The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

**hermhater** · 01-08-2008, 11:29 PM

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html

Crap.

**mejohnm** · 10-04-2013, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Chiefster

I don't know how to make this more clear. They are doing what their constituency wants them to do, and what is within their duty under the constitution. It is the Democrats who want this shutdown which is why they will not even so much as negotiate with the Republicans. Of course it was passed by a Democratically controlled Congress and barely upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax. Republicans have done all they can to avoid a government shutdown, it is amazing to me how it is always the Republicans fault while the Democrats bare zero culpability in this whole ordeal.

Yet the other constituents also want their representatives to keep the bill alive. They should get the votes by getting the representatives that are needed into Congress. That is the proper way. And regarding the closures of monuments, the government is shutdown. Perimeter security is still cheaper than security when these things are open. I am also though for no pay for the government when it is shutdown. As I said before, the government is shutdown so all should feel it, not just us.

**TopekaRoy** · 10-04-2013, 01:14 AM

I just saw this. It's really funny but would be even funnier if it wasn't so very, very sad ...

**mejohnm** · 10-04-2013, 03:13 AM

That is what I have been talking about. It is the number 1 joke now in Germany, and most of the world. Sad indeed. I just hope the Chiefs win this Sunday so we can forget about this all for at least those 3 hours.

**mejohnm** · 10-04-2013, 03:26 AM

Couldn't be explain any better:

**Chiefster** · 10-04-2013, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by mejohnm

Yet the other constituents also want their representatives to keep the bill alive. They should get the votes by getting the representatives that are needed into Congress. That is the proper way. And regarding the closures of monuments, the government is shutdown. Perimeter security is still cheaper than security when these things are open. I am also though for no pay for the government when it is shutdown. As I said before, the government is shutdown so all should feel it, not just us.

Some 56% of Americans want this law gone. The number of Representatives is not the problem it's the number of Senate Republicans. The House GOP is doing what is proper. The President unilaterally CHANGED the law as it was written, passed and signed which is unconstitutional, and the Constitution provides the House of Representatives the authority to withhold funding in just these kinds of cases, when the President overreaches his authority. Had Obama not changed the law without the consent of congress then you would be correct in assessment.

**Chiefster** · 10-04-2013, 04:25 AM

The House Republicans have offered to fund Obamacare as written and passed without the exemptions and the President along with the Senate Democrats rejected it.

**mejohnm** · 10-04-2013, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Chiefster

Some 56% of Americans want this law gone. The number of Representatives is not the problem it's the number of Senate Republicans. The House GOP is doing what is proper. The President unilaterally CHANGED the law as it was written, passed and signed which is unconstitutional, and the Constitution provides the House of Representatives the authority to withhold funding in just these kinds of cases, when the President overreaches his authority. Had Obama not changed the law without the consent of congress then you would be correct in assessment.

Then that case the Republicans should go to the proper branch, I believe the SC in this case but they have not. This makes many believe the Republicans are just blowing hot air. If any President would so something unconstitutional, then there are check and balances in place to do something about it.

I also find it funny that I hear 2/3 of the Americans do want this bill. Anyway, lets say though even that 56% do not want this bill, then the people have to vote in their Senators or Representatives that can do what these people want.

Edit for a link to the 2/3 comment:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ing-obamacare/

**Chiefster** · 10-04-2013, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by mejohnm

Couldn't be explain any better:

Except he explained like it isn't. see my replies above.

**mejohnm** · 10-04-2013, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by Chiefster

The House Republicans have offered to fund Obamacare as written and passed without the exemptions and the President along with the Senate Democrats rejected it.

What exemptions... like the one for when the poor cannot afford insurance. is it that one?