| Forum Index > General Forum |
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 21 2009 15:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Passes 60-40. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/senate-votes-yes-on-first_n_398870.html No surprise. But this doesn't mean anything. The bill still has to go through the conference committee then back through the House and Senate again... Where it can get shot down again  We haven't hit on the real battle yet :/ | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On December 21 2009 13:49 Mastermind wrote: Are you implying past administrations were somehow better in this regard? Bush did the same shit. Also, it is a known fact that practically no one in the house or senate reads any bill. Lets repeat the past, that's a good idea. Fucking idiot. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On December 21 2009 13:21 Mystlord wrote: No, YOU must be a troll. I have no idea where you're pulling the number 2000+ from, but the House bill comes up at 1990 pages, with the largest font and spacing I've ever seen: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf Senate health care bill comes up at 615, with the same big arse font: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf Next time, please do a basic search for the bill before stating facts. The bill was 2,733 pages with 383 pages of amendments added at the last minute which I'm sure everyone read and fully understands. What does is it say about the bill when they voted on it in the dead of night and it passes without even a single republican vote. Closed Backdoor Meetings, governmental bribes for votes, and shut out the opposition. Chicago style negotiation at it’s finest. | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On December 22 2009 01:19 Undisputed- wrote: The bill was 2,733 pages with 383 pages of amendments added at the last minute which I'm sure everyone read and fully understands. What does is it say about the bill when they voted on it in the dead of night and it passes without even a single republican vote. Closed Backdoor Meetings, governmental bribes for votes, and shut out the opposition. Chicago style negotiation at it’s finest. Spoken like a true cynic ^^ I love your prose Undisputed-~!! | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On December 22 2009 01:19 Undisputed- wrote: The bill was 2,733 pages with 383 pages of amendments added at the last minute which I'm sure everyone read and fully understands. What does is it say about the bill when they voted on it in the dead of night and it passes without even a single republican vote. Closed Backdoor Meetings, governmental bribes for votes, and shut out the opposition. Chicago style negotiation at it’s finest. That it might actually contain some value or be productive? | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
| ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On December 22 2009 01:19 Undisputed- wrote: The bill was 2,733 pages with 383 pages of amendments added at the last minute which I'm sure everyone read and fully understands. What does is it say about the bill when they voted on it in the dead of night and it passes without even a single republican vote. That the american political process is working as it always has? | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On December 22 2009 01:19 Undisputed- wrote: The bill was 2,733 pages with 383 pages of amendments added at the last minute which I'm sure everyone read and fully understands. What does is it say about the bill when they voted on it in the dead of night and it passes without even a single republican vote. Closed Backdoor Meetings, governmental bribes for votes, and shut out the opposition. Chicago style negotiation at it’s finest. I'm sure you'd be pleased with what we should be doing instead of this bill then. A very simple amendment to the constitution stating that quality health care is to be free for all citizens. You'd love that, right? It's funny, because you act like it's a purely partisan bill even though the idea of universal health care has been neutered to basically not even exist just so it could get the votes of wolves in sheep's clothing like Lieberman. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
That's like asking a sewer worker to write you a haiku about string theory. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On December 22 2009 06:19 zerglingsfolife wrote: Seriously, get the fuck out of the US health care thread if you are going to openly stereotype an entire party which comprises half of the country whose views and ideals are far and varied. Ugh It doesn't comprise half of the country. You shouldn't perpetuate that myth. Most Americans are not officially affiliated with either party. Some may fairly consistently vote for one party, but that's more of a lesser of two evils thing than anything else. Half of the country doesn't usually vote, more or less.. So they are definitly not republicans. It is true that the republican party houses different factions, but honesly, the fiscally conservative, libertarian faction is not exactly dominant. The guys who run the republican show are consistently neo-liberal corperatists, with some christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatists mixed in. At least that has been the case since Raegan. The democratic party isn't vastly different imo, but they like to spend more money at home and a little less on actual invasions. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On December 22 2009 07:25 wadadde wrote: It doesn't comprise half of the country. You shouldn't perpetuate that myth. Most Americans are not officially affiliated with either party. Some may fairly consistently vote for one party, but that's more of a lesser of two evils thing than anything else. Half of the country doesn't usually vote, more or less.. So they are definitly not republicans. It is true that the republican party houses different factions, but honesly, the fiscally conservative, libertarian faction is not exactly dominant. The guys who run the republican show are consistently neo-liberal corperatists, with some christian fundamentalists and neo-conservatists mixed in. At least that has been the case since Raegan. The democratic party isn't vastly different imo, but they like to spend more money at home and a little less on actual invasions. Roughly(obviously a little less than half of the country) THAT voted, voted for McCain who was the Republican. They may not be Republican, but they at least shared more views with him than Obama. That's why I said half the country. It's an approximation of views. The people who don't vote aren't relevant. They choose to be irrelevant and that's their own fault. There are a LOT of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people. There are also right winged fundamentalists. That is a big split right there. Thus their views are varied. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On December 22 2009 07:42 zerglingsfolife wrote: Roughly(obviously a little less than half of the country) THAT voted, voted for McCain who was the Republican. They may not be Republican, but they at least shared more views with him than Obama. That's why I said half the country. It's an approximation of views. The people who don't vote aren't relevant. They choose to be irrelevant and that's their own fault. There are a LOT of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people. There are also right winged fundamentalists. That is a big split right there. Thus their views are varied. Well if I didn't feel like anyone was really representing me then I wouldn't vote either. As I said, the two main parties don't seem to be miles apart on many issues. In a country where 'socialist' is a curse word and bribes from corporations are legal and are called campain contributions, that perhaps isn't much of a surprise. Anyways you bypassed my assertion that the dominant part of the republican party is not 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative'. The sad fact about republican rule is that they proclaim to be fiscally conservative, but end up plundering the US finances even more than the democrats. If you don't believe me then do some basic research. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
| ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On December 22 2009 08:24 zerglingsfolife wrote: I bypassed it because I'm just defending my post that the Republican party has people who can disagree with each other inside of it and who's views vary.  okI was just pressing it because in the end the differing views don't seem to translate into anything substantive. I wish I could vote for measures/policies instead of parties. Seems more democratic.. | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On December 22 2009 08:49 wadadde wrote: okI was just pressing it because in the end the differing views don't seem to translate into anything substantive. I wish I could vote for measures/policies instead of parties. Seems more democratic.. I definitely agree. I think most Americans despise the party system. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
As for the two parties, there isn't much of a difference in governing philosophy. They both use power and rhetoric to give their favoured campaign contributors the biggest share of the government money. The only difference is which segment of the population gets it. Neither party stands for fairness or equality before the law, but sure try to talk it. | ||
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 22 2009 11:06 TanGeng wrote: I would certainly give a thumbs us for direct democracy (more democracy). It's much more fair and equitable than the quid pro quo that happens in Congress. As for the two parties, there isn't much of a difference in governing philosophy. They both use power and rhetoric to give their favoured campaign contributors the biggest share of the government money. The only difference is which segment of the population gets it. Neither party stands for fairness or equality before the law, but sure try to talk it. I'd like direct democracy, but I'm concerned about voter turnout and how that might marginalize some groups... But whatever. I think a lot of people can identify some fundamental flaws with the two party system. I feel that we could seriously live with a 1 party system and not be that much different. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On December 22 2009 06:46 QibingZero wrote: I'm sure you'd be pleased with what we should be doing instead of this bill then. A very simple amendment to the constitution stating that quality health care is to be free for all citizens. You'd love that, right? It's funny, because you act like it's a purely partisan bill even though the idea of universal health care has been neutered to basically not even exist just so it could get the votes of wolves in sheep's clothing like Lieberman. In short. No. I hope republicans can stall this long enough by whatever means necessary until the November elections. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
