YeprEvolutionist wrote:what a RINO?
edit: Republican In Name Only?
Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
- Kristie
- Elastigirl
- Posts: 25108
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
- About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
- Location: Probably at Target
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Right. Diehard conservatives have been using that term for years to describe those who aren't conservative enough or who might (*gasp!*) compromise with Democrats. If you ask me, those radicals who will not compromise have little right to refer to themselves as Republicans.
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
And yet, the Democrats keep referring to it when they claim Obama's election proves that Obamacare should be funded.klr wrote:The "collective will" of the electorate doesn't exist. Never has, never will, especially for such a a large and diverse federal democracy as the USA.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60983
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
It would be interesting to learn more about how the US system works. You've got an extra arm of government (compared to Australia) to mix things up a bit. With the two houses in Australia, it's a bit more clear where mandates lie. It's quite common for our Senate to be controlled by the opposition to the government in the Lower House. And as a general rule, Australians like it like that. But this arrangement isn't accepted under the proviso that the Senate block everything that the government does. Instead, the Senate is expected to take the excesses out of any ideological (or otherwise) policy. But it seems to me, in the US, that the Repubs aren't accepting that the majority of people wanted a form of universal health care, and voted in Obama to the presidential arm of gov for that reason. Are the repubs willing to modify ACA, or are they totally opposed to it? If the latter, then they are just being obstructionist. If the former, then I guess an argument could be made that they are providing a check and balance on the government's policy.
Is there a mechanism to break a stalemate like this if it went on too long? In our version of the Westminster system (and presumably a lot of the others) the government of the day has the right to ask the Governor General to dissolve both houses of parliament and put the whole fucking lot up for re-election to make sure there is a clear mandate to pass critical legislation.
Is there a mechanism to break a stalemate like this if it went on too long? In our version of the Westminster system (and presumably a lot of the others) the government of the day has the right to ask the Governor General to dissolve both houses of parliament and put the whole fucking lot up for re-election to make sure there is a clear mandate to pass critical legislation.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Well said!Warren Dew wrote:And yet, the Democrats keep referring to it when they claim Obama's election proves that Obamacare should be funded.klr wrote:The "collective will" of the electorate doesn't exist. Never has, never will, especially for such a a large and diverse federal democracy as the USA.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
The US system was set up much differently in the beginning. As set up, members of the House of Representatives are elected by direct voting by local district, and Representatives serve two-year terms. Senators were to be elected, two for each state, by the state LEGISLATURES, not by direct vote.rEvolutionist wrote:It would be interesting to learn more about how the US system works. You've got an extra arm of government (compared to Australia) to mix things up a bit. With the two houses in Australia, it's a bit more clear where mandates lie. It's quite common for our Senate to be controlled by the opposition to the government in the Lower House. And as a general rule, Australians like it like that. But this arrangement isn't accepted under the proviso that the Senate block everything that the government does. Instead, the Senate is expected to take the excesses out of any ideological (or otherwise) policy. But it seems to me, in the US, that the Repubs aren't accepting that the majority of people wanted a form of universal health care, and voted in Obama to the presidential arm of gov for that reason. Are the repubs willing to modify ACA, or are they totally opposed to it? If the latter, then they are just being obstructionist. If the former, then I guess an argument could be made that they are providing a check and balance on the government's policy.
Is there a mechanism to break a stalemate like this if it went on too long? In our version of the Westminster system (and presumably a lot of the others) the government of the day has the right to ask the Governor General to dissolve both houses of parliament and put the whole fucking lot up for re-election to make sure there is a clear mandate to pass critical legislation.
The purpose of this was that the House was supposed to represent the interests of the People most closely and was beholden and accountable to them, while the Senate was to represent the interests of the states themselves, as in preserving and protecting "states rights" against federal intrusions on state sovereignty. This was most unwisely dispensed with by the Thirteenth Amendment largely because of difficulties in various states with electing Senators that left some seats vacant because of legislative deadlocks.
The benefit of legislature-elected Senators as envisioned was to make the Senate less affected by the ebb and flow of public sentiment both by the election process that added the deliberations of the state legislators as a method of pouring oil on troubled waters, and by the six-year terms Senators had, which was supposed to make it a slow-moving and ponderous chamber that would serve as a governor on the engine of state to prevent a runaway.
Due to corruption issues beginning in the mid-1800s, and the legislative deadlocks of the late 1800s, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, during the height of Progressive fervor, although the idea had been floated as early as 1826.
The problem with direct election of Senators is that they became beholden to, and only interested in the voters of their districts, rather than being accountable to the state legislatures and responsible for looking after the interests of state sovereignty. The result is that Senators wield power for themselves and the central government for the most part, and they pander to their electorate to stay elected. This comports with the Progressive ideal of centralizing all political and administrative power in Washington, and they were ecstatic that Senators no longer had their respective state legislators looking over their shoulders with a recall in the wings should they not care for the interests of state sovereignty and the separation of powers. Now that Senators don't have to be accountable to the state legislatures, they are free to pander to the public just like the House does and disrespect and disregard, and flatly violate state sovereignty when and where it improves their own power wielded from the desired seat of all power: Washington D.C..
The two bodies were tied together and given distinct, but separate duties, such as making the budget within the House and ratifying treaties in the Senate to provide checks and balances in government.
The problem with your analysis that the Republicans aren't responding to the public's call for Obamacare is that it's simply not true. You must remember how the democrat party took control to begin with. It was through brilliant, but vague and obfuscatory campaigning by Obama and the democrat party promising "change" but deliberately and carefully concealing from the public WHAT KIND of change was being proposed. The public was weary of war and fed up with George Bush II and his massive expansion of both government (DHS et al) and the budget, so they responded to the "change" message, combined with Obama being the first black Presidential candidate, and masterful marketing and campaigning by the democrat party, and elected Obama and enough congresscritters to take both houses.
And then the democrat party and Obama went insane with power, as I knew and hoped they would, and went on a binge of ramming through every partisan Progressive legislation that they had been denied for a hundred years because they could not get sufficient control of both houses and the presidency. The number of laws that have been rejected for a hundred years by bipartisanship that got rammed through was alarming, and Obamacare was the capstone of outrageous partisan abuse of power. The bill was written by Progressives over decades and expanded year by year till it became a behemoth, gargantuan, entirely unmanageable monster drooling in a locked file cabinet somewhere waiting to be loosed on the credulous public.
Remember, there was NO DEBATE whatsoever about Obamacare. The bill was submitted and approved in CLOSED partisan sessions where Republicans and Independents were purposefully excluded from the deliberations. It was all done by the democrat party behind LOCKED doors, and it was rammed through without ever being revealed in full to the Republicans, much less the People, until it had been passed and signed by Obama, making it law.
People on both sides were furious with the democrat party over this because they knew what an abuse of our system of government it was, and as a result, the electorate took the House away from the democrat party as soon as it was able to do so because it saw the danger of a single-party government and shuddered in fear at what else it might do if not subject to the designed checks and balances of our system.
Republicans, and anybody with a bit of economic sense, knows that Obamacare is unsustainable and will bankrupt the health care insurance system very quickly. It cannot do anything else. And that's precisely what the Progressives WANT. They want Obamacare to fail, and fail miserably. They want insurance companies to be driven entirely out of the market, and out of the "exchanges" because they simply cannot make a profit under the new rules. It's already happening all over the US.
The purpose of Obamacare is an interim Progressive step in the march towards full single-payer government-controlled and provided socialized medicine. That has been the goal of the Progressives since Teddy Roosevelt.
You see, when Obamacare fails because the health care insurance industry throws up its hands and walks away from the field, the Marxist Progressives will not let that crisis "go to waste" as Rham Emmanuel so often advised. What will happen is that hundreds of millions of taxpayers will lose all coverage because the insurance industry simply vanishes, and they will clamor for someone to come and save them from having to save money and pay for their own health care like our forefathers did. And the Marxist Progressives will be right there, as Marx suggested and Alinsky recommended, to offer "salvation" to the credulous proletariat clamoring to forfeit their liberty for a little temporary "safety" and will simply declare a national emergency because so many people might actually have to pay their own medical bills, and they will nationalized medical care under the guise of this fabricated emergency.
That is the plan. That has been the plan all along. This is why Obama doesn't give a fuck if Obamacare goes tits up so long as it does so from the inside out because of rot at the core that can be blamed on "rapacious and greedy" insurance companies who "refuse to cut their profits" and "would rather just quit offering insurance than care for needy people."
The Marxist Progressives simply want to get far enough down the road to make a plausible argument that it's the fault of capitalism and "big business" so that they can take that as an excuse to seize and nationalize the health care industry...just like it did GM, because it's "too big to fail."
It's a fucking brilliant plan actually, nefarious and evil though it is. It may take some very serious measures to stop it, which is why the Republicans are wielding the blunt instrument of the debt ceiling as their trump card...which it is. The only question is whether they can position themselves so that the democrat party and Obama take the blame for the default. I certainly hope they succeed...or Obama blinks.
Otherwise socialized medicine, and the inevitable decay and decline of the Republic into penury and collapse, are what's in store for the US...and the world right along with it.
Directly to your question, the answer is yes, the Republicans are willing to negotiate. The last offer was simply to put the individual mandate on hold for one year, just as Obama did (entirely illegally by the way) with the business mandate, and to have the democrat party agree to a conference committee on the budget and debt ceiling.
The Senate flatly rejected ANY conference committee commitment and EVERY piecemeal budget bill funding particular government services that are critically important (except for the DOD back-to-work bill that they passed and Obama signed), and Obama recalcitrantly said he will not even MEET WITH the Republicans until they have completely capitulated, passed a "clean" CR on the budget and raised the debt ceiling...which if they do it leaves them entirely without any leverage whatsoever because they've given Obama and the democrat party everything they want or need to steamroller their way through the mid-term elections.
The only real leverage the Republicans have to stop this steamroller are the budget and the debt ceiling...which by the way was OBAMA'S IDEA and a law HE SIGNED in his first term...so he's hoist on his own petard there because he insisted on it again and again, and during the first campaign he said that trying to raise the debt ceiling to such high levels (far less than he's doing now) was "unpatriotic."
So the Republicans would be insane to give up the two things they have to force the democrat party to actually negotiate like they are supposed to do.
Obama has been saying "There was an election, and elections have consequences," one of which according to him, is that the losers are required to drop trou, bend over and take it up the ass from the winners without any objection. What he forgets, or more likely simply ignores (given that he's a constitutional scholar) is that a) the system has checks and balances in place precisely to prevent one party from fucking everybody else up the ass; and b) there WAS an election, and there IS a consequence: he lost control of the House, and therefore his control over the budget and the debt ceiling was curtailed, as intended by the Founders.
So, as I said, he's hoist on his own petard both for ramming Obamacare through without bipartisan support and for so frightening the electorate that they took the power of the purse away from his party.
But the Republicans are willing to negotiate, and to fund critical things like, for example, the NIH and it's "kids cancer research", as needed and negotiated, but the democrat party and Obama are utterly and completely unwilling to negotiate anything at all.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60983
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
So it's a Marxist conspiracy? I thought as much. 

Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41186
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Seriously, the GOP has been doing it to itself for the last 30 years or so... ever since reagan openly courted the religious right and paved the way for the neocons.... I might find earlier signs of it, but I was a little child under Nixon and seriously don't know where to look now.Ian wrote:There's a few never-heard-of parties that are always nominating people for office. But they never win, so it does make sense to call yourself a member of one of the two major parties. They're supposed to be big enough tents, right? So quite a few do, even if they're distinct enough and unwelcome enough to annoy the others already in the party.
The Tea Party are the true RINOs. It's a damn shame what they've done to the GOP.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
One other aspect of Obama care that has NOT been addressed by the courts, but perhaps soon will
Obama has no authority under the law to delay certain aspects of it. He has granted a one year waiver on the employer mandate, and Rand Paul has questioned the legality of that stating that only Congress may amend the law to do so. Obama is essentially fixing the law himself by choosing what and when to implement. There is a law suit brewing to force Obama to implement all of the law in order to force him back to the bargaining table with Congress.

Obama has no authority under the law to delay certain aspects of it. He has granted a one year waiver on the employer mandate, and Rand Paul has questioned the legality of that stating that only Congress may amend the law to do so. Obama is essentially fixing the law himself by choosing what and when to implement. There is a law suit brewing to force Obama to implement all of the law in order to force him back to the bargaining table with Congress.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
- Tyrannical
- Posts: 6468
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
The NBC talking heads had Rand Paul on for 11 minutes.
The reporter attacked attacked attacked and tried to blame republicans. Rand calmly explained how many continuing temp resolutions he offered and how many partial spending bills he offered to avoid a government shutdown. Blame Harry Reid
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bK1Q8zH ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]
The reporter attacked attacked attacked and tried to blame republicans. Rand calmly explained how many continuing temp resolutions he offered and how many partial spending bills he offered to avoid a government shutdown. Blame Harry Reid

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bK1Q8zH ... e=youtu.be[/youtube]
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!
The Tea party is trying to block semi-universal healthcare as once its in the only argument will be how to management it the best way (not how whether to have it or not). No country has ever gone from universal health to non-universal healthcare and they know it
The Tea party is trying to block semi-universal healthcare as once its in the only argument will be how to management it the best way (not how whether to have it or not). No country has ever gone from universal health to non-universal healthcare and they know it
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
The people turned the House of Representatives over the the Republicans in 2010 largely because they didn't want Obamacare and didn't like the way it was passed. That should have been seen as a mandate to get rid if it.rEvolutionist wrote:It would be interesting to learn more about how the US system works. You've got an extra arm of government (compared to Australia) to mix things up a bit. With the two houses in Australia, it's a bit more clear where mandates lie. It's quite common for our Senate to be controlled by the opposition to the government in the Lower House. And as a general rule, Australians like it like that. But this arrangement isn't accepted under the proviso that the Senate block everything that the government does. Instead, the Senate is expected to take the excesses out of any ideological (or otherwise) policy. But it seems to me, in the US, that the Repubs aren't accepting that the majority of people wanted a form of universal health care, and voted in Obama to the presidential arm of gov for that reason. Are the repubs willing to modify ACA, or are they totally opposed to it? If the latter, then they are just being obstructionist. If the former, then I guess an argument could be made that they are providing a check and balance on the government's policy.
In a parliamentary system, that would have made Boehner Prime Minister, and Obamacare would have been repealed promptly. The Senate, our upper House, would not have the ability to block that if our system were like yours.
Our system is not like yours, however, so our upper house has a the ability to block the initiatives of the lower house indefinitely, including Obamacare repeal or cutbacks, which is what is happening.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Yes, actually. That's also a good description of slavery. if you have a compulsory responsibility to care for your neighbor, then you are his slave. That's the big problem with Marxist Communism and Communism in general. It obligates each individual to do what the collective thinks he is most capable of or what the community most needs. In exchange, he gets what the community thinks he "needs."MrJonno wrote:Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!
Slavery.

-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Warren Dew wrote:The people turned the House of Representatives over the the Republicans in 2010 largely because they didn't want Obamacare and didn't like the way it was passed. That should have been seen as a mandate to get rid if it.rEvolutionist wrote:It would be interesting to learn more about how the US system works. You've got an extra arm of government (compared to Australia) to mix things up a bit. With the two houses in Australia, it's a bit more clear where mandates lie. It's quite common for our Senate to be controlled by the opposition to the government in the Lower House. And as a general rule, Australians like it like that. But this arrangement isn't accepted under the proviso that the Senate block everything that the government does. Instead, the Senate is expected to take the excesses out of any ideological (or otherwise) policy. But it seems to me, in the US, that the Repubs aren't accepting that the majority of people wanted a form of universal health care, and voted in Obama to the presidential arm of gov for that reason. Are the repubs willing to modify ACA, or are they totally opposed to it? If the latter, then they are just being obstructionist. If the former, then I guess an argument could be made that they are providing a check and balance on the government's policy.
In a parliamentary system, that would have made Boehner Prime Minister, and Obamacare would have been repealed promptly. The Senate, our upper House, would not have the ability to block that if our system were like yours.
Our system is not like yours, however, so our upper house has a the ability to block the initiatives of the lower house indefinitely, including Obamacare repeal or cutbacks, which is what is happening.

Re: Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?
Your actions may get restricted by the needs of society does not equal slavery, its in fact the basis of civilisation. Your face these restrictions from your first breath to your last (and in some ways even after you are dead).Coito ergo sum wrote:Yes, actually. That's also a good description of slavery. if you have a compulsory responsibility to care for your neighbor, then you are his slave. That's the big problem with Marxist Communism and Communism in general. It obligates each individual to do what the collective thinks he is most capable of or what the community most needs. In exchange, he gets what the community thinks he "needs."MrJonno wrote:Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!
Slavery.
You only alternative to this is living on a desert island and even there you are going to face a lot more restrictions from nature
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests