The truth about are political discussion

I hear ya.............

Hey, on a totally different topic, where are you with this shutdown?

I actually live in CT and work for Sikorsky Aircraft but my department was spared. (for now)

I spent my entire day watching both hourly and salary folks being walked out and there wasn't a dry eye in the place.

I also overheard “unanimously” people cursing Boehner and republicans under their breath as they were being walked out.

Die hard conservatives I've known for years at the company are ready to do the same thing that - that woman did the other day that got killed when she stormed the Whitehouse.............but these folks are looking for Boehner.

These people are looking for blood bro, and 99.9% of them don't blame the president what-so-ever.

I think the GOP really stepped in it this time.

They can spin this thing until Jesus comes back but I wouldn’t want to be them come the 2014 election cycle.

To say that these people are ticked is an understatement, and none of them are going to forget this............

 

The Shutdown? Glad you asked: The “Don’t Fund it” Option

 

Ok, so I read the article and I have a few questions.

Before I begin let me make it perfectly clear that I am by no means a scholar on the new law, and I do not profess to know all the legalities or components of it other than what most folks know….it was voted on – it passed – it was upheld by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally legal.

Having said all of that:

The author of the article didn’t say “why” it’s a such a terrible law, and that my friend is a red flag right there because it mainlines along with everybody else on the right who keeps saying it’s a bad law, but fails to give examples why.

They all just keep parroting each other like zombies: It's a terrible law, It's a terrible law, It's a terrible law, It's a terrible law, It's a terrible law.......

I think a very poignant question to ask would be, how in-fact do all these so-called experts know that a law is going to be bad…………………….before it’s even been implemented?

Not to be funny or sarcastic here but seriously, what, they have a crystal ball or they had a séance and it was foretold to them by some Gypsy woman that it was going to be the second coming of Satan himself?

Do you remember all the anti-Social Security commercials with Ronald Reagan blasting the new law as socialized indoctrination?

See this is the problem with our politics today. Look, I’ll be the first to admit that some of the back-room deals, waivers, and favors to certain big companies surrounding the new law aren’t too cool.

I’ll also admit that the president and his team could have and should have done a much better job at explaining it, especially when republicans were all out in full force every 5 seconds on almost every channel rejecting it , demonizing it, and over exaggerating the negative claims about it that were patently false. (like death panels and what-not)

Republicans could seriously care less about this law, why, because they know damn well that it’s the not the moral hazard or liability they’ve painted it to be.

This is all about wins & losses, and I blame both sides for this “us vs. them” mentality in Washington that has permeated the entire working body for decades.

Most politicians actually don’t care what laws or bills the other side works for or passes, what they care about is power, control, money, and looking like winners.

Many presidents have worked on passing a new health care law for a long, long time now, and this new law will be President Obama’s legacy.

He actually got it done, forget about the law or what’s in it, he got it done……that’s what's ticking off republicans.

And no, it has nothing to do with anybody’s color, its just pure politics on its face.

The problem with this shutdown is that no matter how you slice it, holding the government and country hostage over Obamacare (and we all know that that’s what it is) is wrong.

Republicans need to just drop it already, and move on to other larger fish that definitely need frying.

I think it’s really going to hurt the in the next election cycle, time will tell…………..

 

It doesn't matter who gets elected as President or which party you prefer to side with because when it comes right down to it, it is the entire government system we have that is responsible for the many issues we are facing today. They don;t care at all about the average citizen unless you have a big fat checkbook ready to write them a check.

Until people get that and stop assigning people labels that only serve to keeps us divided instead of uniting together to demand changes, we will continue to lose all of our freedoms.

 

Fascist Germany/Italy ran better Debt-GDP ratios than the entire world does currently:

https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/news/articles/government_debt.pdf

It's with grave misfortune that the tragic war crimes have smeared Nationalism/Fascism as an Economic Concept. Because historically, they've ran the best economic systems, best pro-market systems. The smear is that their economic prosperity came as a result of conquest, but the record bares different fruit.

We should look to a centralized and nationalized economic format.

 

It's unfair to call it an article. It's just a blog post, my blog post. You asked what I thought of the government shut down and that was my answer, from August, of what I thought was wrong with the idea.

As far as why Obamacare is a terrible law... really? If you've read this or any political forum, or have had any access to non state supporting news sources, you would have heard plenty of specific criticisms about Obamacare going back years. You could fill a library with articles and studies breaking down what's wrong with the law.

I mean, I get that you would disagree, and no doubt think Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or perhaps superior to sliced bread. But I'm a bit flummoxed that you actually seem to be unaware of any criticism of the law and seem to be of the opinion that Republicans only hate the law because it's Obama's legacy, as if Republicans would have been proud of this if only a Republican had his or her name on it.

Normally I would think someone writing something like that would merely be trolling, but I think you are absolutely sincere. You really can't imagine legitimate criticism of the law. So I submit to you that you are not quite there yet on figuring out what is ticking off Republicans about the law. I could just out and out tell you, but I don't think, considering where you are in your thinking, that you would believe it.

 

Fair enough, and seriously Lil Mike please forgive me, I had no idea you were the author of the write-up. (I wasn’t paying close enough attention, and I owe you an apology for that)

Having said that, I’ve absolutely seen all the criticism over the law, I’ve seen all the charts & graphs depicting the stats, and I’ve even seen all the numbers that claim it’s going to sink the economy and so-forth.

I’ve also seen all the data from the CBO, and how they’ve scored it, including other web sites and organizations that have good things to say about it.

Is it perfect, of course not, and I don’t think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, as I would have preferred single-payer myself.

As far as "most" republicans not liking it merely because it would be a good feather in the president’s cap for progressives, I hold to that.

I would definitely admit that there are some republicans who could care less about that, and that they care more about what’s in the law or what it would mean for America, but I believe the republicans in this category however reached those conclusions based on a lot of the Kool-Aid they poured for America to drink but wound up drinking themselves.

In other words: after you’ve told a slew of lies about something, you start to believe them yourself.

You haven’t lied about anything, to be sure.

But a lot of our political leaders have done a lot of lying & distorting about this law, and they’ve slipped beyond reality into believing all of the negative hype they pumped while they were derailing against it.

And I’ll tell you something else that may shock you, I truly wish republicans had sincerely worked with the president to make a better product rather than showing up for meetings with stacks of paper, slamming them on the conference table, and then proclaiming how they had no time to get through: “this 2000 page bureaucratic nightmare” before the meeting started. (that tells you a little something about sincerity my friend)

Or how they obsessed for months in committee about scrubbing the whole thing in favor of something else which was just code for: “let’s delay this thing as long as possible in order to kill whatever political capitol the president has at the moment in order to kill this thing all together”

They never wanted it Lil Mike, plain & simple.

I’m blessed with the curse of seeing through bull-shyt (on both sides) and I saw through all of their nonsesne during those debates.

I saw from early on that republicans never intended on working with the president over the health care law or that they were even concerned about the health care system. All they went on about for months was how America has the greatest health care system in the world (which we do not) and how there was no need to phuck with it.

They have consistently, never made any attempts during all of their terms in power to do anything to improve it other than try to get rid of other government programs, let alone come up with a comprehensive health care system that would help everyone.

No my friend, I’m not buying what there selling, and the victims of their refusal to budge on this matter has hurt all of us.

There’s no reason for this country not to have a comprehensive health care system for the entire nation…………none!!

And this shutdown, really I have no words for how appalling it is.

On a lighter note, my company told everyone to report back to work on Monday morning because I guess funding was released for all the DCMA government employees to return.

 

Spot on UNIFIER and after reading this entire thread.....my only conclusion is that our lil' 'centrist' is nothing more than a blind lemming following B.O. to a deep, dark pit of doom. Bad thing is: THEY are the left turn (WRONG TURN) that have led us all to the deep, dark pit where all of us are doomed unless we do away with a health care plan that has nothing to do with CARE at all but is designed to implement full control over each and every one of us by bully tactics (just as the law was passed by threatening dimocrats with base closures if they don't follow the party line). This law, as terrible as it is, should not be funded (much less passed or deemed Constitutional) because it forces religions and moral beliefs to go against their faith or secular convictions and is a biased plan that will favor certain groups while punishing others. This is wrong and I firmly believe that Roberts was strong-armed somehow in his ruling or had an alternative agenda in doing what he did. Regardless, it backfired or was simply a WRONG that will leave America in worse a much worse state of affairs. To say otherwise or to simply say that Conservatives or Libertarians RANT without knowledge or a reason to protest this CARE-less socialist medicine is to prove to us all how ignorant and leftist one is. Again, Mr. Unifier.....SPOT ON!

 

EXACTLY!


Intellect and common sense can't be forced and some things you simply can't "FIX" and then there are those who can't be helped. They have to learn the hard way and lessons learned through bad experiences are never fogotten but what is unfortunate is in the rest of us living through a lesson learned that we KNEW was a thing of pure evil meant for other things besides "health or care".

 

Well no, Republicans never wanted this plan. There was never a chance of that. And frankly, there wasn't going to be any compromise for this because, as President Obama said, "I won." He had the majority of Congress at the time so there was no serious thought to compromising with Republicans. Why would they? But it sounds as if you are blaming the Republicans for that. Let's not forget who had the winning hand. The Republican proposals are too far off from anything that Democrats wanted. So the Democrats wrote there own bill, passed it, and there we are.

Look at us. Although I think we're working at being civil, it's obvious that's not enough. You totally disagree with my take on the health care law, and I disagree with yours. I think the fact that you still think the Republican opposition was all about politics shows how far apart our worldviews are. You just can't understand principled opposition to this law. I can tell I'm not going to get past that either.

 

Your right Lil Mike, the president did say that he won and that’s that……but let’s be clear hear, he said that “after" the law was voted on and passed, he said that "after" the Supreme Court upheld the law, and he said it again "after" he won his second term.

But at no time (at least to my recollection) did he say those words “while” the debate was being waged or before the law was voted on.

That wouldn’t make any sense on its face. Think about it, how could a newly elected president say that just because he recently won his first election, and had a majority in the house, that the law was going to pass no matter what.

See, this is just more of the same nonsensical chatter we all heard from all the right-wing media outlets while the debate was raging. That’s when all the “King Obama” nonsense also started.

Your right, we’re having a civil “after” conversation about all of it, and no, we’ll never change each other’s mind, but it’s ok to vent about it, if nothing else. And I think that the two of us being civil towards each means a great deal my friend, I don't take it lightly, and I think more people need to be civil towards each other, whether they change each other’s mind or not.

I’ll forever believe that republicans lost an opportunity during those initial health care debates, that they sabotaged the passage of the bill at every corner, and that their objections were 100% political.

You’ll probably forever believe that the president never intended to hear any input from conservatives and that he bulldozed the law through without regarding what the oppostion thought or felt about it.

I’d like to think that we can still remain civil about not only this matter but many others in the future regardless of our positions.

Tell ya what, if the law turns out to be a major dud "years from now", then I’ll write a post in a blog myself apologizing for my support of the law.

 

Great OP!!

 

I think the problem is that both sides are cultish at this point. People look to political parties to help them form identities and thus they cannot ever admit that their party or people in their party. It's more important to identify as Democrat or Republican than to follow your own mind. And for that matter, people aren't picking positions or parties based on rational thought. They aren't democrats because the democrats support things that they independently decided that they like, they liked the idea, the "brand" of the Democrats -- emotionally -- and thus became democrats and support democrats and anybody with a D. Republicans did the same thing. Easy enough to prove to yourself. Look at any of the posters who are behind a party -- find something that they disagree with that party on. For most, you could look all day and find nothing.

 

Thanks..............

 

I'm a left-leaning centrist (at heart), but over the last 12 years or so... I've seen craziness leak into the Republican Party.

That has caused me to LEAN as far Left as I could manage; kind of like piloting a sailboat or taking corners on a bike. If America doesn't balance out the (Tea Party, Ted Cruz/Bachmann) lunacy on the Right... the nation WILL suffer far more than it must.

 

Categorically false.

Either you don't know what Conservatism is, or you haven't been paying attention to the President's words and actions.

He criticized the Constitution on its lack of "granting" Government power to "do things for the people".

The #1 decision I wanted to see overturned in my lifetime, Wickard v. Filburn, is something his signature legislation expands.

He believes Government is both necessary and responsible for wealth creation. He believes the ends of the economy are jobs. He believes he has the power via fiat to violate the freedom of conscience of people and businesses, and order them to purchase items that go against foundational beliefs.

That's politics, sometimes you do things you don't like while in office. That doesn't change what he has done which demonstrate who and what he is.

Some did, some didn't, don't simply generalize. Conservative values would say you shouldn't.

Okay. It's bad for the economy. The Governors (both Repubs and Democs) who took the money did so for political reasons, while economically, it was idiotic.
They probably didn't know that, or didn't care.

 

Wrong, I’ve been listening extremely close to everything he’s been saying, watching extremely close to everything he's been doing, and I’ve seen & heard the reactions from many of his supporters that are extremely disappointed in his following of a lot of President Bush’s policies.

I’ve seen him continue war policies that infuriate the left and please the right, I’ve seen him continue President Bush’s privacy policies that infuriate the left and please the right, and I’ve seen him concede on many, many issues in hopes to bring republicans to the table only to be slapped in the face time, after time, after time.

Anytime you guys start talking about the constitution and the president I’m turned off because: A. invariably it’s almost always something you heard from king rodeo clown himself Glen Beck, and/or B: I’m really not interested in having a debate about what an ex constitutional law professor that tenured at one of the most pre-eminent schools in the country has said.

The man respects, and knows the constitution better than most people so the tired attempts at making him appear to disrespect the constitution over & over again falls on deaf ears with me

You mean the same way republicans would love to see Roe vs. Wade turned over and many other landmark pieces of legislation they don’t like or approve of? Oh yes then, I see your point of how just because you disagree with a precedence, that automatically makes you a Marxist, Socialist Despot that wants to destroy America.

Sort of like this ridiculous shutdown we’re going through because republicans don’t like a law that's already been voted on – passed – and upheld by the Supreme Court. (yes I see your point)

Funny, but I didn’t get that sense when I read all of his books, many of his briefs, and most of the transcripts when negotiating the legislation he’s voted for when he was a senator or passed as a president……………………try again.

I’ll give you 50 points for admitting what a lot of folks on your side still refuse to admit, but I have to ask if you wrote what you wrote with a straight face?

Seriously, you really believe that taking stimulus money was idiotic, or that the governors that did take it didn’t realize it was idiotic?

That statement is so far passed me that I seriously don’t even know how to respond to that without sounding incredibly insulting.

 

Not so much for me…..

Yes, I'm a registered Democrat but I’m not a lemming. When President Obama first ran for president my first reaction was: "who the hell is this guy"???

I’m a veteran so believe it or not I was looking at McCain (for a second) and then when the brainless wonder came on board (that pretty much everybody by now agrees is in-fact a money grubbing, brainless wonder) I completely lost all respect and all interest.

I read both of the president’s books, I looked up the votes he took while he was a senator, I followed his speeches, and I made an informed judgment call based on what I saw, heard, and what my gut told me.

I’m not disappointed with everything he’s done so far, and the only thing I am disappointed with is his habitual conceding to the right in the hopes that they’ll meet him halfway even though by now, a blind deaf person could tell you that they wouldn’t even meet himhalf way on how to tie his shoes for God's sake.

After witnessing everything I’ve seen these past five years I am woefully disappointed in the GOP’s hard track to the extreme right, and their acceptance of an extreme new party called: The Tea Party that only wants to shut everything down.

Are their loons on the left, ABSOLUTELY, but the difference is that the folks on the right are just "mean". I'm talking hardened, intractable, folks that have decided the only way to go is to scorch the earth……………………

Big difference my friend, big difference……

 

Then you don't know what Conservatism is. I think you've confused things that are ostensibly Right-flavored, with being Conservative.

To wit, Conservatism is on the Right, but not all things on the Right are Conservative.

And here we have our first example. You're speaking to Rightist policies sure enough, but not Conservative ones.

What Bush did in Iraq was not Conservative, equally, most of the policies the President has taken are not Conservative.The best you could cite this as is Neo-Conservative, which itself, is a term of derision for people whom borrow Conservative nomenclature, but don't actually follow its precepts.

Also not Conservative, just ostensibly Rightist.

Most people know it poorly, that doesn't say much.

Here, btw, is what he said in 2001:

I don't see how you respect a social charter, when you say the rules its writers put into place need to be broken.

Quit it, you're jumping too quickly to a sardonic tone, let me explain at least.

Wickard v. Filburn was an expansion of the Commerce Clause, something that according to its textual meaning only gives the Federal Government the power to regulate Commerce between the States. It was understood this way for over 150 years. It was put in there by the Founders to ensure the States didn't violate individual sovereignty of citizens, nor put up economic barriers between one another (like polls or tariffs) as happened under the Articles of Confederation. It was meant to control the behavior of the States, but not that of people.

In this case, Filburn was a farmer growing wheat on his farm for his own use. He didn't sell it in the market, and it never left the State. Commerce by definition implies trade. If he sold the wheat to someone else within Ohio, that would at least be IntraState Commerce, but it's not even that. It was just sitting on his farm, consumed by his family and live stock.

What was the pressing claim of the Federal Government here? Why were they ordering Filburn to destroy his wheat and pay a fine for growing it? They were trying to control the supply of wheat to make prices go up. They were trying to coerce everyone, including Filburn, to buy it from someone else, even though he already had the means and wherewithal to take care of himself.

In context of a social charter that prizes Individual sovereignty, and limited Governance, how does this make any sense?

As Justice Rehnquist would write in the opinion of United State V. Lopez, a 2005 decision that's been the first to peal back Filburn:

Even if you whatever reason agree with what they did, it is not Conservative, because Conservatism seeks to Conserve sovereignty, Conserve Limited Government. By supporting Wickard v. Filburn, you instead see the Gov't having a clandestine prerogative to violate the sovereignty of individuals so it can erect any economic sanctions it so chooses, without even having to prove these sanctions will have any constructive effect.

Because those price control? They did jack sh*t, people just suffered needlessly. We granted Government a power it has no ability to use judiciously, except, not at all.

Not through the Commerce Clause, thank God. They instead read it as a taxing power. This however presents two problems the SCOTUS will still have to decide on:

1. There's the technical violation that, as a tax, the legislation didn't originate in the House. It may mean it will have to go back to the House and Senate for a vote.

2. There's the problem that if read as a Tax, then it's clearly a Direct Tax, which the Constitution says must be appropriated by population.
But the tax currently will just apply to anyone who doesn't have insurance. This doesn't follow.

There are other issues of course, but these are the two most likely to see the law repealed.

If you're forcing me to buy a policy that includes Contraceptives, or anything else I don't want for that matter, this is exactly that. You're not only forcing me to waste money, you're denying my right of conscience.

And yes, we know he thinks Jobs are the ends of the economy, because of his Jobs bill.

With this, he differs only in degree, not kind, with Jesse Jackson Jr. when he called for the Government to just outright hire all of the unemployed people in the country to "do something".

There is no trend supporting increased Government expenditures = Increased GDP. The actual Keynesian multiplier for every dollar spent that resulted from the Stimulus is estimated to be 0.8 - 1.5 dollars... Had it actually reached 2.0, the money still wouldn't even broke even from the cost imposed by the Government from raising that money in the first place. The fact we fell short, meant it was a disaster, even before we look at what the money was spent on.

And yes, going back to the original point, this policy is not Conservative either.

 

First,

I love the way you cherry picked through me rebuttal choosing certain sentences and leaving the rest in an attempt to argue what suits you. That’s fine, a lot of folks in here do that and I’m used to it by now but it is quite disingenuous.

The other glaring thing to point out here is that your attempt to separate conservatism from republicans or anything on what we all refer to as the right is just as ridiculous as a liberals trying to separate the words “left”, “democrat” or “liberal”.

Conservatives, are also righties, and are also republicans "simultaneously" - as liberals, are also lefties, and are also democrats "simultaneously", so let’s leave the semantics & word games out of it shall we.

Second, the case you referenced is wonderful except, it still has nothing to do with the point that you obviously missed, or refuse to concede to so I’ll try again.

There are many landmark pieces of legislation that have passed through the years, and everything from the civil rights act, to Roe vs. Wade to Ferguson vs. Plessey to (you name it) hasn’t been liked or has been wanted to be overturned by politicians of all stripes.

So to label, or claim, or call, or define President Obama as a: “fill-in-the-blank” just because he is yet another politician that isn’t happy with, or would like to see a decision overturned is disingenuous.

Would you call Rand Paul a racist because he has publicly stated that he would have not voted for the civil rights bill because even though he abhors racism, he doesn’t believe (as a libertarian) that business owners should be told who they can & can’t have in their establishments?

If you answered no then you’re a hypocrite because of what your saying about President Obama, and what you’re saying about the president is extremely disingenuous. If you answered yes then it’s obvious that you can’t tell the difference between a person’s ideology and their character, as I take Mr. Paul at his word that he is not a racist.

Lastly, the insult & dig at the president by saying that most people don’t understand the constitution (meaning the president’s comprehension doesn’t faze you) tells me that you’re not willing to give him any credit.

It doesn’t matter where most people are in their understanding of the constitution my friend, the president mastered it before, during, and after his tenure as a college professor, and wouldn’t have been entrusted to teach a course on the subject at such a prestigious school if he was just a novice or had a weak understanding of it.

What your posts tell’s me is that you, like millions of others just want to marginalize him and not recognize his knowledge, or talents, or give him any credit for the years he spent teaching future lawyers about the constitution, which is fine.

But please stop trying to come off as an intellectual waxing poetically about cases and definitions of conservatism when at the core you’re just another person grasping at straws to demean the President of the United States.

 

"...when any party or person demagogues another party or person as much as the right has demonized, marginalized, and maliciously attacked this president…………….the message gets lost in all of the vitriol."


Taxcutter says:
Yet he himself indulges in the same demonization, marginalization, and vitriol but somehow this is OK. Why is that? Why is his demonization, marginalization,and vitriol accepted but that of the GOP rejected? It seems to me that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

 

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC? He's lucky to have people like you.

 

Taxcutter………..question??

Don’t you ever get tired of answering posts with nothing other than …….telling people how they are Just as guilty of whatever they asking or talking about?

I triple dare you to show some originality and individual thought by actually commenting on what people write about rather than taking the cheap way out with one sentence rebuttals filled with insults.

I didn’t marginalize, demonize, or attack anybody, and If you took my post personal that’s your paranoia , not mine.

So how about it, care to exercise those neurons of yours with a real answer, or are you going to continue to deflect & project?

 

Ahhh, Smartmouthwoman,

Missed you, where you been?

You have no idea how much I missed your well thought out rebuttals of:

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Its always comes down to defending Obaaaaama doesn't it, SC?

Don’t do anything strenuous like ever change your tired, repeated line about defending Obama to a real answer now, you’ll throw my system into a hypoglycemic shock and I won’t know how to handle it.

 

"I didn’t marginalize, demonize, or attack anybody..."

Taxcutter says:
No, but Hussein Obama does - - every day.