of a compromise) The President was relected even after the election was made about "Obamacare". So tell me again why it is still being debated.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 10:13 PM) yes, really. but your hypocrisy doesn't surprise me. i've actually come to expect it. so did you actually ban that guy? I asked you to find one example where I cheered someone losing their paycheck. I am still waiting. I have consistently supported people in earning a living. The innocent people at Penn State, undocumented workers, and now government workers. I have proven my case. Besides repeating a baseless accusation, what have you proven? And no single mod or admin, besides the sites owner, can suspend or ban anyone. Personal attacks have never been tolerated here.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) If Hawk is the best announcer in the game, then Konerko is the best 1b in the game.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) RE: The Senate, I want to revise my statement. Looking at the races that are even remotely in contention, I don't think the Dems are likely to pick up seats, though it is possible if the GOP keeps shooting themselves in the foot. But the GOP would basically have to sweep all the currently close races to break even in the Senate, and that just seems incredibly unlikely right now. I'll say the Senate likely stays around where it is. House races are just really tough to predict this early. I have a slightly different take on this. Honestly, I do not care if they switch to blue or red. I hope both sides send new players who will be more cooperative. The old school guys like McCain and the late Paul Simon could come up with solutions that worked. I would rather see a balanced left and right who worked together than all red or all blue.

He deserved it, so I guess he deserves it now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) How many states is that allowed in these days? And wouldn't Dems be interested in voting in their own primary in 2016? QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 12:00 PM) Why would Democrats want to actively halt the destruction of the GOP? Most states allow you declare on voting day which ballot to take. And most voters call themselves independents. Perhaps if I said if enough "middle of the road, democrat leaning" voters switched. A couple decades ago we called them "Reagan Democrats". Christie needs to energize groups of middle of the road types who find partisan politics wrong and who do not vote to get out and vote in the primary to block the far right candidates from running roughshod over the party.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 12:47 PM) See, when Obama, and you, say 'pass a budget', what you really mean is pass MY budget so I get what I want. The house passed at least 3 CR's in the last day or two, all of which were just ignored out of hand by Harry Reid. Even in the reagan days with Tip O'Neil, they compromised sometimes. Tip was a two-faced liar like most politicians, but you still negotiated and gave up something to get something. What do the Dems want to give up to get? Nothing. The ACA was passed three years ago, it wasdecided then, and agreed on, to wait until now to begin. There was a presidential election during that time, and the guy who Republicans hung the ACA on by calling it Obamacare, won. The judicial branch had a chance to review and they agreed it was constitutional. Now why should a continued fight over that enter into a budget?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) How about it ends with the government stop spending money it doesn't have? That would be a good place for it end up. Like starting a war and cutting taxes to pay for it?

Or Christie convinces enough Dems to grab a GOP ballot and vote in that primary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Perry is way too extreme. Christie would be a great candidate IMO because he's an actual conservative but not crazy. And the Hurricane Sandy stuff showed he's not going to put stupid party politics over getting s*** done, even when that means *gasp* working with a Democrat. I agree. But wouldn't you agree that Perry would have an easier time in the GOP primaries and Christie would have an easier time in the general? I see Christie being described as a Rhino all the time. That doesn't play well with the Tea Party types and the solidly right of center.

And then there is luck and factors that are too complex to measure.

As I wrote in the GOP thread, and looking ahead to 2014, the shut down benefits candidates who are not in the house. Clinton and Biden, but Clinton more so, can avoid getting dirty and attracting negative attention. On the other side, you have to love Christie's position. If he could survive the GOP primaries, he would be a tough candidate to beat.

If I am a prominent Republican with a federal position and with presidential goals, I would be trying to find the very fine line between willing to compromise (gain moderate votes in the general) and not caving in to the President (to win the nomination). That is an almost impossible task. Which I think is why the current governors have a better shot at 2014. They can position themselves and say "we're not part of the gridlock and shut down". Nice position for a reinvented and more ready Perry and a slimmed down Christie. I think their chances go way up the longer this drags on and the longer incumbants have to garner negative attention.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 09:25 AM) Yeah, I was waiting for someone to point this out. I probably didn't state what I meant very well. Better stated, there is a reasonably large component of auto customers that looks to purchase a new vehicle every 2-3 years. For that component, leasing is a reasonable solution because they aren't going to hold onto a car they purchased long-enough to realize the benefits of purchasing v. leasing. I am not even certain of that. You are paying for the most heavily depreciated portion of the car cost. Unless you a suggesting that swapping cars every three years is the most expensive form of ownership, and within the subtext of most expensive, leasing is a viable option, then I agree.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 09:23 AM) Total overreaction. I've seen plenty of peoples careers mocked in here, and u joined in. But now you are offended. Boo hoo Really? You've seen me mock someone losing a paycheck? Prove it. Show me a time when I mocked a poster here who is losing a paycheck? Hickory has a family to support and through no fault of his will be without a paycheck. Duke suggested that all government workers are worthless and deserve to lose their paychecks. Find one time I posted anything close to that. I will point to the Penn State thread where I stood up for the hundreds of workers who lost their jobs because of criminal wrongdoing by others within the University. I felt it was wrong to cause them to lose paychecks when they did nothing wrong. Yes, I have mocked people, but never about losing jobs and paychecks. That is very personal and fundemental to their survival.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 09:16 AM) My friend paid $75.00 a month for healthcare same policy under Obamacare is $184.00 a month. She is single and her out of pocket pocket cost will go up 4000%. This is not what I call affordable healthcare. Obama lied his ass off. Where was she getting major medical insurance for $75?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 08:23 AM) Right, but most people don't. It seems like most people are at 3 years or so...and Rock is right, I don't think they ding you too badly on returning the car unless you exceed the mileage. Especially if you're considering re-leasing from them. Actually the current average is closer to six years as widely reported. http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest...igh/2000007854/

Amazon just announced they are hiring 70,000 full time employees in the US. It will affect some areas and have little or no longer term affect in others.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 09:03 PM) Not sure that flies. Depends on how the law is written, exact phraseology used. So maybe not a sub, just a second company. Would they stop someone from opening up a new company? There are legit applications for that. I remember when a small under 25 employee company I worked for branched out to contract manufacturing. We set up a new corporation because we did not wish to combine for competitive reasons.

Duke, you have reached an all time low. In my years here I have read some pretty despicable things, yesterday you hit the Hall of Shame. Frankly I am embarrased as a long time member here and a mod to allow your posts to remain visible. I hope that most readers understand that you do not reflect the soxtalk community. As a state employee I personally find your remarks insensitive, demeaning, insulting, and beyond contempt. For the first time since I became a mod I will be recommending that your posting privileges be suspended.

Jenks, the way you communicate with people here i have no doubt you experience the poor service you do.

I see some companies opening a subsiderary instead of making the jump. A 25 person sales, marketing, and research company and a 40 person manufacturing plant.

I've worked for privatly and publicly owned corporations, two non profits, and now the state government. I can say I worked hard for all of them. I didn't change how I did my job based on who owned the company. Well, that's a lie. I worked my ass off for my own company a bit more.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 02:42 PM) I'm sorry, that's asinine. If they'd run on "We'll get rid of ACA at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American jobs" I doubt they'd have gotten elected. Most were open about not compromising. They are now living their promises. No flip flopping. No lying.

The federal employees I have dealt with have been awesome. From my local post office, to staffs at National Parks, IRS, and the Department of Education. Far better than the average WalMart, Best Buy, employee.