|
On March 24 2010 07:32 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:28 chessmaster wrote:ou are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!?
socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. ok you must be a complete retard ..... my post said the federal government is too strong what about that do you not understand ... how is a calll for the return of states rights being a cry for socialism ..... and by the way none of the so called socialistic countires are even pure socialist any more .. they are demo-republics with social programs .. pretty much the same thing we have here .. you must be a fox news junky eh? im talking about socialism... in general... how do you come around with the fact that i was picking apart your argument? just cause i quoted a different post? lol youre a head case better yet nerdy, where does that fit in your logical nerd-gasms?
i haven't heard someone use nerd as an insult since the 90s.
especially on a Starcraft enthusiast site.
|
lets just eliminate rothschilds, rockafellas =)
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs.
Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far.
As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism.
@chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age 
As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector.
|
On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:
Hide nested quote -
fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ...
you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!?
socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs.
how does this reply in any way shape or form to my assertion that you tend to post arguments with fallacy as your form of evidence ... in fact i dont see what it has to do with that at alll ... you mental processes make little sense . when did i say socialism was good for the country in that post ????? somewhere in your imagination ? lol dude either your a troll . or someone that actually thinks they are intelligent .. i am leaning toward troll because i find it hard to believe that the state of being this inept mentally could be attributed with mental narcissism
|
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
|
well states rights issues aside .... the federal government could still exist in a parallel of power to control single payer health systems even if there was a return to states rights the post new deal field in usa has spawned federal control after federal control ... i.e war on drugs .. something like 30 trillion in the first 50 years alone .. where does it all end .... regional control makes much more sense to me ..... but that aside i agree modern socialism isnt even pure socialism anymore post 1960s so all these crys of it are kinda absurd .. i agree 100 percent mystlord ( except for the part about states rights  they all are a mix of freemarket - demo-republics with social reforms .. much like the usa
|
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
well i hope they do ... just the federal gov used crys of slavery to launch its crusade of power when it was really about industry control ,,, i mean even if the states get thier rights back ( also medical marijuana being a modern battlefield for this thank goodness) i dont care how they get thier power back ... even revolution is good for me .. but it needs to happen ...... the federal government is outa control .. i dont mind them involved in more altruistic areas i.e health ... but i dont want to see them everywhere in my life . the bottom line is the federal government was not intended to be this powerful when the constitution was drafted ..... there used to be checks and balances in our system and they have slowly disapeared as all of these federal orgz have no balances
|
On March 24 2010 07:37 chessmaster wrote:
yeah morality aside ( i.e slavery ) the civil war was the worst thing that every happened in the brief usa history .. and was the beginning of this federal monster ..not trying to derail the fprum ... just making the point that until this changes new probelms will keep cropping up over and over .. and until something is done , and the longer the american people wait to get control back , the harder it is goona be to get it back .. i seriously dont see anything short of a revolution getting states rights back at this point
the supreme court could still theoretically shoot it down, if not just parts of the law.
other than that im not sure it could be repealed.
|
well i don't really care about the parties bickering .. that is only the theater thos who really control usa have given us to let us think we have a voice i believe they are a part of the same 2 headed monster that supports money and money alone ,, and that is because the way the system has evolved into something it was never intended to be
|
but whatever happens i think we can all agree usa needs better health care for the buck........ and this bill night not achieve that
|
On March 23 2010 09:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 08:34 L wrote:On March 23 2010 08:16 ammeL wrote:
I'm a fan of this reform because it does have many advantages for those residing in the United States; not to mention, I'm an advocate of universality.
However, Obama is still an idiot - he totally ignored the Republicans since he got into office and that's why he had such trouble passing this bill. Even after it passed, the Senate had to put the bill under 'reconciliation' -- showing just how badly Obama has neglected the thoughts of the Republicans. He can't even sign the bill officially, until it passes reconciliation (and it has failed one time in the past and would be hilarious if it fails again). Politics is not a one-way street (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread).
(Also, not to say that I am supporting the republicans, but as the President, he should realize that he needs to listen/gain favoritism of Republicans if he hopes to get something major like this passed again in the future). If someone ignores you when you talk to them it doesn't mean you are ignoring them. The republicans realize they can't come close to fielding someone as charismatic as Obama so their electoral strategy has been to prevent him from making any legislative headway so that when the next election cycle comes up they can throw the "you didn't do anything" card at him. I mean, Obama went as far as to speak in front of the entire republican assembly to ask them to work together and stop downright lying to people and they haven't. What the fuck more do you want him to do? He gutted his pride and joy bill to satisfy their requests, stated numerous times that he was willing to listen to republican points like tort reform, etc. Its sad that this is what America is. America used to be so much more. You should at least get your facts straight before you post something like this. Maybe you haven't noticed, but Obama's chrarisma has proven to be entirely illusory beyond being able to give a speech off of a teleprompter. He has shown a complete inability to work with republicans. Speaking in front of them was a political stunt, nothing more. If he really intended to work with republicans, he would have invited them into the meetings that he had with other democrats and democratic special interest groups where the health care bill was actually drafted. If you still want to blame the republicans and need further evidence of Obama's very apparent lack of charisma, just look at how he has handled foreign policy so far. He has managed to piss off all of our allies during his first year in office, the most egregious offenses being against Britain and Israel. Even French President Sarkozy called Obama out for wimping out when it came to handling Iran. You know that something's wrong when the French basically call the US president a pussy. I posit to you that even Bush, as much of a buffoon as he was, had more charisma than Obama. He actually managed a fair degree of bipartisanship during his tenure. As I pointed out earlier, "No Child Left Behind" is case in point. His handling of the economic crisis during his last months in office is another example. All Obama has managed to do is vex the republicans and galvanize their opposition to him. That's political suicide in the making, the reason why Obama's approval ratings have plummeted, and the reason why he'll be a one term president.
Dude. You should stop watching Fox News. It rots the brain. Obama is the smartest President you had in like ever.
|
On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional.
|
On March 24 2010 07:43 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far. As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism. @chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector.
oh man i dont know if i have a working definition of socialism. im thinking more along the lines of government control. when i think about socialism i think about total government control, that may not be the actual model for a socialist operation but thats what im talking about. too much government control in the us is not a good thing.
it appears to me all the socialist talk is surrounding government control, i dont think any of it is reflected on workers controlling the production and the allocation of resources. hell i havent heard that mentioned once, but i dont really have a problem with socialism in a perfect idealogical society, im sure it would work fine.
healthcare reform is absolutely worthy and important but this bill isn't going to accomplish it. the government could still focus on reform by controlling regulations through private insurance rather than a total and complete takeover of all healthcare in the US. that is whats at stake here with the current plan. you think the rich really give a shit about helping the poor mobs with healthcare? hell i dont, chessnerdy is right when he said we shouldnt trust the govt. we have no obligation too.
|
On March 24 2010 08:04 chessmaster wrote:
well i don't really care about the parties bickering .. that is only the theater thos who really control usa have given us to let us think we have a voice i believe they are a part of the same 2 headed monster that supports money and money alone ,, and that is because the way the system has evolved into something it was never intended to be
And with the recent Supreme Court ruling that foreign companies can make unlimited contributions to politicians, the time is ripe to buy lawmakers from abroad. America is so screwed unless this stupid decision is overturned.
|
On March 24 2010 08:13 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:43 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far. As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism. @chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector. oh man i dont know if i have a working definition of socialism. im thinking more along the lines of government control. when i think about socialism i think about total government control, that may not be the actual model for a socialist operation but thats what im talking about. too much government control in the us is not a good thing. it appears to me all the socialist talk is surrounding government control, i dont think any of it is reflected on workers controlling the production and the allocation of resources. hell i havent heard that mentioned once, but i dont really have a problem with socialism in a perfect idealogical society, im sure it would work fine. healthcare reform is absolutely worthy and important but this bill isn't going to accomplish it. the government could still focus on reform by controlling regulations through private insurance rather than a total and complete takeover of all healthcare in the US. that is whats at stake here with the current plan. you think the rich really give a shit about helping the poor mobs with healthcare? hell i dont, chessnerdy is right when he said we shouldnt trust the govt. we have no obligation too.
There is no government control. This government is fully bought and paid for by large corporations. Nobody dares point a finger at Goldman Sachs which essentially destroyed the US economy. Not a single person from AIG or Citigroup went to jail. This is as far from socialism as you can get.
|
On March 24 2010 08:21 WWJDD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:13 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:43 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far. As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism. @chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector. oh man i dont know if i have a working definition of socialism. im thinking more along the lines of government control. when i think about socialism i think about total government control, that may not be the actual model for a socialist operation but thats what im talking about. too much government control in the us is not a good thing. it appears to me all the socialist talk is surrounding government control, i dont think any of it is reflected on workers controlling the production and the allocation of resources. hell i havent heard that mentioned once, but i dont really have a problem with socialism in a perfect idealogical society, im sure it would work fine. healthcare reform is absolutely worthy and important but this bill isn't going to accomplish it. the government could still focus on reform by controlling regulations through private insurance rather than a total and complete takeover of all healthcare in the US. that is whats at stake here with the current plan. you think the rich really give a shit about helping the poor mobs with healthcare? hell i dont, chessnerdy is right when he said we shouldnt trust the govt. we have no obligation too. There is no government control. This government is fully bought and paid for by large corporations. Nobody dares point a finger at Goldman Sachs which essentially destroyed the US economy. Not a single person from AIG or Citigroup went to jail. This is as far from socialism as you can get.
Oh that alex jones' stuff is nonsense, don't bring it in here crazy.
earlier you said you didnt think anyone with a legal knowhow would find it unconstitutional? where in the us constitution does it say congress, the president or any entity of govt has the power to FORCE a citizen to pay for healthcare? thats the unconstitutional part... it very may well be, to me it sounds unconstitutional but its up to the supreme court now...
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 08:13 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:43 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far. As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism. @chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector. oh man i dont know if i have a working definition of socialism. im thinking more along the lines of government control. when i think about socialism i think about total government control, that may not be the actual model for a socialist operation but thats what im talking about. too much government control in the us is not a good thing. it appears to me all the socialist talk is surrounding government control, i dont think any of it is reflected on workers controlling the production and the allocation of resources. hell i havent heard that mentioned once, but i dont really have a problem with socialism in a perfect idealogical society, im sure it would work fine. healthcare reform is absolutely worthy and important but this bill isn't going to accomplish it. the government could still focus on reform by controlling regulations through private insurance rather than a total and complete takeover of all healthcare in the US. that is whats at stake here with the current plan. you think the rich really give a shit about helping the poor mobs with healthcare? hell i dont, chessnerdy is right when he said we shouldnt trust the govt. we have no obligation too.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?jss=0
Yeah that's not socialism. It's called a social democracy... I suppose socialism rolls off the tongue better, but I still don't like people using the term just because it has a pejorative meaning.
Well the thing is that the current health care bill really only deals with reform in terms of existing health insurance companies. Too much lobbying power I suppose  . I still believe that single payer is the ultimate best option. I'm not talking about government control of hospitals and pharmaceuticals, I'm just talking about government taking the role of health insurance companies. And why not? Largest risk pool, no moral hazard (I would hope), and I'm pretty sure that premiums would be much lower if everyone was on the same freaking plan.
On March 24 2010 08:21 WWJDD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:13 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:43 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 07:25 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 07:17 chessmaster wrote:fuck you two argue like girls.
well now we add ad hominem to your list of employed fallacy , and gender bias lol . however the post hoc fallacy was wayyyyy more humorous ... you are such a nerd, i feel like insulting your mother. what went wrong!? WHAT WENT WRONG!? socialism isn't good for the US because were a rep. democracy from our start, thats really not in our best interest. we didn't get to where we're at now because we've had fantastic social programs. Tone it down. Seriously. You might be frustrated but you don't need to go that far. As for Socialism isn't good the US... Please tell us your definition of "socialism". That word gets thrown around a lot, and it lacks foundation in... err.. Anything. For me, socialism means a society where production and allocation of resources are controlled by the workers. Nothing since the 1960s falls into that definition for me. If you're talking about government power in general, then that's absolutely not socialism. @chessmaster: I agree that we can't trust the federal government and the corporations at all. I don't agree that the solution is to increase states rights. The solution instead should be to increase transparency in all regards, and to ensure heavier regulation in most sectors as well. We're drifting further and further back to the Gilded Age As for health care in general, I agree that the bill does absolutely nothing. What we do need is single payer (not going to happen thanks to cries of "SOCIALISM!"), but a public option is a good step forward. Even more important is to reform Medicare and fix that. It's only a strain on the government because the cost for end of life care and just care for seniors in general is high. Since we have no large risk pool to balance that cost out, we're sliding further and further into the red. With the first wave of baby boomers starting to reach that retirement age, Medicare is only going to fall deeper into the red without reform in that sector. oh man i dont know if i have a working definition of socialism. im thinking more along the lines of government control. when i think about socialism i think about total government control, that may not be the actual model for a socialist operation but thats what im talking about. too much government control in the us is not a good thing. it appears to me all the socialist talk is surrounding government control, i dont think any of it is reflected on workers controlling the production and the allocation of resources. hell i havent heard that mentioned once, but i dont really have a problem with socialism in a perfect idealogical society, im sure it would work fine. healthcare reform is absolutely worthy and important but this bill isn't going to accomplish it. the government could still focus on reform by controlling regulations through private insurance rather than a total and complete takeover of all healthcare in the US. that is whats at stake here with the current plan. you think the rich really give a shit about helping the poor mobs with healthcare? hell i dont, chessnerdy is right when he said we shouldnt trust the govt. we have no obligation too. There is no government control. This government is fully bought and paid for by large corporations. Nobody dares point a finger at Goldman Sachs which essentially destroyed the US economy. Not a single person from AIG or Citigroup went to jail. This is as far from socialism as you can get.
Lol I laughed when I read that . It's funny in context, but it stings because it's so true :/.
|
Osaka27154 Posts
Please keep the discussion civil or go elsewhere.
|
On March 24 2010 08:11 WWJDD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2010 09:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 08:34 L wrote:On March 23 2010 08:16 ammeL wrote:
I'm a fan of this reform because it does have many advantages for those residing in the United States; not to mention, I'm an advocate of universality.
However, Obama is still an idiot - he totally ignored the Republicans since he got into office and that's why he had such trouble passing this bill. Even after it passed, the Senate had to put the bill under 'reconciliation' -- showing just how badly Obama has neglected the thoughts of the Republicans. He can't even sign the bill officially, until it passes reconciliation (and it has failed one time in the past and would be hilarious if it fails again). Politics is not a one-way street (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread).
(Also, not to say that I am supporting the republicans, but as the President, he should realize that he needs to listen/gain favoritism of Republicans if he hopes to get something major like this passed again in the future). If someone ignores you when you talk to them it doesn't mean you are ignoring them. The republicans realize they can't come close to fielding someone as charismatic as Obama so their electoral strategy has been to prevent him from making any legislative headway so that when the next election cycle comes up they can throw the "you didn't do anything" card at him. I mean, Obama went as far as to speak in front of the entire republican assembly to ask them to work together and stop downright lying to people and they haven't. What the fuck more do you want him to do? He gutted his pride and joy bill to satisfy their requests, stated numerous times that he was willing to listen to republican points like tort reform, etc. Its sad that this is what America is. America used to be so much more. You should at least get your facts straight before you post something like this. Maybe you haven't noticed, but Obama's chrarisma has proven to be entirely illusory beyond being able to give a speech off of a teleprompter. He has shown a complete inability to work with republicans. Speaking in front of them was a political stunt, nothing more. If he really intended to work with republicans, he would have invited them into the meetings that he had with other democrats and democratic special interest groups where the health care bill was actually drafted. If you still want to blame the republicans and need further evidence of Obama's very apparent lack of charisma, just look at how he has handled foreign policy so far. He has managed to piss off all of our allies during his first year in office, the most egregious offenses being against Britain and Israel. Even French President Sarkozy called Obama out for wimping out when it came to handling Iran. You know that something's wrong when the French basically call the US president a pussy. I posit to you that even Bush, as much of a buffoon as he was, had more charisma than Obama. He actually managed a fair degree of bipartisanship during his tenure. As I pointed out earlier, "No Child Left Behind" is case in point. His handling of the economic crisis during his last months in office is another example. All Obama has managed to do is vex the republicans and galvanize their opposition to him. That's political suicide in the making, the reason why Obama's approval ratings have plummeted, and the reason why he'll be a one term president. Dude. You should stop watching Fox News. It rots the brain. Obama is the smartest President you had in like ever.
You can't be serious
|
On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional.
Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...)
If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes.
This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this.
I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this.
My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
