|
Election 2010: Red Tsunami (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Well duh. It's a bunch of old, rich, white males. |
Correct! Well except for the black, latino, and women on the supreme court. And the president. And the Speaker of the House. And attorney general Eric Holder. And the Secretary of Labor. And these people... to name a few:
:p |
|
|
| Alex23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
Nor do I, yours. |
Fair enough. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
The public wanted the public option, and greater restrictions on the bloodsucking insurance companies. And they might have gotten it as well if it want for those pesky republicans and their unanimous vote of NO! on every single thing until the damn bill was watered down so much it had no resemblance to the original idea. Major piece of legislation? Bah, a punch in the face of every true liberal out there. THats why the liberals are pissed, they didnt see Obama and the democrats really fight for them. |
You are perpetuating the same stupid premise over and over. The GOP did not have the votes to stop anything. You had Democrat majorities across the board, and still do until January, and if all Democrats vote with Obama, there's nothing the GOP can do. What was "watered down" about the bill? You only consider it that way because single payer didn't start immediately... but it's on the way by design. The notion that stonewalling Republicans derailed a would-be successful president is adolescent. And those who identify themselves as liberals constitute 20% of the people here, not even close to a majority.
| quote: | | Kevin, please...seriously. Do I, a European socialists really need to school you on your own damn history and politics. After a presidential election the party in power almost always looses and looses hard. Helped in this elections by the reublicans basically blocking the whole of legislative process by not letting anything pass. Remember the good old times when all you needed to pass something in the senate was a simple majority? 51 votes? Explain to me please why for the past two years the bar was suddenly raised to 60 votes? Why did every piece of legislation that people actually cared about need 60 votes to pass? The people werent pissed at liberalism, they were pissed at the people in power and this time it was the democrats. |
What do you mean "all of a sudden we need 60 votes"? It's called following the Constitution and making it extremely difficult for a simple majority take over regardless of party; it's part of the checks and balance structure of our system and it's always been that way. It is part of parliamentary procedure that moves a bill to "cloture"... the simple majority is used for legislation once it is out of conference. We use simple majority in the Houses of Congress, then it is supposed to be a difficult and slow process and that is GOOD for the country and it's pious nonsense to suggest otherwise. What is the point of a two-party democracy if not to present clear, alternative views of the role of government?
And yes, OBVIOUSLY the people were pissed over (American style) liberalism... the Democrats who got booted were the ones who voted for Obama's agenda, and were replaced with fiscal conservative republicans who openly opposed Obamacare, bailouts, Cap and Trade, etc. I know to admit that you're wrong is painful because it would force you to acknowledge you fell for the lofty rhetoric, but you can't spin the election results any other way. The country voted in an historic way to blunt the Obama liberal agenda.
| quote: | | And let me say this as well...for all the talk about how awesome this is for the republicans, how they are back baby and that they are going to kick ass...they are now doing some serious backpeddling. Baner wants YOU to know that hes in pwoer now and hes oing to kick ass and change washington! But just in case he doesnt, let us not forget there is still a democratic president and senate. Im eagerly anticipating how the party of NO! will take on governing, especially since they went so far to the right that a moderate republican looks to the wackos on the far right about as bad as any liberal. |
The Republicans aren't getting ahead of themselves... they actually understand this time that they can't up like they did before, and will be on an extremely short leash. The outcome? That remains to be seen of course. They are actually in a perfect position right now: control the House, object, propose stuff the people want that they know Obama will veto and run on that against him in 2012.
But take the line I posted on the first page from Marco Rubio:
| quote: | | We know the power in the United States House of Representatives will change hands. We know that a growing number of Republicans will serve in the Senate as well. And we make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican party. What they are is a second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago. |
Like I said, finally... someone who gets it. |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex23
Fair enough. |
sarcasm. |
|
|
| Alex23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
sarcasm. |
I always miss sarcasm over the internets:(
the17sss...
Do you believe America should have universal health care? Maybe not during these tough economic times but sometime in the future? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex23
the17sss...
Do you believe America should have universal health care? Maybe not during these tough economic times but sometime in the future? |
No... I believe the health care industry should be treated like any other industry in this country and let the market and competition work naturally to lower costs. Why the hell can't I buy a great insurance plan from a company 2 miles over the border from me in South Carolina? It's ing STUPID... tens of thousands of state and federal government regulations on wasteful bull that could ease so much of the cost. Ever notice how most people can pay out of pocket for their pets at the Vet, be it for checkups, x-rays, immunizations, surgeries, medications, etc.? No insurance needed there because they don't operate on the ed up system we have for the health industry. |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
No... I believe the health care industry should be treated like any other industry in this country and let the market and competition work naturally to lower costs. Why the hell can't I buy a great insurance plan from a company 2 miles over the border from me in South Carolina? It's ing STUPID... tens of thousands of state and federal government regulations on wasteful bull that could ease so much of the cost. Ever notice how most people can pay out of pocket for their pets at the Vet, be it for checkups, x-rays, immunizations, surgeries, medications, etc.? No insurance needed there because they don't operate on the ed up system we have for the health industry. |
and because vets don't need insurance for $50m malpractice suits. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
and because vets don't need insurance for $50m malpractice suits. |
those psycho pet owners would sue for that kind of money if they could get away with it. lol... you ever sit in the vet's office for more than 15 minutes and get the lay of the land? crazies! In fact, I think this might be a good thread topic. hold on.... lol |
|
|
| Lews |
I never have to wait at my vets office. Go in, tell them my name, pretty much immediately told to go to a room for my poor kittys to get checked up on.
And it's expensive as hell. They wanted like $500 to brush one of my cats' teeth :eek: |
|
|
| Alex23 |
I'm thankful that I live in a country that doesn't allow people to sue the pants off doctors and ruin their careers because of a mistake they may have made.
I think doctors should be held accountable but 50 million dollar lawsuits? Give me a ing break.
"Oh that doctor made one boob 1mm bigger than the other, time to sue!" |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
$1 is a 'burden' at some level, so the question is irrelevant.
I can't define what's too much or 'ok,' but whatever burden there is will be taking a nice little hike over the next few years, and for the purpose of the discussion, that's all that's relevant. |
No, you asserted sarcastically that it’s OK to for the government to provide goods/services, because its only rich people paying for it. so I asked you whether you think these rich people (business owners) are already burdened by the ridiculous costs of coverage, since you seemed to imply that it’s wrong that “the rich” have to pay for such things. ie, what is so great about the system currently that it deserves such defence? Sure, you can argue that the costs are supposedly going up soon, but im not sure what you’d expect when you get a dirty half-caste solution hamstrung by special interests & powerful lobbyists and partisan republican BS. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Correct! Well except for the black, latino, and women on the supreme court. And the president. And the Speaker of the House. And attorney general Eric Holder. And the Secretary of Labor. And these people... to name a few:
|
Oh please :p
85 women / 535 members of Congress.
42 black / 535 members of Congress.
0 black / 100 senators (in new senate).
51% of the country is female. 13% is black.
Yet only 15% of Congress is female and 7.5% is black.
Old, rich, white males make up a huge majority of Congress. |
|
|
|
|
