DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Hey look folks, DS has de-evolved back to a 6th grader's mentality and emotional level. Seriously, it is B.S., PERIOD. Otherwise, the Democrats can and will do it, and you'll have NO GROUNDS to bitch about it. Now or in the future. Isnt it the normal conservative mantra to bitch that Goverment does nothing? Well, here's an example of the Republican House doing absolutely nothing, while its potential voters (that's you, DS) defend their actions. While at the same time bitching about the Goverment doing nothing.
I'm not bitching about Government doing nothing. Hell, I want Government to stop doing so much. You're not even paying attention.
quote:
FAIL! You couldnt even address what I explained to you. I seem to recall the 18th Amendment being nullified too. If it can happen with the 18th, it can happen with the 2nd. Not that I really want the 2nd being changed or worst....nullified!
Yep, I read that wrong. Ya got me. The comparison of Obamacare to the 2nd Amendment is fallacious in and of itself, but I do admit I didn't interpret your comment correctly.
quote:
I didnt say the elected offical have to; I said *YOU* have to hold them to twice the level. It would be nice if Republicans (and some Democrats) would do that. But ultimately it is up to the voter to decide if the elected offical did a good job for being accountible and responsible with power when they vote. That mindset doesnt enter into most people's head to be frank.
Seriously? You expect me to argue counter to that?!? Hell, we agree, again! Too many brain dead voters rely on name recognition alone to decide who to pull the levers for (and, yes, I do realize that lever pulling to vote probably doesn't happen too much anymore). Too many people decide who is going to give them the most, instead of who is going to do the best for the country. Too many people are completely ignorant on the beliefs of the candidates.
quote:
If you can not do that fairly, DS, than your announcing yourself as an 'ideological hypnocrit'. Question is, are you? Or realize that I too have to hold myself to the same standard? I read the bill (all 934 pages). Its dry, boring, dull, and easily got me to sleep for a few nights. I like most of it, but feel the ACA should be a better law. But you never read the document, to which your against, even though the contents of it will undoubtably aid you in your future level to several degrees more than it will hinder you (if at all). Yeap, doesnt make logical sense to me.
Here's the thing. It doesn't matter if it's going to benefit me or not. It's not Constitutional. I'll even go further and say that Congress isn't allowed to tax for simply anything. There has to be a Constitutional authority the tax is being collected for. For instance, they can't tax people who drive white cars simply because they want to. There is no Constitutional authority for the tax to be collected. It isn't being collected to fund a Constitutional program.
quote:
Its hard to take your arguement seriously, when you just stated the exact opposite above.
In another post, you stated:
quote:
Since I tend to agree with the man, I dont find very much wasted.
We obviously agree that if we support the actions, we don't consider it wasted money, time, etc. Thus, I don't see this as willy nilly spending.
quote:
HOLY COW! Are you REALLY this ignorant on US Civics? There are not two houses. There is the US House of Representatives.....AND....The US Senate. Come on, DS, your not even remotely this dumb!
<snort> Dude, really? Yeah, I know there is a House of Rep's and then the Senate. Yes, I should have stated there are two branches of the legislative branch, or two chambers. It's sad, really, to see how you have to really grasp for shit to knock my assertions.
quote:
There are two sentators from each state (that go to the US Senate). And the number of representatives is based on the population as determine by the US Census every ten years (or districts changed). In order for a bill to be approved it must go through the process listed in the OP. AFTER it gains approval by the US Senate, it would go to the White House and approved by the President. Unless of course, both the House and Senate approved the bill with so much support that it goes above the President's veto powers.
You want to be picky? Fine. There are not "two sentators" from each state, but senators. You have also not completely accurately stated the procedures for passing a bill. The strength of the majority in favor of a bill has no bearing on whether or not the bill is sent to the President for approval. If the President vetoes it (and is supposed to inform the House and Senate as to why he vetoed it), then there can be another vote in both houses to over-ride the veto. The bill can also be amended to align with the President's thinking, and put back up for votes in both chambers, and sent back to the President if both chambers pass the bill.
quote:
So if the Republicans REALLY want to defund the Affordable Care Act, and not just 'fuck around 31 times'. They have to get the US Senate to approve of the bill. Since the US Senate is controlled by the Democrats, that is not very likely to happen. And if that happened, do you REALLY think the President wouldnt veto the bill?
I know the President would veto the bill. What happens, though, when the House and Senate pass the bill (taking the assumption the Senate passes the bill)? What happens if Democrats support the repeal bill (as 5 did this time 'round)?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Ever stop to consider that there are other polls out there that show the majority of Americans are against it? Interesting to note, had I been where I am now, I would have opposed it regardless of which party brought it forward.
Yeah, its like the Theory of Evolution. Most scientists in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) seem to agree on the concept and defination of the Theory of Evolution. And a small group of persons, called 'Creationists', believe the planet was created according to the Holy Bible. Even though the Theory of Evolution doesnt even talk about the planet's creation. That would be found under the Theory of A-biogensis.
I think I'll go with the idea that most Americans stand to benefit from the contents of the bill between now and the next six years. And what happens within the next six years? Well, if you had read the bill, you would know! And trust me, as Americans start to understand the benefits they gain, they'll become more and more reluctant to listen to the Republicans. And the GOP knows this!
What you are saying is that people are being bribed into agreeing with the bill. That is flat out wrong. When R's do it, you will have no problem calling them on it. You shouldn't have any problem with it either, and neither will I. But, to turn your head when the D's do it is simply partisanship at it's finest. Or worst. You know what I'm saying.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Mmmm...probably not yet. And, it doesn't matter if I benefit from it. Would I benefit from someone robbing a bank and giving me the money? Sure would. Does that make it okay? Sure doesn't.
Yeap, you are, right now. Dont even know it. Thats the funny part. You have no idea how or why your benefitting from the bill already. Why should I tell you how or why? Your to lazy to study the information yourself. And the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with a bank robbery. So that analogy is pretty weak at best.
<snort> You have no fucking clue if Obamacare is benefiting me. That's the funny part. And, I don't expect you to tell me how. A bank robbery, in and of itself, has nothing to do with Obamacare, but the point I was making was that regardless of how something benefits me, if it's wrong, it's wrong. And, Obamacare is wrong.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Don't be an idiot. You're better than that. Why would the Republicans pass bills based only on the criteria that Democrats in the Senate will pass it and the President will sign it? Each party is supposed to work towards bills that they believe are in the best interest of the American people. Since they disagree on the means to get there, there will naturally be opposition.
During a 'Lame Duck' Congress (where one 'political entity' controls the House and another the Senate), it really becomes essential for the two entities to work together on the issues. This becomes even more important when the economy is in rough shape. Both sides will finger point, but the issue of who is 'right and wrong' rests with which side was not willing to compromise the most.
LMAO!! The Democrat's willingness to compromise in Obama's first 2 years was this: "We'll compromise by telling you what we want to do and you accept it." That's not compromise. That's bullshit. And, then, when the R's decide to not go along with the compromise set out by the D's, they are vilified as not being willing to compromise.
quote:
Seriously, do you think the Democrats would back a bill that essentially throws out a hard won fight for a bill they fought over two years previously? Would the President approve of such a bill, given its his signature work during this term in office? Come on DS, this is political B.S. that the Republicans have pushed 31 times straight. They have no chance of it succeeding. They are not doing it to suceeed. They are doing it for political points in the next election. That really is the bottom line.
So if your 'ok' with Republicans wasting resources 31 times on 31 bills, than you have no arguement 'worth its weight in gold' to complain when the Democrats try something 30 times. So unless you state you dont like that Republicans have knowingly wasted money for political points by trying to defund the ACA 31 times. Than the next time Democrats do something you dont like, you will not have a leg to stand on (as far as an arguement). As I'll be able to bring this issue up over and over again. To remind everyone that you have no leg to stand on regarding the issue (what ever tht might be).
Oooooh, so, if I don't go along with your claims and abide by your stipulations, I'm not going to be supported by you. Huh. Imagine that. I'll let you know when I'm ready to toe your line. Words of warning: Don't hold your breath.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
See, that's where we're different. I don't give a shit about what you want. That's not for me to take care of. That's for your representatives. Tell them.
You blame everything on Republicans. Why is it that you can't see that Democrats are blocking everything the Republicans pass? Isn't that the same obstruction as the Republicans blocking everything the Democrats pass?
Well if you dont care what I want, why should I care what you want? Works both ways. The longer you maintain that attitude the worst it will get. I know this, because I read the history books and you apparently did not. Otherwise you would glean such knowledge from any number of historical events (American and otherwise), and might realize that repeating history wont advance your cause at all. But that would be a matter of wisdom not intelligence. If you wish to look at it another way, say economics, it works pretty much the same way. You want a widget. I sell the widget you want. In fact, I'm the only seller of such widget (for what ever reason). I set a price for said widget. If you dont like the price, you could try to barter for the widget. And if I believe I'm getting something of equal value to what I'm giving you, the sale takes place.
Ah, here we now have our disagreement on a bill relegated to an economics lesson (that doesn't even apply)? Seriously, dude. I'm not selling you anything. You aren't selling me anything. We have no basis for a need to know what the other wants. But, to carry your misplaced example out and put it on the D's and R's, when the price the D's want is higher than the R's are willing to pay, and the barter offer the R's put up isn't of sufficient value to the D's, no sale takes place.
quote:
And being honest and fair DS.....you keep backing yourself into a corner, metaphorically speaking. I really dont understand why you do. In one spot your against 'A', but in another your for 'A'. In a third spot, your sort of in the middle of 'A'. But if I try to get a solid answer out of you regarding the placing of 'A', you really go a totally different direction that has nothing to do with the first three spots of 'A'. If 'A' is in a constant spot, shouldnt it stay there, regardless of how I explain/ask something of the 'A' concept? I pointed out above one example of this conflict in your reasoning.
You did no such thing, and I'm doing no such thing. But, nice try.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: GOP Wastes Money; Conservatives stay Ignorant - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread