|
On October 02 2013 05:20 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:On October 02 2013 05:08 Yergidy wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
This says everything we need to know about the Republican party's faith in the American people and the democratic process. Who cares who the people voted for, who cares what these people's representatives voted into law, who cares that the Supreme Court even voted approvingly on the law's constitutionality...
After 2012 we were told the GOP would re-evaluate itself and try to better understand the electorate. That was obviously a lot of BS. So 2016 will come and go, with Republicans again looking like a party of no real ideas except to hate their opponents. They'll lose. If Republicans actually want to give America alternative ideas to the Democratic Party, then they should do that -- in the election. But they've just become the Arrogance Party. This is really all they stand for anymore -- pure spitefulness and obstructionism.
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Wouldn't you try and "obstruct" something if you thought it would hurt millions of people? Speaking of "spitefulness and obstructionism", what are the democrats in the senate doing now by stopping any spending bills from the house that have anything to do with Obama care without so much as a committee? So rather than obstructing obamacare, who they think will hurt millions of people, they just let gov't shutdown and hurt millions of people? makes sense to me. You are overreacting to how bad a (partial) government shutdown actually is. Most of the government employees are still working and while not getting paid at this second (if it was in their pay schedule to get paid at this time), will get paid for their time during the shutdown when the government gets funded again. That being said, the Republicans tried to avoid a shutdown, sending 4 different bills completely funding the government to the Senate with not so much as a committee from The Senate majority leader.
800,000, no longer getting paid.
This doesn't include family members that are affected by the lack of pay.
etc etc.
Sure million out of 400million ain't much, but you're still affecting 1mil+ people.
|
I hope ya'll get this sorted out soon.
|
On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare)
No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for.
The American people did that themselves.
They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan.
You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that.
Show nested quote +The system of checks and balanced is how laws get passed -- and this law got passed. It passed the system. It even got voted on by the Supreme Court. It's the law now. It passed with zero Republican support. Also, checks and balances do not end with a law's passage.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Show nested quote +And shut up about the Founders, what a childish appeal to authority. I just talked to Thomas Jefferson, he called you an ass. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, who hated the Federalists, would support a massive federal program to provide the people with a welfare program... Sure thing buddy. Oh and if you hate the Founders, why would you appeal to the "system" they created? The system they created was designed with the intention of forcing gridlock and compromise.
No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
|
On October 02 2013 05:21 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 Leporello wrote:
This is not the first time the Republicans have done this. It really does show contempt for American voters. Sorry, but this bill passed. If Republicans REALLY want to defeat the bill -- if America REALLY doesn't want this bill -- then the elections are where you fix that.
So it's obvious that the Republicans know that America actually does want the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans had any actual, real confidence in their ideas, they'd rely on the democratic process.
This will all be made very apparent in 2016. Hillary is ezpz slamdunk for 2016, if she chooses to run. I don't see Republicans recovering from this shitstorm. Benghazi might trip up Hillary. That or the effect of Obamacare taking effect and people learning about "unintended consequences".
I doubt Benghazi has much of any effect. If there are any "unintended consequences" from "Obamacare" she can just run on fixing them up and going full blown single payer.
Either way any amount of tripping up she might face will be far outdone by the tripping up Republicans are doing to themselves on a second by second basis.
Also lol wikipedia It is frequently referred to as the House or "that bunch of jackasses". The other house is the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
The edit itself
It wasn't me! lol
|
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion.
|
On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion.
Yes. Agreed. Well said. Thank you.
|
On October 02 2013 03:56 imBLIND wrote:
This isn't a complete shutdown. If a government completely shuts down, people would be looting every store right now with no fear of law enforcement. The partial shutdown is more like someone not paying their rent and utilities because of some internal problem, except on a government scale. This isn't the citizen's problem and it doesn't affect most of us directly (ofc unless you work for the government directly; teachers, law enforcement, etc still have to work).
This shutdown is basically the GOP's last resort to stop obamacare from going into effect.
It's just the federal government that's shut down isn't it? People aren't going to loot stores. I'm pretty sure that even if federal law were to disappear completely, state law would still stop people from doing that.
|
On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion.
To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling.
edit: Also, Obama didn't campaign heavily on it in 2012, only 2008 when it was just a figment of his imagination. It's a topic that's up for discussion because that's what citizen / constituents want up for discussion. If it was a settled issue that was over with, then President Obama is even lamer than I had thought because now he's failing to keep the government even operational over an issue that isn't even an issue. That would be pretty incompetent. I would more likely conclude that Obamacare and the implementation thereof is just as viable an issue for public and political debate as it has ever been.
|
On October 02 2013 05:33 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion. To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling.
From what I understand it is actually pretty much as simple as that. Whether you call it a tax or not is just semantics.
|
I don't know how US gets anything done these days. As an outsider the republican party looks like a bunch of loonies.
|
On October 02 2013 05:38 Nausea wrote:
I don't know how US gets anything done these days. As an outsider the republican party looks like a bunch of loonies.
That's how it looks from the inside too ;d
|
On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that.
So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
The people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up."
No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men.
"If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."
We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present.
Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination.
|
On October 02 2013 05:37 Nesto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:33 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion. To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling. From what I understand it is actually pretty much as simple as that. Whether you call it a tax or not is just semantics.
Actually, the legal ramifications of it being a tax or not are pretty huge. As is the legal question as to whether the Supreme Court has the right to institute a tax on the American people.
If it was a tax, why did Obama and the Democrats insist quite strongly while pushing it through that it specifically wasn't a tax?
|
On October 02 2013 05:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:37 Nesto wrote:On October 02 2013 05:33 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion. To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling. From what I understand it is actually pretty much as simple as that. Whether you call it a tax or not is just semantics. Actually, the legal ramifications of it being a tax or not are pretty huge. As is the legal question as to whether the Supreme Court has the right to institute a tax on the American people. If it was a tax, why did Obama and the Democrats insist quite strongly while pushing it through that it specifically wasn't a tax?
Because what a politician says and what the law decided are 2 very different things. You know the whole reason why they are separate offices.
|
I woke up and walked out into the cool crisp morning air. Smoke rising, horns blaring in the distance; the aftermath of traffic attempting to navigate sans street lights. Hordes of armed gangs roamed the street, knowing their chance to wreak havoc without police intervention would soon be at an end. I ducked behind a burning vehicle as a midair plane collision rained down debris. That's when I saw them, red parachutes dropping from the sky... The Chinese were invading. There was no military to defend us. The government had shut down.
Went back inside, someone on the radio was having a fit. He was using every curse word in the book since there was no FCC to punish him, m f this, m f that, c-word p-word b. My buddy called me up. "You know what I've always wanted to do?" he asked. "Hunt bald eagles. Now is my chance. You want some BBQ bald eagle? You think it tastes like chicken?"
No, I said, I was too distraught. I just found out the panda cam at the zoo had been turned off.
|
On October 02 2013 05:38 Nausea wrote:
I don't know how US gets anything done these days. As an outsider the republican party looks like a bunch of loonies.
The Country is not the Government. The US gets plenty done. However, the government has become so corrupt it's in the process of bringing everything down.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. Show nested quote +The system of checks and balanced is how laws get passed -- and this law got passed. It passed the system. It even got voted on by the Supreme Court. It's the law now. It passed with zero Republican support. Also, checks and balances do not end with a law's passage. You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage." Show nested quote +And shut up about the Founders, what a childish appeal to authority. I just talked to Thomas Jefferson, he called you an ass. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, who hated the Federalists, would support a massive federal program to provide the people with a welfare program... Sure thing buddy. Oh and if you hate the Founders, why would you appeal to the "system" they created? The system they created was designed with the intention of forcing gridlock and compromise. No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be. We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
Dear god thank you for that last paragraph, I'm so sick and tired of the appeals to authority and using someone else's good name who isn't here to speak for himself as a tool in one's argument.
|
On October 02 2013 05:09 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 04:49 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
Gerrymandering is hardly a Republican-only phenomenon. Both parties do it every chance they get. As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress. How is it you work with people who have made it their primary goal to undermine and repeal any and everything you do. Unless by 'work with' you mean ignore he won the election and just implement the policies the country voted against when they elected him... ... To claim Republicans have even the slightest desire to compromise or 'work with' Obama takes an ignorance nearly unparalleled in the universe Obama didn't want "THE" election, he won "HIS" election, as did every single member of the House and Senate. As for who has the obligation to "work with" the other side, Presidents are remembered based on their accomplishments, not so much the House. They both have their legacies, but only President Obama's will be compared with other Presidents throughout history. In fact, whether he is able to work with Congress will be part of his legacy, for better or worse. He is either the greatest President ever, as many liberals think, or he's so weak, he can't is stopped in his tracks by a "fringe group" of one House of Congress.
You are really grasping at straws aren't you. It's already been covered how and why the republicans won the house by the margin they did (without including their attempts to disenfranchise people who would likely vote against them) Your best argument here would be to point out the lack geographical diversity of democratic leaning constituents (See Pennsylvania)
Then you attack the semantics of my point. Yeah sure 'HIS' just happened to be the one where over 125,000,000 people voted instead of those house races where it was tens maybe a few hundred of thousands in many of the races Republicans won.
Pretty sure history will look at the republican party as the tantrum throwing children they have evidenced themselves to be at best. There is no question it will be tainted by the rampant racism and bigotry that surrounded Obama's birth certificate and his religious beliefs.
People will look at Obama likely as a Jackie Robinson of Presidential politics. Not the best to ever play the game but had to endure the legacies of a country built (at least in part) by racism. Despite the countless attempts to provoke him into what would be insisted to be irrational behaviour, he has inexplicably kept his calm.
Finally to your point on being "stopped in his tracks by a 'fringe group'"expect sane republicans to be the ones to do the right thing and forsake their political careers for what's in America's best interest.
The Tea party isn't stopping Obama, they are stopping the sane republicans from working with him by threatening to bring in a crazy person to primary them, even if it costs the party the election (See: Lindsay Graham who's challenger is quoted as saying Graham was too busy being a "community organizer for the Muslim Brotherhood" to pay attention to his constituents)
|
On October 02 2013 05:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:37 Nesto wrote:On October 02 2013 05:33 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion. To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling. From what I understand it is actually pretty much as simple as that. Whether you call it a tax or not is just semantics. Actually, the legal ramifications of it being a tax or not are pretty huge. As is the legal question as to whether the Supreme Court has the right to institute a tax on the American people. If it was a tax, why did Obama and the Democrats insist quite strongly while pushing it through that it specifically wasn't a tax?
I watched part of the Cruz filibuster, and I might be mistaken, but isn't there some jurisdictional problem where had this been considered a tax, the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction until the law was actually implemented ? I think I remember that among the list of many ridiculous stretches the Supreme Court had to make in order to rule as they did.
|
On October 02 2013 05:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:37 Nesto wrote:On October 02 2013 05:33 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 05:29 Ketara wrote:
Healthcare was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Judiciary. 3 Branches of government have given their stamp of approval. Obama campaigned heavily on it and won reelection by several million votes in the popular vote over Romney.
I don't understand why it's still even a topic that's up for discussion, let alone extortion. To say Obamacare was "affirmed by the Judiciary" is a GROSS oversimplification of their ruling. From what I understand it is actually pretty much as simple as that. Whether you call it a tax or not is just semantics. Actually, the legal ramifications of it being a tax or not are pretty huge. As is the legal question as to whether the Supreme Court has the right to institute a tax on the American people. If it was a tax, why did Obama and the Democrats insist quite strongly while pushing it through that it specifically wasn't a tax? I watched part of the Cruz filibuster, and I might be mistaken, but isn't there some jurisdictional problem where had this been considered a tax, the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction until the law was actually implemented ? I think I remember that among the list of many ridiculous stretches the Supreme Court had to make in order to rule as they did.
I believe that is correct, but there is also an issue of the Supreme Court effectively changing the language of a law, from "penalty" to "tax".
Justice Antonin Scalia:
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
