The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Silver Pines on March 25, 2017, 03:14:53 pm
-
Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix
By Allahpundit
March 24, 2017
Worth watching the whole clip below just to see how many times he circles back to the idea of a bipartisan health-care deal with Democrats. He told WaPo the same thing in an interview this afternoon: “As you know, I’ve been saying for years that the best thing is to let Obamacare explode and then go make a deal with the Democrats and have one unified deal. And they will come to us, we won’t have to come to them.” The 2019 public option is going to be really, really terrific, that I can tell you. So terrific you won’t believe how terrific!
Read more at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/)
-
Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix
By Allahpundit
March 24, 2017
Worth watching the whole clip below just to see how many times he circles back to the idea of a bipartisan health-care deal with Democrats. He told WaPo the same thing in an interview this afternoon: “As you know, I’ve been saying for years that the best thing is to let Obamacare explode and then go make a deal with the Democrats and have one unified deal. And they will come to us, we won’t have to come to them.” The 2019 public option is going to be really, really terrific, that I can tell you. So terrific you won’t believe how terrific!
Read more at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/)
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
Why blame the Freedom Caucus only? I understand the 'moderates' were at least as obstinate.
As far as I can tell the Freedom Caucus' position on this was the same Trump staked out during the campaign, right? Repeal, not tweak.
-
Ivanka moved into the white house a few days ago so what did anyone expect?
The Schwarzenegger-ification of the Trump Presidency has begun. In 3 years Trump will be a bigger green economy advocate than Obama was.
Just watch.
-
This article is by Allahpundit after all. He went by the wayside long ago.
I watched the clip and did not take away the same thoughts as you. He stated that the Democrats own Obamacare. They did not support the bill and now 0care will fail. I took it that they Dems will have to crawl to the Republicans to get a Healthcare bill in future. Trump went to great pains not to blame any Rs, but placing blame squarely on the Ds. Trump didn't seem overly disappointed that he would have to let 0care fall on its ass as he is no longer required to do something about it as he "tried." Good politics imo. Granted, I would have prefer to hear they are going to repeal it, but letting it fail is better than the travesty Ryan tried to ram down our throats imo. To say or do so would have placed blame on the Conservatives at this point. I do wish Trump would have had the guts from the beginning to just repeal it and be done with it, but I assume he did not due to his Democrat daughter and the fear of losing voters.
Now we need to get Ryan out of the speakership and replace him with a Conservative if it is at all possible so that we can get other Conservative policy passed.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
@Mesaclone
Right, the Freedom Caucus...those guys who actually were fighting to keep seven years' worth of promises.
And the two dozen or so moderates who jumped ship to side with them. Don't forget them, now.
There was nothing good about that mess Trump and Ryan tried to push off on the American people. But you go right ahead and side with the Democrats.
-
This article is by Allahpundit after all. He went by the wayside long ago.
I watched the clip and did not take away the same thoughts as you. He stated that the Democrats own Obamacare. They did not support the bill and now 0care will fail. I took it that they Dems will have to crawl to the Republicans to get a Healthcare bill in future. Trump went to great pains not to blame any Rs, but placing blame squarely on the Ds. Trump didn't seem overly disappointed that he would have to let 0care fall on its ass as he is no longer required to do something about it as he "tried." Good politics imo. Granted, I would have prefer to hear they are going to repeal it, but letting it fail is better than the travesty Ryan tried to ram down our throats imo. To say or do so would have placed blame on the Conservatives at this point. I do wish Trump would have had the guts from the beginning to just repeal it and be done with it, but I assume he did not due to his Democrat daughter and the fear of losing voters.
Now we need to get Ryan out of the speakership and replace him with a Conservative if it is at all possible so that we can get other Conservative policy passed.
@anubias
Whoops, my bad, I should have posted something from Infowars or Gateway Pundit for more journalistic credibility.
What about the president who wrapped himself around Ryan and this bill, said he was behind it 100%, and threatened those who refused to support it? You can't separate him out of this. He's as establishment as Ryan.
-
Yeah I'm sure the democrats are going to be all about making deals in favor of American freedom. :silly:
-
...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...
FALSE premise
The Trump/Ryan bill would NOT have ended Obamacare. The way to end Obamacare has already passed Congress on at least two separate occasions. The same repeal bill should be sent to President Trump.
-
...politics IS the art of compromise...
Politics is the art of the possible, said a mustachioed German fella.
-
+1000
This article is by Allahpundit after all. He went by the wayside long ago.
I watched the clip and did not take away the same thoughts as you. He stated that the Democrats own Obamacare. They did not support the bill and now 0care will fail. I took it that they Dems will have to crawl to the Republicans to get a Healthcare bill in future. Trump went to great pains not to blame any Rs, but placing blame squarely on the Ds. Trump didn't seem overly disappointed that he would have to let 0care fall on its ass as he is no longer required to do something about it as he "tried." Good politics imo. Granted, I would have prefer to hear they are going to repeal it, but letting it fail is better than the travesty Ryan tried to ram down our throats imo. To say or do so would have placed blame on the Conservatives at this point. I do wish Trump would have had the guts from the beginning to just repeal it and be done with it, but I assume he did not due to his Democrat daughter and the fear of losing voters.
Now we need to get Ryan out of the speakership and replace him with a Conservative if it is at all possible so that we can get other Conservative policy passed.
-
I have a feeling that this is just the 1st chapter of "oops we have been duped". from the gullible orange hoard here.
-
I have a feeling that this is just the 1st chapter of "oops we have been duped". from the gullible orange hoard here.
Candidate Trump would be calling out GOP moderates, who insisted on Obamacare Lite instead of the promised repeal and caused this fiasco, by name. Instead he's named the 'democrats' as the guilty party.
This is discouraging because it means we're back to the same ol' two card monte scam - 'gee we can't do this because we have no support from the democrats'.
If Trump and Ryan were serious they'd be pinching GOP moderates' nuts right now. Those flakes have to be brought in line by hook or crook. Take away committee assignments. Promise to sabotage pet legislation. In other words do what the democrats do to get everyone in line and deliver to the voters who put you where you are.
But sadly it does not look like its in the cards.
-
I have a feeling that this is just the 1st chapter of "oops we have been duped". from the gullible orange hoard here.
If we get a Conservative speaker that actually cares about America and not his elitist pals, then it won't matter what Trump truly wants. He will have to sign what he gets.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
@Mesaclone
Truth...
-
Why blame the Freedom Caucus only? I understand the 'moderates' were at least as obstinate.
Because the Freedom Caucus' argument looks like "no loaf is better than half a loaf". They weren't willing to settle for only a partial repeal of ObamaCare, and the result is that we may get stuck with the entire thing. Or worse.
The moderates are in a different position because they don't hate ObamaCare as much as does the Freedom Caucus. So if the deal falls apart...they can live with that.
-
@Mesaclone
Truth...
No, it starts from a FALSE premise so it can't be truth.
The GOP has ALREADY passed (more than once) a repeal of Obamacare and sent it to President Obama. They should do the same again for President Trump
-
@Mesaclone
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster.
Only certain parts of ObamaCare are imploding. The best thing about Ryan's plan was shifting the federal Medicaid expansion funds to a block grant, which would then be reduced over time. This deal falling apart likely means we're going to be stuck with federally-funded Medicaid expansion forever. That part will stay even if the individual exchanges fall apart because the Medicaid expansion will not implode.
The death spiral that would otherwise implode can be fixed by additional federal money and the re-institution of the insurance pool subsidies that were eliminated by the Rubio Amendment.
The Freedom Caucus is proceeding on the fundamentally flawed assumption that they can just let the individual exchanges fail, and then people will be forced to accept conservative solutions. The see the deal falling apart as increasing their long-term leverage. It doesn't. And their leverage will vanish completely if/when the Dems retake the House in 2018.
-
Why blame the Freedom Caucus only? I understand the 'moderates' were at least as obstinate.
As far as I can tell the Freedom Caucus' position on this was the same Trump staked out during the campaign, right? Repeal, not tweak.
I don't blame the Freedom Caucus only. They were just part of the problem, and were publicly vocal about their opposition, but I have no sense that they took part in actually crafting or affecting the bill.
The 'moderates' were opposed to "repeal," and that was the politically sound position. They were also against some of the measures that happened also to be the ones that the usual suspects on the left were able to use to good effect.
The entire bill was a mistake -- why make it all one bill in the first place? Were there no options for dealing with it in pieces? It's harder to generate media hysteria that way, and it's easier to adjust as things progress.
-
@Mesaclone
Only certain parts of ObamaCare are imploding. The best thing about Ryan's plan was shifting the federal Medicaid expansion funds to a block grant, which would then be reduced over time. This deal falling apart likely means we're going to be stuck with federally-funded Medicaid expansion forever. That part will stay even if the individual exchanges fall apart because the Medicaid expansion will not implode.
So.... as a standalone bill, how would that part play out? Is there a way to do just that, in a manner that avoids the hysteria?
The death spiral that would otherwise implode can be fixed by additional federal money and the re-institution of the insurance pool subsidies that were eliminated by the Rubio Amendment.
Is that good or bad? The death spiral is in part due to the fact that costs are rising so quickly for the insurance companies that they're pulling out. Federal money could perhaps draw the companies back, but it does nothing about the rising costs. This is where Larry Kudlow's idea -- to deal with the expensive 5% separately from the relatively healthy 95% -- gets its traction. Is there a way to implement that in a reasonable manner? IF the insurance companies don't have to deal with the 5%, does the general death spiral stop?
The Freedom Caucus is proceeding on the fundamentally flawed assumption that they can just let the individual exchanges fail, and then people will be forced to accept conservative solutions. The see the deal falling apart as increasing their long-term leverage. It doesn't. And their leverage will vanish completely if/when the Dems retake the House in 2018.
Precisely. If the individual exchanges fail, it will be a "Hoover's fault" windfall for the Democrats. As un-conservative as it sounds, the Republicans' best chance seems to be based in fixing or replacing the worst parts of Obamacare. Failure to address the current problems -- the "let it fail" gambit -- will only help the Democrats.
-
I don't blame the Freedom Caucus only. They were just part of the problem, and were publicly vocal about their opposition, but I have no sense that they took part in actually crafting or affecting the bill.
The 'moderates' were opposed to "repeal," and that was the politically sound position. They were also against some of the measures that happened also to be the ones that the usual suspects on the left were able to use to good effect.
The entire bill was a mistake -- why make it all one bill in the first place? Were there no options for dealing with it in pieces? It's harder to generate media hysteria that way, and it's easier to adjust as things progress.
Agree. My understanding is the leadership did not allow individual amendments, it was a take it or leave it deal. They left it.
-
@r9etb
So.... as a standalone bill, how would that part play out? Is there a way to do just that, in a manner that avoids the hysteria?
I wish there was, but no. That specific provision of the bill was something that 5 GOP Senators have said they don't like because they want to keep it a federal entitlement. So, you'd have to give them some other concessions to win their votes on that. That's kind of the problem with the whole thing -- you have to make it a package deal to get enough votes, but you also lose votes when you add things on to the package.
I don't think it is a matter of flawed strategy on the part of Ryan. I just don't think it is possible to get majority GOP support on a bill, period. The Freedom Caucus won't accept anything that isn't close to a full repeal, and the moderates won't accept anything that is. That's just where we arel.
IF the insurance companies don't have to deal with the 5%, does the general death spiral stop?
Yes.
Precisely. If the individual exchanges fail, it will be a "Hoover's fault" windfall for the Democrats. As un-conservative as it sounds, the Republicans' best chance seems to be based in fixing or replacing the worst parts of Obamacare. Failure to address the current problems -- the "let it fail" gambit -- will only help the Democrats.
I wish we didn't agree on that. I personally would take a deal that only got rid of 20% of ObamaCare, but kept 80%. Maybe there's a chance to knock of additional 20% chunks in the future. But the Freedom Caucus and a lot of folks just aren't willing to do that, and so we're going to end up getting rid of very little, if any, of it. In fact, if Trump couldn't cobble together a "fix" bill with a GOP majority, then he may just work with Democrats and some of the moderate GOP types who don't want to see it implode. In other words, rather than keeping 80% of Obamacare, we may end up with 120% or more of it.
-
I wish there was, but no. That specific provision of the bill was something that 5 GOP Senators have said they don't like because they want to keep it a federal entitlement. So, you'd have to give them some other concessions to win their votes on that. That's kind of the problem with the whole thing -- you have to make it a package deal to get enough votes, but you also lose votes when you add things on to the package.
I don't think it is a matter of flawed strategy on the part of Ryan. I just don't think it is possible to get majority GOP support on a bill, period. The Freedom Caucus won't accept anything that isn't close to a full repeal, and the moderates won't accept anything that is. That's just where we arel.
So if I read it correctly, your sense of the politics is that a bigger bill was necessary just to enable the deal-making. Which seems logical. And understanding that Ryan or any Speaker has to live in that universe allows me to cut him more slack that some would.
Still: it seems to me that it is at least possible to find some sort of common ground relative to Medicaid funding, and perhaps an effort could be made to find and pass such a compromise. But if you're correct that it would never fly, then a different broken piece can be attacked first -- the death spiral being an obvious place to look (even if solutions are probably not simple).
-
Instead he's named the 'democrats' as the guilty party.
This is discouraging...
It's not discouraging to me. He took the focus off of the Republicans in putting the onus where it belongs, on the Democrats.
-
No, it starts from a FALSE premise so it can't be truth.
The GOP has ALREADY passed (more than once) a repeal of Obamacare and sent it to President Obama. They should do the same again for President Trump
Looks like Ryan proved what both conservative critics and Dems have been saying about him for years: the attempts to repeal Obastardcare were just a cynical ploy. Ryan never had any intention of repealing, and Chinless McConnell hasn't yet had the chance to prove he doesn't want to repeal it either.
At this point the only game in town is waiting for O'care to collapse under its own weight, and since the GOPe has been fighting any kind of reform, the masses of asses will be screaming for UK/Canadian style government health care. We're screwed.
Meanwhile, Trump squandered a lot of his "outsider" cred by trying to force down this shit sandwich of a bill.
-
At this point the only game in town is waiting for O'care to collapse under its own weight, and since the GOPe has been fighting any kind of reform, the masses of asses will be screaming for UK/Canadian style government health care. We're screwed.
You may very well be right. But if so, then wouldn't we have been far better off taking "Obamacare-lite", rather than the full-on socialised medicine you say we're now going to get?
-
It's not discouraging to me. He took the focus off of the Republicans in putting the onus where it belongs, on the Democrats.
IMO the Susan Collins and Charile Dents in the party are a worse threat than the democrats. With them around conservative reforms will never even get off the ground.
-
You may very well be right. But if so, then wouldn't we have been far better off taking "Obamacare-lite", rather than the full-on socialised medicine you say we're now going to get?
No, because the final train station of Obamacare Lite is the same stop as Obamacare Collapsed, only people would be of the mistaken belief things were made better.
-
He'll never be ready or willing to work with conservatives I guess
-
He'll never be ready or willing to work with conservatives I guess
They never are, any of them. Tell me you didn't know Ryan was going to suck donkey balls since well before he became Speaker? McConnell, who boasted of destroying the TEA Party? Refusing to work with conservatives (SoCons or FisCons) is a hallmark of every Leadership Republican in DeeCee, and will continue until they're driven out, which may never happen.
All Trump just did was slip the mask for some who thought he was going to help.
-
He'll never be ready or willing to work with conservatives I guess
Trump made his feelings on conservatives known during the primary when he attacked Ted Cruz for calling angelic McConnell a liar.
-
They never are, any of them. Tell me you didn't know Ryan was going to suck donkey balls since well before he became Speaker? McConnell, who boasted of destroying the TEA Party? Refusing to work with conservatives (SoCons or FisCons) is a hallmark of every Leadership Republican in DeeCee, and will continue until they're driven out, which may never happen.
All Trump just did was slip the mask for some who thought he was going to help.
He led. He led them to water. They wouldn't drink. That's on them...and by them I mean the Freedom Caucus.
The FC wanted this bill ALL their way...no compromise, no negotiation, no give to other factions within the party. In other words, no chance at ANY kind of repeal and replace simply because they couldn't get what they perceive as the PERFECT repeal and replace. There is no false premise here, just a caucus that is so arrogant and certain that it is 100% right...that it would rather have nothing (worse than nothing...as we get to keep Obamacare now)...than give in that 20% percent to fellow Republicans and conservatives not exactly in line with their thinking. That is the intransigence that has sunk the GOP for decades.
As for the President, he literally did everything right...he worked to keep an important promise, he strove to broker a deal in which the FC got some of what it wants and other party factions got some of what they wanted. And the Freedom Caucus sunk the deal. Its not that simple...of course...but then again, it really is.
-
He led. He led them to water. They wouldn't drink. That's on them...and by them I mean the Freedom Caucus. Is there other blame that can be passed around? Darn right, but its crystal clear that the Lion's share rests with the FC.
The FC wanted this bill ALL their way...no compromise, no negotiation, no give to other factions within the party. In other words, no chance at ANY kind of repeal and replace simply because they couldn't get what they perceive as the PERFECT repeal and replace. There is no false premise here, just a caucus that is so arrogant and certain that it is 100% right...that it would rather have nothing (worse than nothing...as we get to keep Obamacare now)...than give in that 20% percent to fellow Republicans and conservatives not exactly in line with their thinking. That is the intransigence that has sunk the GOP for decades.
As for the President, he literally did everything right...he worked to keep an important promise, he strove to broker a deal in which the FC got some of what it wants and other party factions got some of what they wanted. And the Freedom Caucus sunk the deal. Its not that simple...of course...but then again, it really is.
-
They all want single payer. They are going to get single payer. They will institute a 10-15% payroll tax to fund it. Hide and watch.
All other talk, negotiating, and debate is worthless use of air.
-
Trump made his feelings on conservatives known during the primary when he attacked Ted Cruz for calling angelic McConnell a liar.
And when he silenced conservatives at "his" convention in Cleveland.
Why anyone would think he'd work with conservatives is a mystery to me.
Just like any other liberal politician, he can't tolerate us.
-
Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix
By Allahpundit
March 24, 2017
Worth watching the whole clip below just to see how many times he circles back to the idea of a bipartisan health-care deal with Democrats. He told WaPo the same thing in an interview this afternoon: “As you know, I’ve been saying for years that the best thing is to let Obamacare explode and then go make a deal with the Democrats and have one unified deal. And they will come to us, we won’t have to come to them.” The 2019 public option is going to be really, really terrific, that I can tell you. So terrific you won’t believe how terrific!
Read more at:
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/24/here-we-go-trump-now-ready-to-work-with-democrats-on-health-care-fix/)
Why not? He is practically a democrat himself. Here is where we all get sold down the river and Trump and the dems get their single payor system both want
-
He led. He led them to water. They wouldn't drink. That's on them...and by them I mean the Freedom Caucus. Is there other blame that can be passed around? Darn right, but its crystal clear that the Lion's share rests with the FC.
That's not really a fair characterization. After all, the FC is only about 30 guys in the house -- far too small a group to be anything more than swing votes. Which they were, this time. The problem is that they were trying to change something that was already built, and as far as I can tell had no role in building it in the first place.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
There is not a single Conservative principle that aligns with any sort of federal health care system. Not a single one. Hence there is no compromise possible within 'the bounds of reasonable principle'. And yet, here you are, blaming Conservatives.
-
It's not discouraging to me. He took the focus off of the Republicans in putting the onus where it belongs, on the Democrats.
Yep. They made this mess.
-
And when he silenced conservatives at "his" convention in Cleveland.
Why anyone would think he'd work with conservatives is a mystery to me.
Just like any other liberal politician, he can't tolerate us.
Yep!
-
This is all pretty wicked. You have a law that not a single Republican voted for and that they promised to repeal. And then the GOP leadership puts up a tweaked version of it that makes adjustments around the edges and then demand Republicans vote for it essentially endorsing the bulk of the original Democratic bill no Republican voted for.
All this is just moving ownership of Obamacare to the Republicans with the results still going south in terms of better healthcare, just supposedly less quickly. And some want to call that some sort of victory for Republicans if they get it...
-
So first the coward hides behind Judge Jeanine to call for Paul Ryan's resignation.
I'm no fan of Paul Ryan but as a Federalist I am even less of a fan of those outside of Wisconsin calling for his resignation. Ask him to step down from the speakership but leave calls for him to leave office up to the people of his home state.
And now Trump decides to continue and escalate his war on conservatives.
(http://i.imgur.com/aX9oqmt.png)
-
So first the coward hides behind Judge Jeanine to call for Paul Ryan's resignation.
I'm no fan of Paul Ryan but as a Federalist I am even less of a fan of those outside of Wisconsin calling for his resignation. Ask him to step down from the speakership but leave calls for him to leave office up to the people of his home state.
And now Trump decides to continue and escalate his war on conservatives.
(http://i.imgur.com/aX9oqmt.png)
Well, if he wants to be that way, Lyin' Donny can go suck eggs.
-
And now Trump decides to continue and escalate his war on conservatives.
(http://i.imgur.com/aX9oqmt.png)
What did the President get wrong in this tweet @Cripplecreek ?
-
Well, if he wants to be that way, Lyin' Donny can go suck eggs.
He's a lying coward attacking both RINOs and Conservatives alike.
He's nothing but a political suicide bomber the simpletons invited into the GOP camp.
-
@roamer_1
There is not a single Conservative principle that aligns with any sort of federal health care system. Not a single one. Hence there is no compromise possible within 'the bounds of reasonable principle'. And yet, here you are, blaming Conservatives.
Of course there is. If you're trying to repeal such a law, and because you lack sufficient votes can only get rid of 50% of it, then it is completely consistent with your principles to accept that 50% deal as the best that can be had at the present time.
What the FC has done is made themselves irrelevant on this issue, which is bad for all of us. The reason they're irrelevant is that they've just shown that the only deal their willing to do is one that isn't acceptable to a majority. Which means that if you want to cut a deal on ObamaCare, their voice isn't going to matter. That is inevitably going to move the parameters of a deal to the left of where they would have been otherwise.
-
Why not? He is practically a democrat himself. Here is where we all get sold down the river and Trump and the dems get their single payor system both want
@Mom MD
Right. Trump is seventy years old; he's not going to change. He's the man he always was.
He told the members of the Freedom Caucus that he wasn't concerned with the s**t details---or in other words, with the policy of the healthcare bill he tried to inflict on us.
-
He told the members of the Freedom Caucus that he wasn't concerned with the s**t details---or in other words, with the policy of the healthcare bill he tried to inflict on us.
It's worse than that. For all his bluster about it during the campaign, he couldn't be bothered to learn the details. He couldn't discuss them, because he didn't know them. This was going to be Trump Care, just like Trump Steaks and Trump Wine (ew).
Trump is the guy with the big ideas -- it's for his people to work out the details. Interestingly, that's exactly how Obamacare happened, too.
So, when pressed, he did what he always does -- he deflected and attacked. The details were "sh*t details," not important because not in his head.
Note, too, the role of the Freedom Caucus in that story: they were trying to do an end-around on Ryan by trying to make deals with Trump. Think about that for a moment: how is that helpful? How did they expect that to work out? They make demands of Trump, Trump orders Ryan to make changes and....? Were they hoping Trump would get his hands dirty for them? Were they that out of touch with Ryan that they couldn't talk with him directly, and vice versa?
-
The Conservatives Made a Mistake
PJ Media, Mar 24, 2017, Andrew Klavan
I fear the conservatives may have erred.
Let's accept that Paul Ryan's healthcare bill wasn't optimal. If the Congressional Budget Office was anywhere close to correct in its original estimations, the bill would have cut government spending by $12.5 trillion, cut taxes by $900 million, repealed Obamacare's tax increases, and instituted the largest entitlement reform in the last thirty years.
But yes, it's true, it wasn't full repeal. Indeed, as long as insurance companies are required to cover pre-existing conditions, government healthcare is with us, and the bill would not have changed that. And it is certainly fair to doubt whether the third phase of Ryan's three-phase plan — the phase that would have returned the free market to insurance — would ever have gotten past the Democrats.
Let's also forget about any four-dimensional chess conspiracy theories. I do not believe even for a second this whole thing was a Steve Bannon plot to destroy Paul Ryan or a Paul Ryan plot to destroy Donald Trump. I think Ryan felt this was the best bill he could get past the moderates in the house who do not want to go home and explain to their constituents why they lost their Obamacare benefits, and the conservatives, who do not want to go home and explain why they didn't get full repeal.
All this said, I simply feel that letting the bill die was such a huge mistake politically that it would have been worth eating the bill's flaws — trying to fix them in the Senate — and living to fight another day.
https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2017/03/24/the-conservatives-made-a-mistake/
-
(http://i.imgur.com/aX9oqmt.png)
The tweet raises an interesting point. If the bill wasn't going to roll back any significant parts of Obamacare, then why are the Democrats celebrating its defeat? If this bill was as bad as some of its critics say, then the Democrats should have been supporting it. They very clearly weren't.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Don't know many people on either side who are in a forgive and forget mode when it comes to DT.
Seems to me he burned a lot of bridges along with way.
The constant egging on by FNC is doing him no good. Unless he wants animosity to be coming his way from all sides.
The most recent Time mag. interview did nothing to encourage anyone to cooperate with him on any level.
-
Of course there is. If you're trying to repeal such a law, and because you lack sufficient votes can only get rid of 50% of it, then it is completely consistent with your principles to accept that 50% deal as the best that can be had at the present time.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Exactly wrong. So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress. It gets us nothing. In the mean time, liberals have shoved their crap right down our throat, by hook or by crook, and have advanced on every front.
What the FC has done is made themselves irrelevant on this issue, which is bad for all of us. The reason they're irrelevant is that they've just shown that the only deal their willing to do is one that isn't acceptable to a majority. Which means that if you want to cut a deal on ObamaCare, their voice isn't going to matter. That is inevitably going to move the parameters of a deal to the left of where they would have been otherwise.
Nonsense. Conservatives seek to promote conservative principles, and are doing precisely what is necessary. Who should be ashamed are so called 'moderates' and our liberal president.
-
They ALL know/knew obamacare would fail. But it achieves a goal. A segment of the uninsured now have insurance. 50%-53% of the population have insurance through their employer. About 38% have insurance through medicare/medicaid or other public programs. Leaving 9%-12% of the population uninsured. When obamacare fails they will trot out a shiny new pony and tells us look: We figured out how to cover everyone. The government controls the blanket application--coverage. The insurance companies control the money. The businesses (ultimately the working class) pay for it through a payroll tax. A "fair" flat tax rate for small to large businesses. Everyone is happy. Everyone has coverage. Everyone gets what they want.
Single payer. Eventually leading from the now 38% (+/-) under direct government control to 50%>60%>70%>80%>90%>100%.
-
@r9etb
It's worse than that. For all his bluster about it during the campaign, he couldn't be bothered to learn the details. He couldn't discuss them, because he didn't know them. This was going to be Trump Care, just like Trump Steaks and Trump Wine (ew).
Trump is the guy with the big ideas -- it's for his people to work out the details. Interestingly, that's exactly how Obamacare happened, too.
So, when pressed, he did what he always does -- he deflected and attacked. The details were "sh*t details," not important because not in his head.
I think you're exactly right.
Note, too, the role of the Freedom Caucus in that story: they were trying to do an end-around on Ryan by trying to make deals with Trump. Think about that for a moment: how is that helpful? How did they expect that to work out? They make demands of Trump, Trump orders Ryan to make changes and....? Were they hoping Trump would get his hands dirty for them? Were they that out of touch with Ryan that they couldn't talk with him directly, and vice versa?
Honestly, your guess is as good as mine. If they were expecting Trump to get his hands dirty for them, they were being very naive.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress.
Since always.
-
@roamer_1
@Maj. Bill Martin
Exactly wrong. So called 'conservatives have been compromising ever since the 94 congress. It gets us nothing. In the mean time, liberals have shoved their crap right down our throat, by hook or by crook, and have advanced on every front.
No, doing nothing because you insist only 100% is acceptable gets you nothing. And the left has beaten us over the decades not because they accept nothing less than 100%, but because they'll take 10% each year if they can get it. We lose when the moderates join the Democrats, or there is just a Democratic majority, that actually moves things to the left. We don't lose because movement to the right isn't as much as we'd like.
Look at Obamacare itself. The Progressive Caucus rebelled because they wanted single payer, and we conservatives were hoping they'd stay rebellious. Had they held firm -- as you advocate as a strategy -- Obamacare would have failed. But the Progressive Caucus ended up voting for ObamaCare despite the lack of a single payer option because they figured moving the ball a bit in their direction was better than not moving it at all. And from the perspective of a leftist, they were right.
Nonsense. Conservatives seek to promote conservative principles, and are doing precisely what is necessary. Who should be ashamed are so called 'moderates' and our liberal president.
Blaming moderates because they're not conservatives doesn't get any legislation passed. It's just virtue-signaling. The whole Randian myth of a Galt's Gulch or economic Ragnarok that results in a conservative society emerging from the rubble of a collapsed society is a big fat myth. You don't win by losing. You win by winning, and that has nothing to do with Trump.
In military terms, you are essentially issuing a "no retreat" order, and we all know how well that worked out for von Paulus and the Sixth Army at Stalingrad.
-
Blaming moderates because they're not conservatives doesn't get any legislation passed. It's just virtue-signaling. The whole Randian myth of a Galt's Gulch or economic Ragnarok that results in a conservative society emerging from the rubble of a collapsed society is a big fat myth. You don't win by losing. You win by winning, and that has nothing to do with Trump.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Obviously not going to agree.
Give me a call when you're ready to stand for something. Up until then, there's no fixing it.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Obviously not going to agree.
Give me a call when you're ready to stand for something. Up until then, there's no fixing it.
Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed. It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress. That's it.
-
Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed. It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress. That's it.
Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law? That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.
-
Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law? That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.
Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.
-
Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.
Yes, they need to be:
1. Term limited
2. On the same insurance they force on everyone else
3. And, the only retirement plan they get while in office is a 401b, with a small contribution from the taxpayers, and that they can take with them when they leave and that they can personally continue to contribute to, should they care to do so. (That will also help protect 401's)
-
Same old game, Cyber. Hang out in the halls. Make some soothing gestures and comforting noises at their constituents. Enrich themselves and their friends. Only work at getting re-elected. Leave up the real law-making to the regulatory agencies. And have fun fun fun til someone takes their T-bills awaaa a a ay.
That's pretty much the game isn't it.
-
Whether you think I personally stand for something has absolutely nothing to do with whether the problem can be fixed. It is a matter of having enough votes in Congress. That's it.
Yes, it does have everything to do with all y'all.
Not insisting upon Conservative principles is what filled the Republican party with liberals.
Democrats declare their love of liberalism right in their platform.
Republicans pay lip service to their platform in order to get elected and then turn around and do liberal things once in office... And get away with it... Precisely like what is happening right now.
If all y'all ain't willing to hand them their asses for it, then nothing at all is going to change.
Which is why I am no longer a republican these last 10 years.
Like I said. When your ready to stand for Conservatism, I'll be around.
-
That's pretty much the game isn't it.
For as long as I can remember it. Sometimes the pols get punished when they're caught doing it, usually not. Lots of times the voters in a Congresscritter's district don't care at all if the pol makes ridiculous votes because he keeps the gravy train rolling at the end of the day, and isn't serious about limiting government.
-
Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law? That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.
One might consider it evidence of a collective motive.
Liberalism is not winning on merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.
-
Didn't get re-elected? Awww...that's too bad. Here is a nice fat directorship or two. Just whisper sweet nothings in the new guy's ear.
-
For as long as I can remember it. Sometimes the pols get punished when they're caught doing it, usually not. Lots of times the voters in a Congresscritter's district don't care at all if the pol makes ridiculous votes because he keeps the gravy train rolling at the end of the day, and isn't serious about limiting government.
Yep! The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.
-
One might consider it evidence of a collective motive.
Liberalism is not winning on merit.
It is winning because it has no opposition.
B I N G O ! ! !
-
Yep! The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.
I agree, but I call it the "corruption" of the electorate. If we don't hand over the Gibsmedat as tribute, cities burn. I guess you could call it sloth, the root's the same.
-
Don't you think it's cynical for Congress to be willing to pass bills when they know will they'll be vetoed, then demur when there's a chance their bills might actually make it to law? That tells me they're not voting for a bill, they're pandering to somebody.
Ya think?!?
They were pandering in precisely the same way Donald "who knew health care was so complicated?" Trump was pandering. They're politicians: that's what they do.
The reality of actually undoing something like Obamacare is a whole lot harder than casting symbolic votes knowing they're never going to matter. Just shouting "repeal," as some folks on this forum like to do, just isn't going to fly.
-
Yes, it does have everything to do with all y'all.
Not insisting upon Conservative principles is what filled the Republican party with liberals.
Democrats declare their love of liberalism right in their platform.
Republicans pay lip service to their platform in order to get elected and then turn around and do liberal things once in office... And get away with it... Precisely like what is happening right now.
If all y'all ain't willing to hand them their asses for it, then nothing at all is going to change.
Which is why I am no longer a republican these last 10 years.
Like I said. When your ready to stand for Conservatism, I'll be around.
:beer:
-
Yep! The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.
The Founder's idea was that only they who paid taxes should be able to vote, and since there was no direct taxation of income, only land owners and those who owned businesses (usually one and the same) could vote.
This meant that women, slaves and (generally speaking) recent arrivals to the nation, as well as those with limited means could not vote on the politicians who would decide how property and businesses could be taxed in order to fund the needs of the government. In essence, only people with "skin in the game" were allowed the vote which would elect those who would tax them.
That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day.
This also avoided the practice of "buying" the votes of the unwashed masses by promising wealth in return for support.
We've deeply and repeatedly screwed the pooch since.
-
That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day.
The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:
In 1800, Aaron Burr circumvented New York's requirement that voters own a minimum amount of property by persuading landless Republicans to pool their funds and purchase enough as "joint tenants" to meet the requirement. The special magic of the joint tenancy was that each tenant, no matter how large the group or how small his contribution, "owned" the entire estate. .
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/10/deadlock-what-happens-if-nobody-wins/494510/
-
The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1980/10/deadlock-what-happens-if-nobody-wins/494510/
It may have fallen, but it does not change the fact that it was a great idea.
It would have been more efficient to close the loop holes than to open the voter rolls wide open.
-
It may have fallen, but it does not change the fact that it was a great idea.
It would have been more efficient to close the loop holes than to open the voter rolls wide open.
Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?
If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?
-
The Founder's idea was that only they who paid taxes should be able to vote, and since there was no direct taxation of income, only land owners and those who owned businesses (usually one and the same) could vote.
This meant that women, slaves and (generally speaking) recent arrivals to the nation, as well as those with limited means could not vote on the politicians who would decide how property and businesses could be taxed in order to fund the needs of the government. In essence, only people with "skin in the game" were allowed the vote which would elect those who would tax them.
That was a wonderful idea, abound with common sense since (again generally speaking) people who did not own property had no concern for a majority of the issues in the political realm, and as a result were often uninformed of the issues, and the various policies of the political leaders. Their votes, if allowed to be offered, would be based on nothing but guessing, limited knowledge, or influence by the popular media of the day.
This also avoided the practice of "buying" the votes of the unwashed masses by promising wealth in return for support.
We've deeply and repeatedly screwed the pooch since.
Excellent observation. I agree entirely.
-
Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?
If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?
Would people who owned REIT's get to vote?
-
Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?
If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?
Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished. What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for). If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess. Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.
-
Would people who owned REIT's get to vote?
Yes. But only on odd years/off years. Which primarily means in the primarys, especially in the specials, but not generally in the generals.
-
The reason the landowning voter requirement fell is because it was ridiculously easy to get around:
In a nation that was practically giving land away (in some cases literally giving it away) it was a pointless requirement. It might have been true in some places but it was never true in all places.
The fact is that our founders debated having an aristocracy and in the end aristocracy lost. A landowner requirement was a small first step down the road toward aristocratic rule and eventually feudalism. Before long someone would realize that they own 5 properties yet only get the same vote as the man who only owns a tiny half acre and end up wanting his vote counted proportionally.
Personally I find the idea of landowner only voting to be the height of elitism and the belief that poor are unworthy of voting is repulsive in the extreme. I just find it to be a cop out and a lazy means of avoiding the heavy lifting of educating people so they make their own better choices.
Some of the most genuinely conservative people I know are renters. 1 is an 80 year old Korean war vet. His house burned down a few years ago and he saw no point in rebuilding so he took the insurance payout and rented an apartment to live out his days. My dad is conservative and I don't think he's ever wanted to own a home. It made a lot of sense last summer when he sat in the AC listening to the roofers on the roof his landlord paid several thousand dollars for. I'm poor as dirt and till next weekend when I sign the deed for my mother's house over to my cousin, I own 2 houses. BTW my cousin leans democrat.
-
Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished. What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for). If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess. Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.
Exactly. One should have to be a net tax payer to vote. I would argue for the landowning qualification to vote in one instance -- local tax, county commissioner, and schoolboard elections should be voted on by those who actually pay the property taxes
-
Exactly. One should have to be a net tax payer to vote. I would argue for the landowning qualification to vote in one instance -- local tax, county commissioner, and schoolboard elections should be voted on by those who actually pay the property taxes
Please tell us your definition of a "net tax payer". I am a property owner but not a landowner. I pay property taxes on my domicile but not on the land.
-
Yep! The founders had a great idea but it's failing due to the sloth of the electorate.
And, avarice of the elected.
-
Please tell us your definition of a "net tax payer". I am a property owner but not a landowner. I pay property taxes on my domicile but not on the land.
I'd consider you a net payer. Here's an example of somebody who's not: A person who has negative income taxes because of the EITC. If the EITC is higher than the taxes withheld, that person collects and is therefore a net tax receiver, not tax payer.
-
If he does this I'm afraid what will end up with. This is, after all, the party that did give us Obamacare in the first place. And Trump is on record more than once stating that he does like universal healthcare
-
I'd consider you a net payer. Here's an example of somebody who's not: A person who has negative income taxes because of the EITC. If the EITC is higher than the taxes withheld, that person collects and is therefore a net tax receiver, not tax payer.
Thanks Cyber. I view income taxes as negative, though. :laugh:
-
Thanks Cyber. I view income taxes as negative, though. :laugh:
Well, there's that. :laugh:
-
Sooo...since I own the trailer house I live in but not the land it is sitting on I would be ass out to vote. Wouldn't anyone who has a mortgage but not a deed? How many people is that?
If you own an apartment/condiminium do you get to vote? What would be the criteria in this modern age?
Landowners and people who owned businesses.
The criteria for this modern age would have been worked out as time went by.
We worked it out, but not very well.
-
I just find it to be a cop out and a lazy means of avoiding the heavy lifting of educating people so they make their own better choices.
That's worked out so very well.
-
Seems it's unamimous, It's all up to Chuckie and Trump now.
Jeanine Pirro tells Trump to reach out to Democrats and forget Republicans
Mar. 26, 2017 10:22 pm by SooperMexican
Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro is demanding that Trump forget the Republicans and reach out to Democrats to “make America great,” because he’s such a great negotiator, he’s the only one who can do it.
No really she said this.
Doesn’t this mean exactly that Pirro and her ilk don’t give a damn about ideology, about conservatism? Guess what’s going to happen when you reach out to Democrats? They’re going to want Democrat solutions. So you’re telling me that this moron who couldn’t get a deal done with people of his own party is going to do better with people that disagree with him, supposedly?
It shows just how insanely stupid and emotional these people are. They just want vengeance and “winning” no matter what that means. Were they ever actually “conservative”? I doubt it.
Video at Link
http://therightscoop.com/jeanine-pirro-tells-trump-to-reach-out-to-democrats-and-forget-republicans/ (http://therightscoop.com/jeanine-pirro-tells-trump-to-reach-out-to-democrats-and-forget-republicans/)
-
No, they aren't and probably never were Conservative.
They want to 'win', because politics is just another sporting event now, and the ideology that everyone has gravitated to is Collectivism.
Government is our Mamma, and everyone must respect Mamma.
-
Doesn't matter, that criterium will never be reestablished. What I'd like to see is the collecting of Welfare becoming a disqualification from voting (excluding SS and Medicare because they were supposedly paid for). If one is collecting largess from the Treasury, one should not be voting upon the dispensing of that largess. Only people paying in to the Treasury should be deciding on how money gets spent from it.
AND anyone who is employed by the government should also lose the right to vote. Governmental employees are swiftly becoming a majority who will vote for their own continuation and benefit.
-
AND anyone who is employed by the government should also lose the right to vote. Governmental employees are swiftly becoming a majority who will vote for their own continuation and benefit.
I don't think that would be an issue if government were anywhere close to the size it should be and if government employees couldn't unionize.
-
Well, he certainly tried working with Republicans...who had a once in a generation shot to end Obamacare...but they dropped the ball. At least, some of them...Ryan failed to garner any consensus, and the Freedom Caucus were too stubborn to make some compromises (and yes, politics IS the art of compromise....within the bounds of reasonable principle). The Great Ronaldus Magnus understood this, the Freedom Caucus doesn't. Thus we get failure and humiliation.
Obamacare is imploding, no doubt about it, so as president he has little choice but to work with Dems to prevent disaster. A president can't just let a major chunk of the economy go into total free fall...politically beneficial as that might be in the short term. This choice of letting the economy collapse around Obamacare or working with the Dems is what the Freedom Caucus has wrought...and I say that as someone who agreed with most of their ideas on Health Care. They have let the perfect be the enemy of the good...or even the mediocre...and now we are left with the utter train wreck of Obamacare. Not a wise choice.
Quoted for truth. The Freedom Caucus set back the cause of conservatism and left Trump with a dilemma he can only solve by partnering with centrists from both parties. The ObamaCare crisis WILL be solved - just not in a way that will favor free markets.
-
Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro is demanding that Trump forget the Republicans and reach out to Democrats to “make America great,” because he’s such a great negotiator, he’s the only one who can do it.
No really she said this.
Doesn’t this mean exactly that Pirro and her ilk don’t give a damn about ideology, about conservatism? Guess what’s going to happen when you reach out to Democrats? They’re going to want Democrat solutions. So you’re telling me that this moron who couldn’t get a deal done with people of his own party is going to do better with people that disagree with him, supposedly?
Trump was perfectly willing to work with conservatives. Freedom Caucus conservatives let him down - in no small part because of their refusal to join with party leadership. Jeanine Pirro is right - if the Freedom Caucus can't be counted on, the next move is to pivot to the center and pick up Democratic support. There's nothing radical in that - it's how legislation has traditionally gotten done. Trump is not going to enter the next battle with the Freedom Caucus in his foxhole.
-
Quoted for truth. The Freedom Caucus set back the cause of conservatism and left Trump with a dilemma he can only solve by partnering with centrists from both parties. The ObamaCare crisis WILL be solved - just not in a way that will favor free markets.
All the freedom caucus did was expose every slacker on the hill who has been wearing Kabuki makeup for votes during the Obama administration. Considering that exposes those exceptional conservatives who are all conservative, except (fill in the blank with one or more conservative positions on the issues), I don't think the cause of Conservatism has been set back one iota just because that bunch of cockroaches on the Hill were sent scurrying for cover. Dust off that 2015 Bill that everyone voted for and take another run at it, or will the liars in Congress run away from that?
-
All the freedom caucus did was expose every slacker on the hill who has been wearing Kabuki makeup for votes during the Obama administration. Considering that exposes those exceptional conservatives who are all conservative, except (fill in the blank with one or more conservative positions on the issues), I don't think the cause of Conservatism has been set back one iota just because that bunch of cockroaches on the Hill were sent scurrying for cover. Dust off that 2015 Bill that everyone voted for and take another run at it, or will the liars in Congress run away from that?
Health care reform is dead for the foreseeable future. There's no "bill to dust off". Conservatives blew their shot, and Trump's too smart to be fooled twice by the Freedom Caucus.
-
Health care reform is dead for the foreseeable future. There's no "bill to dust off". Conservatives blew their shot, and Trump's too smart to be fooled twice by the Freedom Caucus.
Twenty five votes out of 435? Must have been just a great bill if it couldn't get a majority without those. A real leader owns their failures and doesn't blame everyone else, but it's easy to see why the RINOs and Trump would point the fingers at Conservatives, after all we have less in common than Trump and the Dems.
-
Twenty five votes out of 435? Must have been just a great bill if it couldn't get a majority without those. A real leader owns their failures and doesn't blame everyone else, but it's easy to see why the RINOs and Trump would point the fingers at Conservatives, after all we have less in common than Trump and the Dems.
The blame should be fixed on those that deserve it. I won't condemn conservatism - because many of us recognized what short-sighted idiots the Freedom Caucus are. But these knuckledraggers have killed the best shot we'll likely have to reform health insurance along free market lines. The implosion of the ACA over the next several years will indeed create the crisis necessary for reform. But conservatives then won't have a place at the table, and the reform won't reflect our values.
-
Twenty five votes out of 435? Must have been just a great bill if it couldn't get a majority without those.
Well, it was a bill that moved Obamacare in a conservative direction, so you couldn't count on a single Democrat vote. Which meant they were 25 votes out of 237, not 435. So yes, they did have the ability to kill the bill.
A real leader owns their failures and doesn't blame everyone else, but it's easy to see why the RINOs and Trump would point the fingers at Conservatives, after all we have less in common than Trump and the Dems.
Trump may be a crappy leader, but he wasn't allowed to cast a single vote on this bill. That was all on Congress. As for the RINO's....the reason they're not getting as much blame is because what they did at least makes logical sense from their own perspective. They'd prefer ObamaCare to a complete repeal with no replacement, so if a partial repeal is off the table, they'll stick with Obamacare and let the bill die. I don't agree with them as a matter of policy, but their actions make sense given their views.
What some of us are struggling with is the sense that the FC is saying "If we can't have total repeal (or close to it), we won't agree to anything." If the result of them taking that position is that ObamaCare either stays intact or moves in a more liberal direction, then they seem to have cut off our noses to spite our faces.
-
I see the "voice of reason" has joined the conversation. I'll just sit over here for a while...
:2popcorn:
-
But conservatives then won't have a place at the table, and the reform won't reflect our values.
We "knuckledraggers" and "short sighted idiots" are nowhere as erudite and wonderful as you Liberals, I get that, after all, all you have in the end is name calling and button pushing because your position is indefensible.
There may be more of you, or maybe you are just louder, but there are many more occasions in history where those who didn't know shit from shinola were in the often quite loud majority. You can smugly proclaim the downfall of this Republic, even as you 'make deals' and tell us how you "won".
When you say "Our" values, just who are those "our" you speak of? You and I have had multiple conversations which indicate some very great differences in what values each of us considers 'acceptable'.
Conservative values acknowledge that the Federal Government has no business mucking about in health care, and no Constitutional authorization. We also recognize the growing debacle that is Obamacare and Want. It. Gone. The whole Act. That's why we voted for people to remove it. We don't agree that Socialism is good for America, as the past 60 years have proven. We do agree that the government which governs best governs least. Apparently (and from numerous of your other comments on this forum) you are no Conservative.
-
Well, it was a bill that moved Obamacare in a conservative direction, so you couldn't count on a single Democrat vote. Which meant they were 25 votes out of 237, not 435. So yes, they did have the ability to kill the bill.
Trump may be a crappy leader, but he wasn't allowed to cast a single vote on this bill. That was all on Congress. As for the RINO's....the reason they're not getting as much blame is because what they did at least makes logical sense from their own perspective. They'd prefer ObamaCare to a complete repeal with no replacement, so if a partial repeal is off the table, they'll stick with Obamacare and let the bill die. I don't agree with them as a matter of policy, but their actions make sense given their views.
What some of us are struggling with is the sense that the FC is saying "If we can't have total repeal (or close to it), we won't agree to anything." If the result of them taking that position is that ObamaCare either stays intact or moves in a more liberal direction, then they seem to have cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Why, exactly, do you think Obamacare will become more liberal under a Trump administration with a Republican Congress?
The point you seem to be missing, as I read your posts here which on the surface seem very logical and well reasoned, is that the reason Obamacare is disastrous is that it's the government taking complete control of our very lives. It's bad in every iteration that one can imagine because the government does everything badly.
If one takes the position that government needs to be removed from controlling our health, running roughshod over physicians' and patients' rights, and regulating things in which it is completely ignorant (which is what the conservative position - and mine - is), then getting rid of the entire mess is the only solution.
Socialized medicine, government controlled health care, is a disaster from which we most likely will never recover.
It needs to be gone.
@Maj. Bill Martin
-
I see the "voice of reason" has joined the conversation. I'll just sit over here for a while...
:2popcorn:
He's just warming up with the knuckle dragger thing, I won't be here for the bleep, bleep, bleep
-
Conservative values acknowledge that the Federal Government has no business mucking about in health care, and no Constitutional authorization. We also recognize the growing debacle that is Obamacare and Want. It. Gone. The whole Act. That's why we voted for people to remove it. We don't agree that Socialism is good for America, as the past 60 years have proven. We do agree that the government which governs best governs least. Apparently (and from numerous of your other comments on this forum) you are no Conservative.
That you would have to explain tells me all I need to know.
These, right here, are why I am no longer a Republican.
-
Well, it was a bill that moved Obamacare in a conservative direction, so you couldn't count on a single Democrat vote. Which meant they were 25 votes out of 237, not 435. So yes, they did have the ability to kill the bill.
Trump may be a crappy leader, but he wasn't allowed to cast a single vote on this bill. That was all on Congress.
Neither, for that matter, was either chamber of Congress. More's the pity, the primary challengers could have had a head start. As for the RINO's....the reason they're not getting as much blame is because what they did at least makes logical sense from their own perspective.
What the Democrats did to the health care system in America made sense from their perspective, too. They'd prefer ObamaCare to a complete repeal with no replacement, so if a partial repeal is off the table, they'll stick with Obamacare and let the bill die.
Ask them how many of them want to keep going with obamacare. I'd bet the answer is zero. But what is the point of voting for a Bill which only piddles with an impotent fraction of the ACA, in an ongoing effort to fine tune crap. Anyone who has ever worked on vehicles can tell you they often reach a point where there is just too much to replace. We call those 'parts cars'. Obamacare is not even that, what would you keep? What of the whole ACA do you think is a good idea, keeping in mind that it is being micromanaged by a government whose office holders are exempt?
Want to fix it? Remove that part. Make everyone in Congress and their staffers subject to the provisions of the legislation they dumped on the rest of us. Let them have a slice of the same cake they prescribed for the rest of America. I don't agree with them as a matter of policy, but their actions make sense given their views.
If you knew something wasn't going to do much, and that for only a limited amount of time, would you sign off on it when you were sent by your constituents to be rid of that thing once and for all? If someone parks a junk car in your drive way would you be content to have it carted off a few nuts and bolts at a time?
What some of us are struggling with is the sense that the FC is saying "If we can't have total repeal (or close to it), we won't agree to anything." If the result of them taking that position is that ObamaCare either stays intact or moves in a more liberal direction, then they seem to have cut off our noses to spite our faces.
And what the rest of us are struggling with is that those who were in full support of repeal when it would never pass the President's desk, now refuse to gut the ACA when that measure would likely be signed. Why the left shift?
What is the sudden refusal to get rid of this bad legislation, to at least beef up this 11th hour bill and make it acceptable to more of the FC, instead of saying 'that's all you're going to get, take it or leave it'? When the GOP is more willing to seek the approval and compromise of the Democrats than conservatives, they have lost any claim to calling themselves "conservative."
If none of this (as I have seen claimed) would pass through the Senate, then why even bother going through the ineffectual motions of offering a half-assed mess and not even voting on it? Kabuki, that's why.
-
“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
-
@musiclady
Why, exactly, do you think Obamacare will become more liberal under a Trump administration with a Republican Congress?
If Trump cannot make a deal with the FC, he'll have to move left to get a majority. That necessarily must include some Democrats, which means a bill more liberal than the one that just failed.
Alternatively, if he doesn't make that kind of deal with Democrats and we pass nothing substantive, then Dems use that failure to turn the House blue in 2018.
The point you seem to be missing, as I read your posts here which on the surface seem very logical and well reasoned, is that the reason Obamacare is disastrous is that it's the government taking complete control of our very lives. It's bad in every iteration that one can imagine because the government does everything badly.
I'm not missing the point. I understand it and agree that it should be completely repealed. I think the FC is right on the preferred route to take.
But i believe there are not enough votes in Congress to pass that. Saying what "must" be done is pointless if there aren't the votes to do it. So the question is whether a partial repeal is better than either 1) no full or partial repeal at all, or 2) a Democrat fix that make the I'll even more leftist than it already is.
Or to cut to the chase...What do you think should be done if there aren't enough votes for a full repeal?
-
Or to cut to the chase...What do you think should be done if there aren't enough votes for a full repeal?
Beat up the liberal 'moderates' for not moving right.
Chastise the 'moderate' liberals for their failure to compromise.
Howl and throw dirt in the air because liberal Republicans prevented adherence to the promises and platform that got the Republicans in place.
But that is not what is happening.
-
Or to cut to the chase...What do you think should be done if there aren't enough votes for a full repeal?
So...the GOP is going to once again use we don't think we'll have enough votes for a full repeal as an excuse to not do anything? Quite frankly I'm tired of Ryan's excuses and lack of backbone and would love to see him REPLACED with someone like Meadows! Ryan's speech after Trump's inauguration was nothing more than hot air; I knew at the time coming from his mouth it sounded to good as he his notorious for beating a hollow drum. Combine Paul and Cruz's healthcare bill and I think we'd have a winner!
-
So...the GOP is going to once again use we don't think we'll have enough votes for a full repeal as an excuse to not do anything? Quite frankly I'm tired of Ryan's excuses and lack of backbone and would love to see him REPLACED with someone like Meadows! Ryan's speech after Trump's inauguration was nothing more than hot air; I knew at the time coming from his mouth it sounded to good as he his notorious for beating a hollow drum. Combine Paul and Cruz's healthcare bill and I think we'd have a winner!
OK, so let's suppose you replace Ryan with someone like Meadows. What would strategy would you suggest to Mr. Meadows to actually get that done?
What portions of Cruz's plans should be used to update/replace those aspects of Ryan's, that led to its being pulled?
And remember: Meadows has got to find the votes for this thing to pass.
-
OK, so let's suppose you replace Ryan with someone like Meadows. What would strategy would you suggest to Mr. Meadows to actually get that done?
What portions of Cruz's plans should be used to update/replace those aspects of Ryan's, that led to its being pulled?
And remember: Meadows has got to find the votes for this thing to pass.
Cruz's bill allowed buying health insurance across state lines. Strategy? The very fact that most campaigned on repealing and this bill didn't do so and therefore didn't pass should be a wake up call.
-
Here is the text of my FB conversation this morning with a senior member of the W&M Committee Chairman Kevin Brady who just happens to be my congressman.
Bigun “Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Like · Reply · 53 mins
Tracee Evans Judge Poe is being honest. This is not the time for republican infighting. Remember 34 House Democrats refused to vote for ObamaCare, but their margin was larger and it passed by TWO votes. Only a couple of those remain in office because the liberals targeted them.
Like · Reply · 33 mins
Bigun Tracee Evans Sorry Tracee! The Freedom Caucus are the ONLY ones telling the truth here no matter how much you and your boss try to spin!
Like · Reply · 31 mins
Tracee Evans Sorry, when their members supported and cosponsored major elements of the bill only to change their minds, that's not truth.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 30 mins
Tracee Evans What are the Koch brothers giving?
Like · Reply · 30 mins
Write a reply...
Bigun Last year the republican "leadership" was perfectly happy to send a full repeal of Obamacare to Obama's desk but refuse to do so now that we have a president who would allegedly sign it! WHY is that? Could it be because the boys and girls over on K Street don't actually want it repealed?
Like · Reply · 28 mins
Tracee Evans Talk to 4 Senate Republicans whose states expanded Medicaid.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Write a reply...
Bigun What happened to the "Repeal every last word of Obamacare" that virtually ALL republicans campaigned on for the last 7 years Tracee?
Like · Reply · 25 mins
Tracee Evans If you have 8 Senate Democrats ready to say yes, please say sos
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Bigun PLEASE Tracee! WE are in charge now! At least we are supposed to be!
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Bigun And BTW I do think there very well may be 8 senate democrats up for re-election next year in states handily won by Trump who would very much like to keep their jobs! But we ill never find out because we are led by a bunch of sniveling COWARDS!
Like · Reply · 3 mins
-
Cruz's bill allowed buying health insurance across state lines. Strategy? The very fact that most campaigned on repealing and this bill didn't do so and therefore didn't pass should be a wake up call.
That's not a strategy.
-
Here is the text of my FB conversation this morning with a senior member of the W&M Committee Chairman Kevin Brady who just happens to be my congressman.
@Bigun
I'd definitely award you an 'A' for effort, I assumed Brady gets it right more often than not, am I wrong?
-
@musiclady
If Trump cannot make a deal with the FC, he'll have to move left to get a majority. That necessarily must include some Democrats, which means a bill more liberal than the one that just failed.
Alternatively, if he doesn't make that kind of deal with Democrats and we pass nothing substantive, then Dems use that failure to turn the House blue in 2018.
I'm not missing the point. I understand it and agree that it should be completely repealed. I think the FC is right on the preferred route to take.
But i believe there are not enough votes in Congress to pass that. Saying what "must" be done is pointless if there aren't the votes to do it. So the question is whether a partial repeal is better than either 1) no full or partial repeal at all, or 2) a Democrat fix that make the I'll even more leftist than it already is.
Or to cut to the chase...What do you think should be done if there aren't enough votes for a full repeal?
This is where I disagree, Bill. You are concluding that there are not enough votes in Congress to take the "preferred route," but the problem is that good leadership, President, Speaker, et al, would be at least trying to get the bill that the voters have been asking.... nay, begging...... for, since this debacle of Obamacare passed.
Trump, Ryan and Lott should be working their buns off to get the right bill passed. They should have been patient enough to put together an acceptable bill to the entire party, and they should have pressured the weak (i.e. mushy moderates/liberals) to vote their way.
Had they done that, they would have been heroes to the part of the nation that actually wants what's best for the nation.
Instead, they are weak, and they are the laughing stock of both left and right.
There is no way to defend this mess, @Maj. Bill Martin
-
That's not a strategy.
The point being is you don't need a strategy; the majority of those in Congress at one point in time ran on REPEALING Bammycare...IOW...the votes will be there.
-
@Bigun
I'd definitely award you an 'A' for effort, I assumed Brady gets it right more often than not, am I wrong?
Except when it comes to standing up against Paul Ryan he does. In other words he is a Ryan puppet! Worthless!
-
This is where I disagree, Bill. You are concluding that there are not enough votes in Congress to take the "preferred route," but the problem is that good leadership, President, Speaker, et al, would be at least trying to get the bill that the voters have been asking.... nay, begging...... for, since this debacle of Obamacare passed.
Trump, Ryan and Lott should be working their buns off to get the right bill passed. They should have been patient enough to put together an acceptable bill to the entire party, and they should have pressured the weak (i.e. mushy moderates/liberals) to vote their way.
Had they done that, they would have been heroes to the part of the nation that actually wants what's best for the nation.
Instead, they are weak, and they are the laughing stock of both left and right.
There is no way to defend this mess, @Maj. Bill Martin
The key to this is the idea of spending the time and doing the necessary groundwork to create a bill that would pass -- and that means a) taking the time to do it right, and b) making the deals necessary to get enough votes.
As to the first, I never really understood the rush to get this bill out there, except maybe to create the proper optics -- keeping promises, helping Trump keep his promise, etc. Apparently it was cobbled together in a small room and simply presented. OK, so you get a "clean" bill quickly, which was apparently the goal, but.... What's wrong with rolling this thing out in, say, September?
That brings us to b). The "clean" bill obviously took no account of actual politics, and Ryan and the rest of the House managers apparently overestimated the support they'd receive on the bill.
On the other hand, I doubt that we'd have seen any less wailing and gnashing of teeth had Ryan gone the route of making all necessary deals for the bill to pass. Still, had the moderates and FC types been able to offer modifications -- and had those two sides been willing and able to reach agreement (I doubt they could, to be honest), then Ryan could have gotten the needed votes.
-
This is where I disagree, Bill. You are concluding that there are not enough votes in Congress to take the "preferred route," but the problem is that good leadership, President, Speaker, et al, would be at least trying to get the bill that the voters have been asking.... nay, begging...... for, since this debacle of Obamacare passed.
Trump, Ryan and Lott should be working their buns off to get the right bill passed. They should have been patient enough to put together an acceptable bill to the entire party, and they should have pressured the weak (i.e. mushy moderates/liberals) to vote their way.
Had they done that, they would have been heroes to the part of the nation that actually wants what's best for the nation.
Instead, they are weak, and they are the laughing stock of both left and right.
There is no way to defend this mess, @Maj. Bill Martin
Very well said.
Effective leaders make things happen. They DO NOT simply count votes and decide 'it can't be done'.
-
The blame should be fixed on those that deserve it. I won't condemn conservatism - because many of us recognized what short-sighted idiots the Freedom Caucus are. But these knuckledraggers have killed the best shot we'll likely have to reform health insurance along free market lines. The implosion of the ACA over the next several years will indeed create the crisis necessary for reform. But conservatives then won't have a place at the table, and the reform won't reflect our values.
15 Freedom Caucus members planned to vote "no"; 18 regular republicans planned to vote no.
It was a crappy bill, not a failing of conservatism.
-
15 Freedom Caucus members planned to vote "no"; 18 regular republicans planned to vote no.
It was a crappy bill, not a failing of conservatism.
Consider the source, who stamps conservatives "short-sighted idiots" and "knuckledraggers." But what do I know, I'm "a disgrace." :laugh:
-
15 Freedom Caucus members planned to vote "no"; 18 regular republicans planned to vote no.
It was a crappy bill, not a failing of conservatism.
I'm betting the numbers would have been considerably higher for both caucus and non caucus reps.
-
I'm betting the numbers would have been considerably higher for both caucus and non caucus reps.
I suspect so. Who would want to face their constituents after voting for that?
-
@musiclady
This is where I disagree, Bill. You are concluding that there are not enough votes in Congress to take the "preferred route," but the problem is that good leadership, President, Speaker, et al, would be at least trying to get the bill that the voters have been asking.... nay, begging...... for, since this debacle of Obamacare passed.
Some voters were asking for a total repeal. A great many others wanted certain aspect of ObamaCare kept. I've posted the polls, etc., previously. We cannot keep deluding ourselves into believe that everyone who voted for a Republican wanted a full Obamacare repeal without preserving any elements of that. It simply isn't true.
In terms of "at least be trying", there is an article posted that Ryan literally got on his knees to beg for a "yes" vote from a moderate who refused to vote for the bill because it was too conservative, and it didn't work. Guy still promised to vote "no". There is zero chance that member was going to vote for an even more conservative complete repeal. Four GOP Senators publicly announced that they wouldn't vote for a bill that didn't have some guarantees for continued funding of the Medicaid expansion. That means no complete repeal getting through the Senate even if it gets through the House. Portman was one of them, btw.
But I suppose there is no way for me or anyone else to actually prove it wouldn't pass, because someone can always argue "they should have tried harder". So I'll just ask the same question again -- what if, after all the pressuring, begging, and cajoring, there simply aren't enough votes for a complete repeal? What should the Freedom Caucus do then?
-
Very well said.
Effective leaders make things happen. They DO NOT simply count votes and decide 'it can't be done'.
@skeeter @Maj. Bill Martin
The problem, as I see it, is that neither Ryan nor Trump actually believe in righting the wrong of Obamacare and returning health care back to physicians and patients. They WANT the government to control our lives.
So, Ryan is having a tough time as Speaker? I shed no tears. If he were a principled leader and believed that government health care was a bad thing (as any Republican or Conservative should), then he should have been able to hammer out a compromise with moderates and conservatives. But he didn't.
He didn't take the time to work out a good bill. Trump made threats, and the FC didn't fold.
Putting the blame on the small band of conservatives is flawed. The responsibility lies with both Ryan and Trump for making this mess. NOT with Jim Jordan, who consistently fights for the things we elected him to do.
-
@skeeter @Maj. Bill Martin
The problem, as I see it, is that neither Ryan nor Trump actually believe in righting the wrong of Obamacare and returning health care back to physicians and patients. They WANT the government to control our lives.
I understand and agree with that with respect to Trump, at least to some extent. Although at this point, I think he'd sign anything Congress would pass.
But what's the basis for saying that Ryan wants government to control our lives, as opposed to just operating from a different understanding from you as to what actually can pass legislatively? I see him as a guy who is attacked for not being sufficiently "conservative", when the truth is that he can count votes and know what has a chance of passing, and what doesn't. His goal, generally, is to push the most conservative legislation he thinks can be passed. That sometimes means that he's pushing stuff that isn't as conservative as others would prefer, but I see that more as realism than as a difference on policy preferences.
If he were a principled leader and believed that government health care was a bad thing (as any Republican or Conservative should), then he should have been able to hammer out a compromise with moderates and conservatives. But he didn't.
What is the basis for saying that he should have been able to hammer out a compromise? Those people in Congress all have strong egos, and their own priorities and constituents. It isn't as easy to force them to vote a certain way as you are assuming, and sometimes, a compromise isn't possible. Imagine if someone said "A good leader should be able to hammer out a compromise with Ted Cruz to get his support for increased Planned Parenthood funding." Some deals just can't be done, and if there really was one there to be made, why hasn't the FC worked one out already with the moderates on their own?
He didn't take the time to work out a good bill. Trump made threats, and the FC didn't fold.
Neither did the moderates.
You may get your wish with Ryan giving up the speakership, though I suspect you'd be even less happy with who would likely replace him.
-
They have had time to see where and how they could fix obamacare, work out deals, and plan implementation.
What they all want is government control of healthcare.
And they will get it.
-
They have had time to see where and how they could fix obamacare, work out deals, and plan implementation.
What they all want is government control of healthcare.
And they will get it.
That is the entire function and purpose of ObamaCare and the GOP knows and understands this - so massaging the mechanism to bring about Single Payer is all that is being argued about here. The end-result is going to be what Mordor on the Potomac wants and the Dependent Class who sees government as god wants.
Conservative Constitutional Originalists are a minority.
The people want Statism and tyranny - and their representatives will deliver because it gives them power and control over our lives in ways not even Stalin was able to achieve over his people.
-
I understand and agree with that with respect to Trump, at least to some extent. Although at this point, I think he'd sign anything Congress would pass.
But what's the basis for saying that Ryan wants government to control our lives, as opposed to just operating from a different understanding from you as to what actually can pass legislatively? I see him as a guy who is attacked for not being sufficiently "conservative", when the truth is that he can count votes and know what has a chance of passing, and what doesn't. His goal, generally, is to push the most conservative legislation he thinks can be passed. That sometimes means that he's pushing stuff that isn't as conservative as others would prefer, but I see that more as realism than as a difference on policy preferences.
If Ryan's goal were to pass the most conservative legislation he thinks could pass, he would have taken the time to work things out and not rammed through this Obamacare lite fiasco.
What is your basis for agreeing with his being reckless and trying to pass a very bad bill?
What is the basis for saying that he should have been able to hammer out a compromise? Those people in Congress all have strong egos, and their own priorities and constituents. It isn't as easy to force them to vote a certain way as you are assuming, and sometimes, a compromise isn't possible. Imagine if someone said "A good leader should be able to hammer out a compromise with Ted Cruz to get his support for increased Planned Parenthood funding." Some deals just can't be done, and if there really was one there to be made, why hasn't the FC worked one out already with the moderates on their own?
The basis for saying Ryan should have been able to hammer things out (again, with TIME) is HISTORY. I doubt you believe that this is the first Congress with strong egos. But Presidents and Speakers haven't always failed this miserably. Trump is not a leader, nor is Ryan. I like Ryan as a person, but he's just not strong enough to do what needs to be done. He's the one in the driver's seat, not the FC. They are not lunatic right wingers. Jim Jordan is a thoughtful conservative. I know that for a fact. Ryan needed to take time and do it right. Instead we got grandstanding and bullying from the President, and fecklessness from Ryan.
Neither did the moderates.
You may get your wish with Ryan giving up the speakership, though I suspect you'd be even less happy with who would likely replace him.
I'm not 'wishing' to replace Ryan. I'm hoping he shows the character I thought he had and does what's right for America instead of what lines the pockets and increases the power of his fellow Congressmen and himself.
-
They were all voted in on the strength of their character and what they would do for the good of the country.
They pinky promised.
-
So many here are arguing as to why the perfect, conservative ideal, bill wasn't put forward on repeal and replace...while ignoring the fact that such a bill had zero chance of being passed. Ryan knew this. Trump knew this. Heck, the Freedom Caucus knew this.
Politics is the art of the possible, and what Ryan/Trump put forward was the most conservative bill POSSIBLE. It would have repealed Obamacare and cut tremendous amounts of money from the deficit, and started a phased process that would bring in cross-state insurance sales...and yes, it would have kept some things that many voters wanted such as allowing insurance to age 26 for children and medicaid funding for states. But given the makeup of congress and the votes available...this was clearly the most conservative option with ANY chance of passing. No amount of impassioned lobbying by the President/Speaker, no long period of negotiation and amendment, no long sessions of internal debates in closed halls...was going to produce anything more conservative that could pass. THIS was Reagan's 80% solution.
This was it. This was the last shot to repeal Obamacare...and replace it with the most conservative legislation possible. and the Freedom Caucus shot it down. So now, what we will get is sure to be neverending Obamacare with far more liberal ideas thrown at it to prop up its crumbling structure over the next decade until a Dem president wins an election and pushes for single payer.
The FC has ensured the victory of liberalism on the topic of Health Care...all in the name of holding out for what it believes SHOULD be rather than for what is actually possible. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
-
Bernie Sanders used the term "Medicare for all" for a reason to tout his socialist plan.... because Trump once proposed it as an idea
-
So many here are arguing as to why the perfect, conservative ideal, bill wasn't put forward on repeal and replace...while ignoring the fact that such a bill had zero chance of being passed. Ryan knew this. Trump knew this. Heck, the Freedom Caucus knew this.
Politics is the art of the possible, and what Ryan/Trump put forward was the most conservative bill POSSIBLE. It would have repealed Obamacare and cut tremendous amounts of money from the deficit, and started a phased process that would bring in cross-state insurance sales...and yes, it would have kept some things that many voters wanted such as allowing insurance to age 26 for children and medicaid funding for states. But given the makeup of congress and the votes available...this was clearly the most conservative option with ANY chance of passing. No amount of impassioned lobbying by the President/Speaker, no long period of negotiation and amendment, no long sessions of internal debates in closed halls...was going to produce anything more conservative that could pass. THIS was Reagan's 80% solution.
This was it. This was the last shot to repeal Obamacare...and replace it with the most conservative legislation possible. and the Freedom Caucus shot it down. So now, what we will get is sure to be neverending Obamacare with far more liberal ideas thrown at it to prop up its crumbling structure over the next decade until a Dem president wins an election and pushes for single payer.
The FC has ensured the victory of liberalism on the topic of Health Care...all in the name of holding out for what it believes SHOULD be rather than for what is actually possible. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
Voters threw democrats out of congress and state houses in 94 and 2012 because of socialized medicine.
In 2016 we even elected the deletente who promised to 'repeal on day one'.
We just need to turn the heat up a bit more is all. They are all replaceable & no one likes a shyster.
-
So many here are arguing as to why the perfect, conservative ideal, bill wasn't put forward on repeal and replace...while ignoring the fact that such a bill had zero chance of being passed. Ryan knew this. Trump knew this. Heck, the Freedom Caucus knew this.
Politics is the art of the possible, and what Ryan/Trump put forward was the most conservative bill POSSIBLE. It would have repealed Obamacare and cut tremendous amounts of money from the deficit, and started a phased process that would bring in cross-state insurance sales...and yes, it would have kept some things that many voters wanted such as allowing insurance to age 26 for children and medicaid funding for states. But given the makeup of congress and the votes available...this was clearly the most conservative option with ANY chance of passing. No amount of impassioned lobbying by the President/Speaker, no long period of negotiation and amendment, no long sessions of internal debates in closed halls...was going to produce anything more conservative that could pass. THIS was Reagan's 80% solution.
This was it. This was the last shot to repeal Obamacare...and replace it with the most conservative legislation possible. and the Freedom Caucus shot it down. So now, what we will get is sure to be neverending Obamacare with far more liberal ideas thrown at it to prop up its crumbling structure over the next decade until a Dem president wins an election and pushes for single payer.
The FC has ensured the victory of liberalism on the topic of Health Care...all in the name of holding out for what it believes SHOULD be rather than for what is actually possible. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
The glass is always half full, @Mesaclone I just don't share your pessimism, It's just the first inning and we're only down 1-0. Even if this crapfest was passed nothing was gonna happen right away and Lee, Cruz, Cotton would have $hit canned it in the Senate. Get back to me in the 9th when we're down 12-2, then I'll admit your some kind of knowledgeable, physic.
-
So many here are arguing as to why the perfect, conservative ideal, bill wasn't put forward on repeal and replace...while ignoring the fact that such a bill had zero chance of being passed. Ryan knew this. Trump knew this. Heck, the Freedom Caucus knew this.
Politics is the art of the possible, and what Ryan/Trump put forward was the most conservative bill POSSIBLE. It would have repealed Obamacare and cut tremendous amounts of money from the deficit, and started a phased process that would bring in cross-state insurance sales...and yes, it would have kept some things that many voters wanted such as allowing insurance to age 26 for children and medicaid funding for states. But given the makeup of congress and the votes available...this was clearly the most conservative option with ANY chance of passing. No amount of impassioned lobbying by the President/Speaker, no long period of negotiation and amendment, no long sessions of internal debates in closed halls...was going to produce anything more conservative that could pass. THIS was Reagan's 80% solution.
This was it. This was the last shot to repeal Obamacare...and replace it with the most conservative legislation possible. and the Freedom Caucus shot it down. So now, what we will get is sure to be neverending Obamacare with far more liberal ideas thrown at it to prop up its crumbling structure over the next decade until a Dem president wins an election and pushes for single payer.
The FC has ensured the victory of liberalism on the topic of Health Care...all in the name of holding out for what it believes SHOULD be rather than for what is actually possible. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
Yeah, all that's great and all, but the fact is the CC didn't do it. Other, "moderate" Rs did it. Sorry the facts don't fit your meme.
-
So many here are arguing as to why the perfect, conservative ideal, bill wasn't put forward on repeal and replace...while ignoring the fact that such a bill had zero chance of being passed. Ryan knew this. Trump knew this. Heck, the Freedom Caucus knew this.
Politics is the art of the possible, and what Ryan/Trump put forward was the most conservative bill POSSIBLE. It would have repealed Obamacare and cut tremendous amounts of money from the deficit, and started a phased process that would bring in cross-state insurance sales...and yes, it would have kept some things that many voters wanted such as allowing insurance to age 26 for children and medicaid funding for states. But given the makeup of congress and the votes available...this was clearly the most conservative option with ANY chance of passing. No amount of impassioned lobbying by the President/Speaker, no long period of negotiation and amendment, no long sessions of internal debates in closed halls...was going to produce anything more conservative that could pass. THIS was Reagan's 80% solution.
This was it. This was the last shot to repeal Obamacare...and replace it with the most conservative legislation possible. and the Freedom Caucus shot it down. So now, what we will get is sure to be neverending Obamacare with far more liberal ideas thrown at it to prop up its crumbling structure over the next decade until a Dem president wins an election and pushes for single payer.
The FC has ensured the victory of liberalism on the topic of Health Care...all in the name of holding out for what it believes SHOULD be rather than for what is actually possible. Dumb. Really, really dumb.
Mesaclone, kudos for speaking the truth. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
-
Mesaclone, kudos for speaking the truth. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Ah, @Jazzhead, we finally agree! It is you.
-
Mesaclone, kudos for speaking the truth. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Speak for yourself.
-
Yeah, all that's great and all, but the fact is the CC didn't do it. Other, "moderate" Rs did it. Sorry the facts don't fit your meme.
Moderate Republicans were on board until the FC demanded too much and tipped the political balance. Reform of the EHB rules wasn't planned for the ACHA, but for later legislation and regulations. GOP leadership knew that moderates would bolt over eliminating the EHB rules as part of the first step - because they knew that, for moderates, it would be akin to political suicide. The blame lies at the feet of the FC, nobody else.
-
Mesaclone, kudos for speaking the truth. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
You are definitely an enemy, but with certainty - not one of us.
-
Mesaclone, kudos for speaking the truth. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
This morning you were blaming conservatives. Go figger
-
Ah, @Jazzhead, we finally agree! It is you.
888high58888
-
Moderate Republicans were on board until the FC demanded too much and tipped the political balance. Reform of the EHB rules wasn't planned for the ACHA, but for later legislation and regulations. GOP leadership knew that moderates would bolt over eliminating the EHB rules as part of the first step - because they knew that, for moderates, it would be akin to political suicide. The blame lies at the feet of the FC, nobody else.
Lol. This was originally a 'moderate' bill. 'Moderates' started bailing when Ryan tried to throw a few scraps to conservatives.
-
Speak for yourself.
Oh, I have and I will. Political idiocy needs to be called out, time and again if need be. The Freedom Caucus has damaged the cause of conservatism, and left us with ObamaCare as its dubious legacy. Simply idiots, as Rep. Poe has pointed out, in gentler language than mine.
-
Ah, @Jazzhead, we finally agree! It is you.
:laugh:
-
This morning you were blaming conservatives. Go figger
It seems the least the boy could do is just make up his mind. I guess he wasnts to be a Congressman.
-
Lol. This was originally a 'moderate' bill. 'Moderates' started bailing when Ryan tried to throw a few scraps to conservatives.
You realize you are arguing with our resident liberal.....
The reactions to this are entertaining. Liberals are outing themselves (if they haven't already) and a few at TOS are daring to criticize their religious head Donald Trump
-
Lol. This was originally a 'moderate' bill. 'Moderates' started bailing when Ryan tried to throw a few scraps to conservatives.
A "few scraps"?
End the mandates? Check. End the subsidies? Check. Create the structure for more choices in the market? Check. Block-grant the Medicaid expansion, thereby establishing control over future costs? Check.
These were all CONSERVATIVE features of the AHCA, that moderates were willing to support.
A "few scraps"? Spare me your ignorance, willful or otherwise.
-
You realize you are arguing with our resident liberal.....
I don't think there's a soul on TBR who doesn't know that about him...lol. I marvel at his ability to form syllables some days.
-
A "few scraps"?
End the mandates? Check. End the subsidies? Check. Create the structure for more choices in the market? Check. Block-grant the Medicaid expansion, thereby establishing control over future costs? Check.
These were all CONSERVATIVE features of the AHCA, that moderates were willing to support.
A "few scraps"? Spare me your ignorance, willful or otherwise.
Jazzhead, you can throw a few pieces of excellent pumpkin pie into a sewer and it's still a sewer.
-
You are definitely an enemy, but with certainty - not one of us.
To be sure, I'm an enemy of your addled mythology, INVAR. But I'm not an enemy of pragmatic conservatism. Mesaclone speaks the truth.
-
Jazzhead, you can throw a few pieces of excellent pumpkin pie into a sewer and it's still a sewer.
Well, enjoy ObamaCare - you've got it.
-
I don't think there's a soul on TBR who doesn't know that about him...lol. I marvel at his ability to form syllables some days.
Well, here are two syllables - eat me. :seeya:
-
A "few scraps"?
End the mandates? Check. End the subsidies? Check. Create the structure for more choices in the market? Check. Block-grant the Medicaid expansion, thereby establishing control over future costs? Check.
These were all CONSERVATIVE features of the AHCA, that moderates were willing to support.
A "few scraps"? Spare me your ignorance, willful or otherwise.
Relish on a shit sandwich - government mandated government run health insurance. You obviously dont get it, and it's clear you have no intention of ever getting it.
-
Moderate Republicans were on board until the FC demanded too much and tipped the political balance. Reform of the EHB rules wasn't planned for the ACHA, but for later legislation and regulations. GOP leadership knew that moderates would bolt over eliminating the EHB rules as part of the first step - because they knew that, for moderates, it would be akin to political suicide. The blame lies at the feet of the FC, nobody else.
I'm old enough to remember when Liberals promised Reagan tougher border security if he would just pass Immigration reform, well that second part never happened, fool me once......
Yes I know those were Dems but at that time they were more moderate than half the GOP is now, JS
-
To be sure, I'm an enemy of your addled mythology, INVAR. But I'm not an enemy of pragmatic conservatism. Mesaclone speaks the truth.
I've asked you this before, so I'm going to ask you again. What do you mean by "mythology?"
-
Well, here are two syllables - eat me. :seeya:
Wow! Strung together into a sentence and everything! You kiss your wife and kids with that mouth?
-
To be sure, I'm an enemy of your addled mythology, INVAR. But I'm not an enemy of pragmatic conservatism. Mesaclone speaks the truth.
Ok Game, Set, Match you won @INVAR now comes the 'other' argument.
-
Well, here are two syllables - eat me. :seeya:
Well, that was mature.
-
If Ryan's goal were to pass the most conservative legislation he thinks could pass, he would have taken the time to work things out and not rammed through this Obamacare lite fiasco.
What is your basis for agreeing with his being reckless and trying to pass a very bad bill?
I think the timeline wasn't his, but I also think he thought this was the best bill that had a chance of passing.
What happened was that hard-line conservatives insistent on nothing less than full repeal attacked it from the right, Democrats attacked it from the left, and the real bits of gold in the bill --elimination of the business and individual mandates, and block granting of Medicaid -- were too controversial for anyone but hard-line conservatives to celebrate publicly. And they were mostly lined up against it. So without major allies, it lost the PR battle very quickly.
The basis for saying Ryan should have been able to hammer things out (again, with TIME) is HISTORY. I doubt you believe that this is the first Congress with strong egos.
Honestly, I think history supports the idea that major change (both passage of and repeal of ObamaCare) is extraordinarily difficult. Democrats have been trying since the 70's to get some kind of National Health Insurance (as it was called back in the day) and the closest they could get -- after 40 years -- was ObamaCare in 2016. Generally, legislation is incremental, not revolutionary. So I think history backs up claims that getting everyone on board to eliminate a major entitlement program (which has never happened) is extremely difficult.
But Presidents and Speakers haven't always failed this miserably.
I'd agree that if nothing else happens with ObamaCare from now until the midterms, then it would be a failure. But if some of the folks involve reassess their positions, maybe something gets done and it won't be a failure. But it is worth nothing that we've never repealed a major entitlement program -- ever. So if we manage even to repeal just the "entitlement" portion of ObamaCare, it would be huge.
-
Well, enjoy ObamaCare - you've got it.
Yeah........... thanks to Trump and Ryan. **nononono*
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I appreciate your loyalty to Ryan, Maj. Bill. I was once loyal to Republicans too. Until I found out who they were and what they wanted.
I don't know for sure why you think that because something is difficult, it shouldn't be done, but so be it. I respectfully disagree.
I agree that repealing the entitlement part of Obamacare would be huge.
That is precisely why I wanted the Republicans to put forth a good bill and show the leadership to get it passed.
But, once more, they disappoint....... :shrug:
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I appreciate your loyalty to Ryan, Maj. Bill. I was once loyal to Republicans too. Until I found out who they were and what they wanted.
I don't know for sure why you think that because something is difficult, it shouldn't be done, but so be it. I respectfully disagree.
I agree that repealing the entitlement part of Obamacare would be huge.
That is precisely why I wanted the Republicans to put forth a good bill and show the leadership to get it passed.
But, once more, they disappoint....... :shrug:
If a batter waits for the perfect pitch, he's likely going to be called out on strikes every time he goes to the plate. I fear the FC is waiting for that perfect pitch.
-
If a batter waits for the perfect pitch, he's likely going to be called out on strikes every time he goes to the plate. I fear the FC is waiting for that perfect pitch.
They don't want to GIDP either, which is what happens to batters that swing at everything.
-
Jazzhead, you can throw a few pieces of excellent pumpkin pie into a sewer and it's still a sewer.
And then nobody wants to eat the pie... **nononono*
-
I've asked you this before, so I'm going to ask you again. What do you mean by "mythology?"
He means the bible.
-
To be sure, I'm an enemy of your addled mythology, INVAR.
That you are.
But I'm not an enemy of pragmatic conservatism.
You're worse than an enemy. You are a liar who pretends to be that which you are not - and then attempts to redefine your Liberal Communism as 'pragmatic Conservatism'.
You are neither pragmatic, nor Conservative. You are a full-fledged Bible-hating Liberal Communist, by your own words that revealed to us all what you actually are.
-
Well, here are two syllables - eat me. :seeya:
I think that alone speaks volumes about you and what you are.
-
I think that alone speaks volumes about you and what you are.
@INVAR my friend, I have an admission to make: I LOLed. And I couldn't get mad, I goaded him into that.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/02/51/90/0251903acb6c8a7141f502a9ff1219b3.jpg)
-
If a batter waits for the perfect pitch, he's likely going to be called out on strikes every time he goes to the plate. I fear the FC is waiting for that perfect pitch.
That IS the 'moderate' talking point.
Not all that close to reality, but it does well as a sound bite.
-
Maj. Bill Martin on Today at 05:29:07 PM
If a batter waits for the perfect pitch, he's likely going to be called out on strikes every time he goes to the plate. I fear the FC is waiting for that perfect pitch.
That IS the 'moderate' talking point.
Not all that close to reality, but it does well as a sound bite.
More evidence of exactly what I have been saying all along. For most people, this is all just a big sports event where we can analyze why a team or player is not performing to our satisfaction, rather than recognizing this is about our lives and liberties that too many are willing to trade away in order to watch 'the game'.
The Founders demanded (to use the silly analogy) the 'perfect pitch': a unanimous declaration rather than attempt Independence piecemeal because they understood something we no longer comprehend today: you cannot stop tyranny via civil means, nor expect liberty to be respected a piece at a time.
Liberty is all or nothing. If that was not the sentiment in order to preserve liberty from tyranny - then we would still be a subject under the Crown. Instead our forbears fought a bloody war because prostrating before the throne with olive branch petitions just emboldened a tighter fist of tyranny from their indifferent rulers.
But today - we're told we must take what scraps we can get and be content, while the march to Communism and tyranny continues unabated.
-
That IS the 'moderate' talking point.
Not all that close to reality, but it does well as a sound bite.
The bottom line in all of this is that swamp dwellers of every stripe have no intention of allowing any draining of their swamp no matter what it takes.
-
More evidence of exactly what I have been saying all along. For most people, this is all just a big sports event where we can analyze why a team or player is not performing to our satisfaction, rather than recognizing this is about our lives and liberties that too many are willing to trade away in order to watch 'the game'.
The Founders demanded (to use the silly analogy) the 'perfect pitch': a unanimous declaration rather than attempt Independence piecemeal because they understood something we no longer comprehend today: you cannot stop tyranny via civil means, nor expect liberty to be respected a piece at a time.
Liberty is all or nothing. If that was not the sentiment in order to preserve liberty from tyranny - then we would still be a subject under the Crown. Instead our forbears fought a bloody war because prostrating before the throne with olive branch petitions just emboldened a tighter fist of tyranny from their indifferent rulers.
But today - we're told we must take what scraps we can get and be content, while the march to Communism and tyranny continues unabated.
Let me just say this to you @INVAR -
I am thankful to have you on this forum speaking truths that some are afraid to grasp. Your knowledge and wisdom is much appreciated, and your ability to articulate truths that many of us believe and try to hold to is remarkable.
I have perhaps been too slow in embracing our heritage and fully understanding it, but I am there with you now!
THANK you! :beer:
-
Let me just say this to you @INVAR -
I am thankful to have you on this forum speaking truths that some are afraid to grasp. Your knowledge and wisdom is much appreciated, and your ability to articulate truths that many of us believe and try to hold to is remarkable.
I have perhaps been too slow in embracing our heritage and fully understanding it, but I am there with you now!
THANK you! :beer:
Indeed, a valuable asset to our Community, @musiclady (as you are too)
Thank You @INVAR
-
By appointing his son in law to a top position in his administration the president is acknowledging that the job is too big for him to do on his own.
How sad.
-
Indeed, a valuable asset to our Community, @musiclady (as you are too)
Thank You @INVAR
@INVAR
I'll third that.
-
By appointing his son in law to a top position in his administration the president is acknowledging that the job is too big for him to do on his own.
How sad.
Too late @Rivergirl, under the bus for him *for the laughs from our favorite source huffpo**
Just imagine what Kushner’s daily schedule is going to be like:
9:00-9:30: “Fox and Friends” debrief.
9:30-10:00: Provide broadband internet service to entire nation.
10:00-11:00: Stop working on providing broadband internet service to entire nation to focus on just providing it to entire government first.
11:00-11:30: Elevensies.
11:30-1:00: Working lunch to solve the intractable Israel-Palestine peace process that adults in government have been working on to no avail for decades.
1:00-1:30: What do you mean there are other places in the Middle East that need tending to? FFS, people, I can’t possibly do everything!
1:30-2:00: Daily “I can’t possibly do everything” meeting with POTUS. POTUS reminds Kushner that the AHCA went down because he was off in Aspen, skiing.
2:00-2:15: Cancel all skiing vacations for the foreseeable future.
2:15-2:30: Search for another samovar of coffee to push through the rest of the afternoon.
2:30-3:30: Develop one “transformative project for America under the banner of Trump’s $1 billion infrastructure program.”
3:30-3:45: Meeting with POTUS to discuss “transformative project.” POTUS says there is still something missing.
3:45-4:15: WHAT IS IT MISSING? COME ON KUSHNER, THINK! YOU CAN DO THIS.
4:15-4:30: Trump’s name added to transformative project. POTUS signs off.
4:30-4:45: A brief wander through the White House. How did it come to this? Didn’t life used to be so much simpler? I could have done anything. I really would have liked to own the Dodgers. Oh, man, the crack of bat, fists pounding on leather, the scents of an afternoon ballgame? Heaven is a patch of well-manicured grass, the cheers of the crowd, fathers in the upper decks teaching their freckle-faced kids how to score the game, and nothing but the expanse of a hazy Southern California afternoon ahead of you. That should have been me. That’s what I was meant to do. How did I end up here? I only vaguely remember: My name, shouted in a certain dawn … a message … a summons … There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where I could have said – no. But somehow, I missed it.
4:45-6:00: Fix the VA system, the opioid crisis, streamline government, and maybe do some trade stuff?
6:00: Fifteen hours of weeping.
-
Let me just say this to you @INVAR -
I am thankful to have you on this forum speaking truths that some are afraid to grasp. Your knowledge and wisdom is much appreciated, and your ability to articulate truths that many of us believe and try to hold to is remarkable.
I have perhaps been too slow in embracing our heritage and fully understanding it, but I am there with you now!
THANK you! :beer:
@musiclady @INVAR
:amen: I try to read everything he posts and very rarely respond to any of it simply because I have no argument with it.
That is a failing on my part which I will henceforth try to correct.
-
Wow guys..... @musiclady, @corbe, @DB, @Bigun ... thank you for the kind sentiments... you made me blush.
All thanks should go to Our Father - who blessed me with the friendship of Rev. Peter Marshall who fed my addiction to History with a focus on the foundation I was never taught in school, from the diaries and letters from the Founders themselves. It was truly eye opening and still is.
-
Wow guys..... @musiclady, @corbe, @DB, @Bigun ... thank you for the kind sentiments... you made me blush.
All thanks should go to Our Father - who blessed me with the friendship of Rev. Peter Marshall who fed my addiction to History with a focus on the foundation I was never taught in school, from the diaries and letters from the Founders themselves. It was truly eye opening and still is.
Yes, we do stand on the shoulders of giants, don't we?
-
Wow guys..... @musiclady, @corbe, @DB, @Bigun ... thank you for the kind sentiments... you made me blush.
All thanks should go to Our Father - who blessed me with the friendship of Rev. Peter Marshall who fed my addiction to History with a focus on the foundation I was never taught in school, from the diaries and letters from the Founders themselves. It was truly eye opening and still is.
@INVAR
My story is somewhat similar but not the same. I never questioned what was written in the history books until I returned from my tour in Vietnam and saw how the media was reporting on the war. I KNEW for sure that they were lying through their teeth about that so I began too wonder what else have I been lied to about. 50 years later I now know the answer to be that I had been lied to about almost everything and that STILL makes me very angry!
-
Yes, we do stand on the shoulders of giants, don't we?
WE should be standing on them but aren't IMHO!
-
Yes, we do stand on the shoulders of giants, don't we?
In comparison to us.... yes.
We may have a lot of tech and gadgets and an idle lifestyle of comforts with a standard of living the Founders could not even imagine, but it seems we have traded wisdom for knowledge and we no longer have use for the common sense that once governed these shores.
The warnings they wrote are ignored by our own peril - because I consider them prophetic given both the warnings from scripture to a blessed people, and the lessons of history when republics forget their heritage and go after populist ideals when the people become corrupted.
This one by John Adams is one that keeps coming back up in my mind as I glean the news and commentary:
"...a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it. - John Adams, Letter to Abigail July 7, 1775.
-
@skeeter @Maj. Bill Martin
The problem, as I see it, is that neither Ryan nor Trump actually believe in righting the wrong of Obamacare and returning health care back to physicians and patients. They WANT the government to control our lives. So, Ryan is having a tough time as Speaker? I shed no tears. If he were a principled leader and believed that government health care was a bad thing (as any Republican or Conservative should), then he should have been able to hammer out a compromise with moderates and conservatives. But he didn't. He didn't take the time to work out a good bill. Trump made threats, and the FC didn't fold.
Putting the blame on the small band of conservatives is flawed. The responsibility lies with both Ryan and Trump for making this mess. NOT with Jim Jordan, who consistently fights for the things we elected him to do.
@musiclady
I've read what you and Bill Martin have said. Some people have knee jerk reactions and say things like, "Ryan wanted Obamacare; kick him out.", "It's the Freedom Caucus fault - they don't care if we keep Obamacare.", etc., etc.
My opinion is, Ryan should know the mind set of his people, including he should have known the principles of the Freedom Caucus. He is with these people every day and not knowing the thinking of his people is a fatal flaw when trying to get something passed. There were more Republicans not voting for it than there were Freedom Caucus Republican members. That shows Ryan did not have the pulse of his people from the beginning of this bill.
It is possible both he and Trump thought a fast passed healthcare bill would bring glory to each of them. Certainly, Trump would have thought this, I have no doubt of that. Maybe he sucked Ryan into that idea. If that is the case, they thought the reluctant Republicans, including those in the Freedom Caucus would vote for it since it was a Republican bill. Ryan would have known better, or should have known better, and if he didn't, then he isn't a good leader. I can see Trump thinking his strong arm tactics would work, but Ryan, again, should have known better - he should know his people.
If Ryan is only going to take orders from Trump and not "teach" Trump he can't issue ultimatums and expect representatives of the people to bow down, then no decent bill for anything is going to pass. You see, we have representatives who "represent", and those represented make contact and tell their representatives what they want done. NO representative is going to go against the majority wishes of people in his district. I think Trump sees them as business men who have freedom to do whatever they want. They do not have such freedom and Trump doesn't know that - it would never occur to him as he makes any decision he wants at any time - that has been his life.
Ryan will fail unless he takes charge of listening and working with ALL his Republicans AS HE PUTS TOGETHER A BILL. Every Republican needs to have "flesh" in the bill. This presenting a bill and THEN trying to force votes for it, just will not work.
I'd like to be in Ryan's office and "teach" him some psychology on understanding others, as he seems not to know how to do that. He simply cannot turn his back on those who have a different idea of conservative values, based on their constituents, than he does. He will also need to stand up to Trump, not let Trump divert him onto Trump's latest fad of an idea, and I don't know that he is strong enough to do it. With this latest disaster, which it is, Ryan has to do justice to all his Republicans in his next effort or suffer a greater disaster. Two failures in a row would be devastating.
-
He means the bible.
Wait...are you saying Jonah actually WAS inside a whale?
Or was it that 7.7 million species....times two...more if you count dinosaurs (LOL), actually fit into a boat with sufficient food and seaworthiness to survive not just a 40 day flood, but the ensuing decades and centuries of water saturated environment?
Of course its mythology. Its also full of beautiful philosophy, horrid examples of men painting god as a self-centered sadist, and a speckling of genuine historical events told with a powerfully slanted partiality. You know, like all foundational religious texts.
On the other hand, what the he!! does this have to do with healthcare?
-
More evidence of exactly what I have been saying all along. For most people, this is all just a big sports event where we can analyze why a team or player is not performing to our satisfaction, rather than recognizing this is about our lives and liberties that too many are willing to trade away in order to watch 'the game'.
Oh, right. I mean, all I ever do on this forum is post sports analogies, and never treat these subjects with the seriousness they deserve. I just view it as a sporting contest, and don't much care about liberty, or freedom, or limited government. I just want to watch "the game."
The Founders demanded (to use the silly analogy) the 'perfect pitch': a unanimous declaration rather than attempt Independence piecemeal because they understood something we no longer comprehend today: you cannot stop tyranny via civil means, nor expect liberty to be respected a piece at a time. Liberty is all or nothing.
You know, you're right. The Founders weren't people to compromise on the any principles of liberty -- it was all or nothing for them too!
Except for that whole slavery thing, of course. Especially since a good many of those same Founders felt guilt, even at that time, about the morality of the practice. It was not believed that slavery was morally irrelevant. Certainly, enough of the Founders knew it was wrong enough to include importation being eventually phased out. But they didn't insist on abolition, or even on the immediate cessation of slave importation, because they knew they'd lose the votes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider keeping other human beings in bondage, to be bought, beaten, and sold as chattel, to be a "perfect pitch". At best, I'd consider it a very ugly compromise, but a compromise necessary to achieve the great good of political freedom for everyone else in the colonies.
But hey, that's just me.
-
Wait...are you saying Jonah actually WAS inside a whale?
Or was it that 7.7 million species....times two...more if you count dinosaurs (LOL), actually fit into a boat with sufficient food and seaworthiness to survive not just a 40 day flood, but the ensuing decades and centuries of water saturated environment?
Of course its mythology. Its also full of beautiful philosophy, horrid examples of men painting god as a self-centered sadist, and a speckling of genuine historical events told with a powerfully slanted partiality. You know, like all foundational religious texts.
That may be your view of the Bible. I do not see it as mythology. With God nothing is impossible. If you cannot believe the little things there is no way you can believe the big things. I don't have to explain everything to believe. However as a scientific document, its quite ground breaking. Moses knew that light existed before the stars. Job knew the earth was round. Long before science proved these things.
-
Wait...are you saying Jonah actually WAS inside a whale?
Or was it that 7.7 million species....times two...more if you count dinosaurs (LOL), actually fit into a boat with sufficient food and seaworthiness to survive not just a 40 day flood, but the ensuing decades and centuries of water saturated environment?
Of course its mythology. Its also full of beautiful philosophy, horrid examples of men painting god as a self-centered sadist, and a speckling of genuine historical events told with a powerfully slanted partiality. You know, like all foundational religious texts.
On the other hand, what the he!! does this have to do with healthcare?
A funny thing happened on the way to Armageddon. During the entire history of the inquisition, they killed something like 65,000 people over a three hundred year period.
The anti-religion communists killed 100 million in just a few decades.
Whatever you think about the religious people, all I can say is the atheist caused body count is a lot higher.
-
Oh, right. I mean, all I ever do on this forum is post sports analogies, and never treat these subjects with the seriousness they deserve. I just view it as a sporting contest, and don't much care about liberty, or freedom, or limited government. I just want to watch "the game."
You know, you're right. The Founders weren't people to compromise on the basic principles of liberty -- it was all or nothing for them too!
Except for that whole slavery thing, of course. Especially since a good many of those same Founders felt, even at that time, guilt about the morality of the practice, so it wasn't as believed it was morally irrelevant. Certainly, they knew it was wrong enough to include importation being eventually phased out. But they didn't insist on abolition, or even on the immediate cessation of slave importation, because they knew they'd lose the votes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider keeping other human beings in bondage, to be bought, beaten, and sold as chattel, to be a "perfect pitch". At best, I'd consider it a very ugly compromise, but a compromise necessary to achieve the great good of political freedom for everyone else in the colonies.
But hey, that's just me.
Again, what we're seeing here Bill...is the re-emergence of Moral Narcissism Syndrome. Its the disease that always walks Republicans out of power and into an electoral abyss. Its the deadly collaboration of arrogance and ignorance that annihilates compromise, disregards the equally deeply held beliefs of other conservatives and moderates, and casts every disagreement as a battle between good and evil. No gray...all black and white...and every view but their own is immoral. It blights reason and substitutes certitude where inquiry and agility better serve.
Put plainly, MNS is why the GOP can't govern when in power...and the only reason we survive as a party is because the Dems have become an Alt-left socialistic, self righteous, delusional collection of equally morally superior secularists...a mirror reflection of our own MNS's
-
Oh, right. I mean, all I ever do on this forum is post sports analogies, and never treat these subjects with the seriousness they deserve. I just view it as a sporting contest, and don't much care about liberty, or freedom, or limited government. I just want to watch "the game."
You know, you're right. The Founders weren't people to compromise on the basic principles of liberty -- it was all or nothing for them too!
Except for that whole slavery thing, of course. Especially since a good many of those same Founders felt, even at that time, guilt about the morality of the practice, so it wasn't as believed it was morally irrelevant. Certainly, they knew it was wrong enough to include importation being eventually phased out. But they didn't insist on abolition, or even on the immediate cessation of slave importation, because they knew they'd lose the votes.
Personally, I wouldn't consider keeping other human beings in bondage, to be bought, beaten, and sold as chattel, to be a "perfect pitch". At best, I'd consider it a very ugly compromise, but a compromise necessary to achieve the great good of political freedom for everyone else in the colonies.
But hey, that's just me.
A lot of people are unaware that slavery was explicitly protected by the US Constitution. Article IV, Section II to be precise.
-
Ryan will fail unless he takes charge of listening and working with ALL his Republicans AS HE PUTS TOGETHER A BILL. Every Republican needs to have "flesh" in the bill. This presenting a bill and THEN trying to force votes for it, just will not work.
That's a two-way street, though -- not for Ryan, necessarily, but between the Freedom Caucus types, and the "moderates," who are going to have to work together to get anything done.
It's fun and easy to blame Ryan, but that's far too easy. At most he can maybe mediate the deals between the various blocs within his own party. The various sides have got to bend on their own, and I wonder if they're willing to do so.
-
A funny thing happened on the way to Armageddon. During the entire history of the inquisition, they killed something like 65,000 people over a three hundred year period.
The anti-religion communists killed 100 million in just a few decades.
Whatever you think about the religious people, all I can say is the atheist caused body count is a lot higher.
So you're argument is that your religious views are better than communism. Bravo, I agree.
As for how many have died in the name of religion over the course of the planet's history...well, its almost impossible to measure but its a near certainty that its higher than 100 million. For the record, I'm a long ways from being an Atheist so I won't disagree that Atheism is an empty and harmful concept.
-
A lot of people are unaware that slavery was explicitly protected by the US Constitution. Article IV, Section II to be precise.
But....I thought Liberty was "all or nothing"?
-
But....I thought Liberty was "all or nothing"?
:whistle:
-
That may be your view of the Bible. I do not see it as mythology. With God nothing is impossible. If you cannot believe the little things there is no way you can believe the big things. I don't have to explain everything to believe. However as a scientific document, its quite ground breaking. Moses knew that light existed before the stars. Job knew the earth was round. Long before science proved these things.
I DO believe the big things, and easily disregard the little ones. So apparently it IS possible. As a scientific document...well, that's moot because it clearly is not. As for what Moses knew...or Job...unless you spoke with him directly you've no idea. That said, people have always known that light existed as they see it all around them...that's what eyes do. Further, ancient mariners understood well that the earth was not flat.
God could do many things, that doesn't mean he DID do them. The two cases I cite are absurd...and my view god is that she is anything but absurd. Rational, coherent, all forgiving and loving...yes. Absurd, no.
-
Again, what we're seeing here Bill...is the re-emergence of Moral Narcissism Syndrome. Its the disease that always walks Republicans out of power and into an electoral abyss.
No, I rather think what walks them out of power is the constant assault against them by the New York Controlled Liberal Democrat media system that portrays them as the second coming of Cotton Mather.
Smash that propaganda system and their actions would just look normal to most of the American people.
Its the deadly collaboration of arrogance and ignorance that annihilates compromise,
There are some things on which you do not compromise. Better to just lose outright.
disregards the equally deeply held beliefs of other conservatives and moderates,
"Moderates" have no "deeply held beliefs". That's why they are moderate. Conservatives with deeply held beliefs generally agree on most issues.
and casts every disagreement as a battle between good and evil.
And a lot of the time, it is. We have a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. At some point, it is going to have very evil consequences. All further debt weight added to that disaster is effectively condoning future evil.
-
@musiclady
I've read what you and Bill Martin have said. Some people have knee jerk reactions and say things like, "Ryan wanted Obamacare; kick him out.", "It's the Freedom Caucus fault - they don't care if we keep Obamacare.", etc., etc.
My opinion is, Ryan should know the mind set of his people, including he should have known the principles of the Freedom Caucus. He is with these people every day and not knowing the thinking of his people is a fatal flaw when trying to get something passed. There were more Republicans not voting for it than there were Freedom Caucus Republican members. That shows Ryan did not have the pulse of his people from the beginning of this bill.
It is possible both he and Trump thought a fast passed healthcare bill would bring glory to each of them. Certainly, Trump would have thought this, I have no doubt of that. Maybe he sucked Ryan into that idea. If that is the case, they thought the reluctant Republicans, including those in the Freedom Caucus would vote for it since it was a Republican bill. Ryan would have known better, or should have known better, and if he didn't, then he isn't a good leader. I can see Trump thinking his strong arm tactics would work, but Ryan, again, should have known better - he should know his people.
If Ryan is only going to take orders from Trump and not "teach" Trump he can't issue ultimatums and expect representatives of the people to bow down, then no decent bill for anything is going to pass. You see, we have representatives who "represent", and those represented make contact and tell their representatives what they want done. NO representative is going to go against the majority wishes of people in his district. I think Trump sees them as business men who have freedom to do whatever they want. They do not have such freedom and Trump doesn't know that - it would never occur to him as he makes any decision he wants at any time - that has been his life.
Ryan will fail unless he takes charge of listening and working with ALL his Republicans AS HE PUTS TOGETHER A BILL. Every Republican needs to have "flesh" in the bill. This presenting a bill and THEN trying to force votes for it, just will not work.
I'd like to be in Ryan's office and "teach" him some psychology on understanding others, as he seems not to know how to do that. He simply cannot turn his back on those who have a different idea of conservative values, based on their constituents, than he does. He will also need to stand up to Trump, not let Trump divert him onto Trump's latest fad of an idea, and I don't know that he is strong enough to do it. With this latest disaster, which it is, Ryan has to do justice to all his Republicans in his next effort or suffer a greater disaster. Two failures in a row would be devastating.
There are no coincidences in politics....Ryan knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He had/has zero intention of repealing Obamacare. Trumps election was a big ol', "oh crap, how do we get the rubes to get off our ass about this now?!?"
-
Of course its mythology.
If you want to believe that Liberty and the civil society we once had were built on 'mythology'... who am I to stop you?
That mindset goes a great length to explain how a depraved culture can create new 'myths' to build society upon - such as infants in the womb being expendable for the sake of convenience; homosexuals should marry and grown men can self-identify as little girls to use their public bathrooms. Those are the kind of 'myths' a society that considers the bible to be 'myth' create for themselves as a new morality to be imposed.
On the other hand, what the he!! does this have to do with healthcare?
Everything. It means that this people look to government to be their god, their healer, their provider and arbiter of fairness and equality.
And those are the very ingredients of a society and culture that is enslaved to tyranny without a shred of liberty. Except the license to engage in whatever their loins and flesh desire at the full cost of someone else that their god decides must pay for the consequences of.
-
No, I rather think what walks them out of power is the constant assault against them by the New York Controlled Liberal Democrat media system that portrays them as the second coming of Cotton Mather.
The media is the enemy, no doubt, but that is not why we lose. As Pericles stated, "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs." We fail, as a party, of our own accord.
Smash that propaganda system and their actions would just look normal to most of the American people.
There are some things on which you do not compromise. Better to just lose outright.
And there are many more that you must compromise on if you exist in a Republic...as system in which one party almost NEVER gets everything it wants.
"Moderates" have no "deeply held beliefs". That's why they are moderate. Conservatives with deeply held beliefs generally agree on most issues.
And Moral Narcissism rears its ugly head again. Moderate is a description of where someone lies on a political spectrum, not a measure of the passion with which they hold their views. In this, you and many Socons err in their perception of the rest of the party.
And a lot of the time, it is. We have a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. At some point, it is going to have very evil consequences. All further debt weight added to that disaster is effectively condoning future evil.
-
He means the bible.
No, I don't. I mean your addled mythology.
-
So you're argument is that your religious views are better than communism. Bravo, I agree.
As for how many have died in the name of religion over the course of the planet's history...well, its almost impossible to measure but its a near certainty that its higher than 100 million.
It is a point for which I have done some research in the past. It is clear that the Religion of Peace (Islam) has killed over 100 million people, but it is also certainly clear that Christianity has killed nothing like this number, and that's even if you include supposedly religious wars in the total.
Islam is definitely a religion that is as harmful to life as has been communism, but it is an outlier. Most religions do not have nearly so much blood on their hands.
For the record, I'm a long ways from being an Atheist so I won't disagree that Atheism is an empty and harmful concept.
More so than many people realize. Some people regard Christianity as an inconsequential force in modern history, but this is because they have no recollection of what people believed prior to it. Christianity has shaped the zeitgeist to the point that dissent, such as from Atheists, is tolerated instead of being quickly and brutally destroyed as it was when "gods" were being worshiped.
The western world floats in an ocean of Christian principles and habits, and most of us do not realize just how our world view has been formed into it's modern state by Christian principles.
Even Communism is a bastardization of Christian principles. It's "share the wealth" mantra has a direct lineage from "Equal in the Eyes of God" Christian teachings.
I think Christianity is what dragged the Europeans into scientific progress and cultural advancement. I think it is the lynchpin of Western Civilization, and we dispose of it at our peril.
-
But....I thought Liberty was "all or nothing"?
According to the rules of that time period, it was. Those rules simply didn't apply to slaves.
I think Chief Justice Taney said something to the effect that "The Declaration of independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves."
-
If you want to believe that Liberty and the civil society we once had were built on 'mythology'... who am I to stop you?
All societies are built in part upon their myths. That said, this society was built on the ideas of men like Locke and Jefferson, and the principles of the Enlightenment. The mythos of our ethical and moral symptoms are important, and of course play a role in the shaping of our nation.
That mindset goes a great length to explain how a depraved culture can create new 'myths' to build society upon - such as infants in the womb being expendable for the sake of convenience; homosexuals should marry and grown men can self-identify as little girls to use their public bathrooms. Those are the kind of 'myths' a society that considers the bible to be 'myth' create for themselves as a new morality to be imposed.
Every society has and will continue to create new myths...its human nature, and can bring both good and bad to a nation depending on the myth itself and its underlying ethos.
Everything. It means that this people look to government to be their god, their healer, their provider and arbiter of fairness and equality.
That is drama queen stuff.
And those are the very ingredients of a society and culture that is enslaved to tyranny without a shred of liberty. Except the license to engage in whatever their loins and flesh desire at the full cost of someone else that their god decides must pay for the consequences of.
Moral narcissism dressed up like a drag queen. The problem isn't people's "loins and fleshly desires"...apocalyptic and important as that sounds. The problem is poor decisions, poor education, and a general failure amongst our citizens to understand the true principles of Republican government.
-
It is a point for which I have done some research in the past. It is clear that the Religion of Peace (Islam) has killed over 100 million people, but it is also certainly clear that Christianity has killed nothing like this number, and that's even if you include supposedly religious wars in the total.
I agree entirely with that...though I would say your figure of 65000 is way too low to be credible. Nonetheless, there can be no moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam...Islam is vastly more violent in its history and in its current incarnation in much of the world.
Islam is definitely a religion that is as harmful to life as has been communism, but it is an outlier. Most religions do not have nearly so much blood on their hands.
More so than many people realize. Some people regard Christianity as an inconsequential force in modern history, but this is because they have no recollection of what people believed prior to it. Christianity has shaped the zeitgeist to the point that dissent, such as from Atheists, is tolerated instead of being quickly and brutally destroyed as it was when "gods" were being worshiped.
I have heard many views of Christianity, but never that it was "inconsequential" in modern history.
The western world floats in an ocean of Christian principles and habits, and most of us do not realize just how our world view has been formed into it's modern state by Christian principles.
Even Communism is a bastardization of Christian principles. It's "share the wealth" mantra has a direct lineage from "Equal in the Eyes of God" Christian teachings.
I think Christianity is what dragged the Europeans into scientific progress and cultural advancement. I think it is the lynchpin of Western Civilization, and we dispose of it at our peril.
I would not argue against the utilitarian value of Christianity in Western society...but I would give equal value to Platonic principles of right and wrong and the concepts developed in Pagan Greece/Rome regarding truth, goodness, and humanity. I see the success of the West as stemming from the conjoining of these schools of thought. That is apart from the consideration of Christianity as a mythology or an absolute...either way its principles and the way it was shaped to accommodate much of Greek thought is the secret of the West's supremacy...both morally and in physical terms. IMHO.
-
I DO believe the big things, and easily disregard the little ones. So apparently it IS possible. As a scientific document...well, that's moot because it clearly is not.
It is more so than most people realize. Years ago I used to keep track of scientific discoveries that confirmed something that the Bible had said years before it was discovered to be true.
We now know the flood was the consequence of the transition from the Ice age through the big melt.
Examples abound of the bible speaking on a subject, and the bible's account on that subject is later confirmed by archeological evidence to be accurate.
The accounts of the plagues of Egypt have been pretty much explained and confirmed by scientific means, and it is simply amazing that such accounts were so accurately (by the standards of the people at that time) recorded.
-
Wait...are you saying Jonah actually WAS inside a whale?
YES. If you read more closely, you will understand that he was dead inside the fish.
Or was it that 7.7 million species....times two...more if you count dinosaurs (LOL), actually fit into a boat with sufficient food
and seaworthiness to survive not just a 40 day flood, but the ensuing decades and centuries of water saturated environment?
If you'll read more closely, it doesn't say 'of each species'... It says 'of each KIND'. Genre. Genus.
And the water covered the land for about a year, not decades and centuries.
As I said before it doesn't say what you think it says.
-
The media is the enemy, no doubt, but that is not why we lose. As Pericles stated, "I am more afraid of our own mistakes than of our enemies' designs." We fail, as a party, of our own accord.
I think Ideological monopoly of the Information broadcasting system is the most serious threat that the country currently faces.
Our representative Republic cannot operate properly if the public cannot find out the information they need to make sensible decisions. The media does more damage by it's censorship than it does by it's "fake news."
Our system is based on the premise that all sides will be able to offer their arguments to the public, but we have nothing like that right now. We have a constant barrage of propaganda intended to manipulate the public into supporting a liberal agenda.
The media elected Clinton. The media elected Barack Obama. For those two things alone, they have horribly damaged the nation and the world.
-
It is more so than most people realize. Years ago I used to keep track of scientific discoveries that confirmed something that the Bible had said years before it was discovered to be true.
We now know the flood was the consequence of the transition from the Ice age through the big melt.
Pardon my French, but that is ludicrous. There has been much flooding, but the planet has never been covered by a singular flood. There just isn't any scientific evidence to support such an extreme hypothesis. We know how old the planet is, we know very well the timelines of many species existing uninterrupted from a 100,000 years ago up to the present without decreases in their span and population. The myth of the flood came from early societies, like Sumeria and there are many flood myths throughout the Middle East...so no doubt there were vast and severe flooding events (The flooding of the Black Sea basin being a potential such event)...but never a world wide event. That's just not a serious argument.
Examples abound of the bible speaking on a subject, and the bible's account on that subject is later confirmed by archeological evidence to be accurate.
The accounts of the plagues of Egypt have been pretty much explained and confirmed by scientific means, and it is simply amazing that such accounts were so accurately (by the standards of the people at that time) recorded.
It is not at all surprising as such myths are generally based on actual events that occurred, much altered over time when passed down as stories in a culture. These people were recounting real wars and societies and cities they encountered, but to take these stories as factual accounts is not credible...it does not mean the stories cannot still convey great meaning and moral teaching, but to take them literally is to set aside reason and common sense.
-
Oh, right. I mean, all I ever do on this forum is post sports analogies, and never treat these subjects with the seriousness they deserve. I just view it as a sporting contest, and don't much care about liberty, or freedom, or limited government. I just want to watch "the game."
At times, it sure sounds like it. You would think compromise is a religious tenet reading all the incessant demands and argumentation for Conservatives to capitulate for 'votes'.
The Founders weren't people to compromise on the any principles of liberty -- it was all or nothing for them too!... Except the issue of slavery...
Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one. There was no compromise to be had with Tyranny as they learned after countless efforts to appeal, appease and beg at the foot of the throne and in Parliament. Independence in a unanimous declaration was absolutely necessary if they wanted to retain their liberty when they began to understand the lengths the Crown was intending to go to stamp out the entire idea of freedom in the Colonies.
The issue of slavery was one that had to be wrestled with AT the formation of government AFTER the war had been won and the tyranny of the Crown was utterly and totally defeated. The preservation of liberty in the Colonies did not hinge on the abolition of slavery, but hinged on the abolition of the rule and control the Crown held over each individual, town and city in the Colonies.
There is no compromise with tyranny, or you simply remain a subject and a slave of those who intend to rule you. If you think you can play games of compromise with that, it explains a great many things.
If you do not see ObamaCare/TrumpCare/Single Payer as an imposition of government tyranny and just some unwise legislation to micromanage and dissemble - then we have nothing further to discuss. Enjoy your chains and may they rest lightly upon you.
-
Contributing to the Hijacked Thread
(http://donnab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Spirituality.jpg)
-
YES. If you read more closely, you will understand that he was dead inside the fish.
Whales don't swallow people, that's not their food. As for being dead....Mathew says "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish..." No, people don't survive for three days in a whale's belly.
If you'll read more closely, it doesn't say 'of each species'... It says 'of each KIND'. Genre. Genus.
And the water covered the land for about a year, not decades and centuries.
That's even more ludicrous. The diversity of this planet took billions of year's to achieve, it could not have been reset in just a few thousands. Further, the land would be deeply saturated and unusable LONG after the beginning of water recession. That's a process that would take decades if not centuries.
As I said before it doesn't say what you think it says.
As I said, I nearly went to seminary at one point in my life and have studied the bible as a historical text. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar...which you may be, but I am not unfamiliar.
-
Contributing to the Hijacked Thread
(http://donnab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Spirituality.jpg)
Great stuff.
Give me spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
-
Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one. There was no compromise to be had with Tyranny as they learned after countless efforts to appeal, appease and beg at the foot of the throne and in Parliament. Independence in a unanimous declaration was absolutely necessary if they wanted to retain their liberty when they began to understand the lengths the Crown was intending to go to stamp out the entire idea of freedom in the Colonies.
You'll recall that that particular disagreement had been settled several years before the writing of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate for a variety of reasons, and this a "more perfect union" was created that .... strengthened the role of the national government.
The issue of slavery was one that had to be wrestled with AT the formation of government AFTER the war had been won and the tyranny of the Crown was utterly and totally defeated. The preservation of liberty in the Colonies did not hinge on the abolition of slavery, but hinged on the abolition of the rule and control the Crown held over each individual, town and city in the Colonies.
And again ... you've somehow dropped something like 6 years of history there. The issue of slavery, however, was understood at the time to be counter to the principles in the Declaration, and it never did sit easily with many of the Founders. Jefferson himself is a good example: he was a significant slave-holder who nevertheless spoke against slavery.
Is that "compromise" or hypocrisy? Hard to say, but the argument against abolition was economic, which is a bit hard to justify among a group of men who supposedly didn't compromise on matters of liberty. At any rate, to those who were bought and sold, slavery was certainly a form of tolerated tyranny.
-
All societies are built in part upon their myths.
Myth is nothing but sand at the edge of the sea. It shifts, moves, and ridges wherever the wind and current take it. You try building a foundation for a structure on that sand and see if you can get your building to last more than a few weeks.
Our society was not built on myths, but solid foundational principles that were mostly gleaned from biblical application and historical evidence and precedent.
The liberty we had was unique on all human history, because no society was ever founded upon the principles that actually made up our definition of liberty before. Most of those biblical in nature and shaped by Christendom and Judaism.
Every society has and will continue to create new myths...its human nature, and can bring both good and bad to a nation depending on the myth itself and its underlying ethos.
History teaches it is mostly bad, and God warns the same of a nation whose forbears considered themselves His People.
Moral narcissism dressed up like a drag queen. The problem isn't people's "loins and fleshly desires"...apocalyptic and important as that sounds. The problem is poor decisions, poor education, and a general failure amongst our citizens to understand the true principles of Republican government.
You go ahead and think that, but I find it hilarious that you scoff and ridicule biblical morality as being dressed up as a drag queen and in the following sentence try and tell us that our problem is failure of the people to understand the true principles of Republican Government.
I like what Benjamin Rush had to say about the principles of Republican Government:
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." - Benjamin Rush, Signer.
-
According to the rules of that time period, it was. Those rules simply didn't apply to slaves.
I think Chief Justice Taney said something to the effect that "The Declaration of independence was not comprehended as applying to slaves."
Everyone understood that the document as written did not apply to slaves because they did not choose to apply it to slaves. That does not mean that the Founders were ignorant of the moral questions surrounding slavery, and even the tensions between the calls for liberty and slavery. They were. John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote about it eloquently:
To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
So did Patrick Henry and others. Madison himself called slavery "unrepublican." If you go through the Constitutional debates, including those regarding the importation of slaves, some of the Northern delegates actually demanded that all slaves be freed.
What is inarguable is that there were significant differences among the Founders on the issue of slavery. In the end, they compromised, because they openly acknowledged that the country could not be formed if they did not. That's how we ended up with Article I, Section 9, which essentially delayed a ban on the slave trade for 20 years.
My point isn't to rehash the evils of slavery. It is to rebut the claim that the Founders did not compromise on issues of liberty. They certainly did.
-
Wow guys..... @musiclady, @corbe, @DB, @Bigun ... thank you for the kind sentiments... you made me blush.
All thanks should go to Our Father - who blessed me with the friendship of Rev. Peter Marshall who fed my addiction to History with a focus on the foundation I was never taught in school, from the diaries and letters from the Founders themselves. It was truly eye opening and still is.
Amen to where ALL Glory goes!
But let me add in awe....... you KNEW Peter Marshall?? He is my hero!
No wonder you're so smart! :patriot:
@INVAR
btw, I meant every word I said about you, and I'm glad that others agree with me!
-
Is that "compromise" or hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy.
One that God required to be paid in much blood.
And if the Civil War was God's Judgment on the nation for the sin of hypocrisy by using His Name to declare Liberty for all men and then deny it to African slaves - I tremble to think what will be required of this nation in blood for the hypocrisy of sloganeering 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' when we murdered an entire generation of our own in the womb so we can have extra-marital sex without consequences.
God's winepress turns slowly - but grinds exceedingly fine.
-
My point isn't to rehash the evils of slavery. It is to rebut the claim that the Founders did not compromise on issues of liberty. They certainly did.
By that reckoning you go ahead and continue to compromise your liberty with Statism and see where you and your posterity end up in the near future.
History already provides the answer and it's not pleasant.
-
Myth is nothing but sand at the edge of the sea. It shifts, moves, and ridges wherever the wind and current take it. You try building a foundation for a structure on that sand and see if you can get your building to last more than a few weeks.
Our society was not built on myths, but solid foundational principles that were mostly gleaned from biblical application and historical evidence and precedent.Our moral principles come directly from our myths...both biblical and pagan as drawn out through Greek philosophical thought and the bible. Its only arrogance that thinks our myths are real...its the other guys who's are not. There is truth in philosophy and religion, but it is a spiritual truth...pretending its literal only puts your reason at odds with your faith. Faith founded apart from reason is the real foundation of sand.
The liberty we had was unique on all human history, because no society was ever founded upon the principles that actually made up our definition of liberty before. Most of those biblical in nature and shaped by Christendom and Judaism.
History teaches it is mostly bad, and God warns the same of a nation whose forbears considered themselves His People.
You go ahead and think that, but I find it hilarious that you scoff and ridicule biblical morality as being dressed up as a drag queen and in the following sentence try and tell us that our problem is failure of the people to understand the true principles of Republican Government.
I like what Benjamin Rush had to say about the principles of Republican Government:
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." - Benjamin Rush, Signer.
I don't ridicule biblical morality at all. I ridicule biblical literality.
-
Pardon my French, but that is ludicrous. There has been much flooding, but the planet has never been covered by a singular flood.
Okay, stop right there. Let me ask you something. How would anyone of that time period be able to tell you the entire planet was flooded? So far as they were concerned, the entire world was flooded, but they could only see the portion of it that they happened to be at. They just assumed the rest of it was underwater because their part of it was underwater.
There just isn't any scientific evidence to support such an extreme hypothesis.
No, of course there isn't, but there is no need to support that hypothesis. What they wrote can be adequately explained by their lack of knowledge, and one does not need to take literally the words of people who cannot know beyond their tiny speck of earth.
The myth of the flood came from early societies, like Sumeria and there are many flood myths throughout the Middle East...so no doubt there were vast and severe flooding events (The flooding of the Black Sea basin being a potential such event)...but never a world wide event.
The fact that there are flood stories from all over the world ought to be pretty good proof to a rational man that there was indeed floods in which the people believed their entire world had drowned. That they are so diverse geographically ought to be good proof that the phenomena was indeed quite widespread.
Have you read about the Scablands Megaflood?
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/megaflood-legacy.html
It is this same phenomena that is believed to have cut England off from Europe. A massive flood water that destroyed the land connection between England and Europe.
Again, it doesn't have to actually be the entire world flooded at the same time, though with Tsunamis caused by massive Ice walls collapsing, it might have flooded every place within miles of the oceans.
These people were recounting real wars and societies and cities they encountered, but to take these stories as factual accounts is not credible...it does not mean the stories cannot still convey great meaning and moral teaching, but to take them literally is to set aside reason and common sense.
They were told from the perspective of people who could not understand these events except as something of a supernatural nature.
Let me tell you of another such occasion. In the 19th century, when people were making their way west to California, Washington, and Oregon, there was a valley that the tribal peoples warned the Pioneers to stay away from. The Indians told them it was full of evil spirits, and if they went into that valley, they would die.
Many settlers ignored it as superstition and went through that valley anyways. Astonishingly, they did take sickness and many died. There did appear to be "evil spirits" in that valley, and people eventually came to avoid it.
Today there sits a scientific research center on the edge of that valley. They study a specific tick that inhabits that valley and which is highly infectious with a very nasty virus that is generally fatal to humans.
The Indians knew nothing of viruses. All they could describe were "evil spirits" that would kill you if you entered their valley.
Scientific reality, told from the perspective of a person that could only see it as a supernatural thing.
-
Ending the Crown's tyranny over the colonies was job one.
And job two by those same Founders was forming a new country with a new Constitution that was intended to preserve liberty, a Constitution that was drafted/ratified by many of the same people involved in the ratification of the Declaration.
They clearly compromised on the issue of slavery, which was a huge moral issue for many of them. They accepted the evil of continued slavery because they didn't want it to derail the formation of the new country.
-
I don't ridicule biblical morality at all. I ridicule biblical literality.
Hmmm...........Jesus, Himself, took Jonah's experience inside the big fish (not whale, btw) quite literally.
Guess you ridicule HIM too, eh??
Not a good plan, son.........
-
Well, here are two syllables - eat me. :seeya:
Now, now, I wouldn't even feed you to my dog on a bad day.
-
Whales don't swallow people, that's not their food. As for being dead....Mathew says "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish..." No, people don't survive for three days in a whale's belly.
That's the point. He didn't survive.
That's even more ludicrous. The diversity of this planet took billions of year's to achieve, it could not have been reset in just a few thousands.
According to whom? And by what proof?
Further, the land would be deeply saturated and unusable LONG after the beginning of water recession. That's a process that would take decades if not centuries.
Again, according to whom? Once the water drained off, it wouldn't be very much different than spring time. I've seen a valley, naturally dammed for more than a year spring immediately back to life once the dam was gone. It happens all the time with beaver dams.
As I said, I nearly went to seminary at one point in my life and have studied the bible as a historical text. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar...which you may be, but I am not unfamiliar.
Using seminary as some qualification is of little use. Few seminarians have the vaguest idea. Somewhat like scientists.
-
I don't ridicule biblical morality at all. I ridicule biblical literality.
Because you do not understand it.
That said, you have no basis to believe in the God of scripture at all then, in which case - God is whatever belief and construct we choose to give that which we may want to worship and follow.
Moral anarchy is just the same thing as the shifting sands of myth.
-
Okay, stop right there. Let me ask you something. How would anyone of that time period be able to tell you the entire planet was flooded? So far as they were concerned, the entire world was flooded, but they could only see the portion of it that they happened to be at. They just assumed the rest of it was underwater because their part of it was underwater.
Agreed
No, of course there isn't, but there is no need to support that hypothesis. What they wrote can be adequately explained by their lack of knowledge, and one does not need to take literally the words of people who cannot know beyond their tiny speck of earth.
Again, agreed.
The fact that there are flood stories from all over the world ought to be pretty good proof to a rational man that there was indeed floods in which the people believed their entire world had drowned. That they are so diverse geographically ought to be good proof that the phenomena was indeed quite widespread.
Spot on, again!
Have you read about the Scablands Megaflood?
Is this the massive landslides that swamped Doggerland and finally separated England from the continent...if so, I have read some about it. Fascinating stuff.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/megaflood-legacy.html
It is this same phenomena that is believed to have cut England off from Europe. A massive flood water that destroyed the land connection between England and Europe.
Again, it doesn't have to actually be the entire world flooded at the same time, though with Tsunamis caused by massive Ice walls collapsing, it might have flooded every place within miles of the oceans.
They were told from the perspective of people who could not understand these events except as something of a supernatural nature.
Let me tell you of another such occasion. In the 19th century, when people were making their way west to California, Washington, and Oregon, there was a valley that the tribal peoples warned the Pioneers to stay away from. The Indians told them it was full of evil spirits, and if they went into that valley, they would die.
Many settlers ignored it as superstition and went through that valley anyways. Astonishingly, they did take sickness and many died. There did appear to be "evil spirits" in that valley, and people eventually came to avoid it.
Today there sits a scientific research center on the edge of that valley. They study a specific tick that inhabits that valley and which is highly infectious with a very nasty virus that is generally fatal to humans.
The Indians knew nothing of viruses. All they could describe were "evil spirits" that would kill you if you entered their valley.
Scientific reality, told from the perspective of a person that could only see it as a supernatural thing.
That was well answered...I must admit I'm deeply impressed by the way you see things and the way in which you've clearly investigated these concepts and events. I've greatly enjoyed your thoughts.
-
What is inarguable is that there were significant differences among the Founders on the issue of slavery. In the end, they compromised, because they openly acknowledged that the country could not be formed if they did not.
It ended up being a bad faith compromise. The States agreed to the conditions of slavery when they needed the Southern States, and then did everything they could to undermine that agreement after the Southern states were no longer necessary to secure their independence from England.
The Southern states were fools to trust them, and the Northern States were hypocrites for agreeing to such a bargain in the first place. (Though most of the Northern States were also slave states in 1787.)
In other words, that compromise wasn't in good faith and didn't last anyway. One side ended up getting screwed over royally.
I guess that kind of argues against compromising. :)
-
By that reckoning you go ahead and continue to compromise your liberty with Statism and see where you and your posterity end up in the near future.
History already provides the answer and it's not pleasant.
At least the history of the Founders I presented was truthful. Yours wasn't.
And the "answer" that history is providing right now is that the left has beaten this country towards socialism with relentless incrementalism. One step back, two steps forward by the left is how we've lost our liberty. Your demand that our liberty be restored only in a blinding flash of holy, liberating light is so unrealistic as to amount to a unilateral surrender.
Well, unlike you and your oft-repeated hope that some mighty conflagration purifies us all, I prefer to fight back. That means scratching and clawing back at them, and reclaiming our liberty in bits and chunks if that's the only way it can be done. That's not surrendering principles -- that is actually fighting to defend them. And before someone says "that's what we've been doing, and we're losing", I'd say they're wrong. That generally isn't what we've been doing.
-
Because you do not understand it.
Well, one of us doesn't. I suppose that's the basis of our disagreement here.
That said, you have no basis to believe in the God of scripture at all then, in which case - God is whatever belief and construct we choose to give that which we may want to worship and follow.
Moral anarchy is just the same thing as the shifting sands of myth.
There is a country mile between "moral anarchy" and the kind of "arrogant certitude" you seek to impose by asserting only YOUR understanding of the bible and of the world. In between those extremes, reasonable people can see things quite differently without being either wrong or evil.
One of the most intelligent men in American history stated:
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
-Mark Twain
-
That was well answered...I must admit I'm deeply impressed by the way you see things and the way in which you've clearly investigated these concepts and events. I've greatly enjoyed your thoughts.
Well thank you, I have put a lot of thought into some of this. The plagues of Egypt are another fascinating thing from a Scientific perspective. Most of them make sense, but the one that I simply couldn't figure out for the longest time was the plague of the firstborn.
And then I read about this phenomena:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-25/news/mn-5703_1_poison-gas
Obviously a cloud of heavier than air gas emitted from underground seismic processes would follow the contours of a river because that is the lowest point in the landscape of which it is a part.
The Nile was sacred, and only the finest people were allowed to live on it or next to it. The slaves would be much further up the banks away from the river.
The wealthy and powerful would be struck down by a cloud of poison gas that flowed along the Nile's channel, because they would be the only ones living that close to the Nile.
God works in Mysterious ways, no?
:)
-
The issue of slavery, however, was understood at the time to be counter to the principles in the Declaration, and it never did sit easily with many of the Founders. Jefferson himself is a good example: he was a significant slave-holder who nevertheless spoke against slavery.
Is that "compromise" or hypocrisy? Hard to say, but the argument against abolition was economic, which is a bit hard to justify among a group of men who supposedly didn't compromise on matters of liberty. At any rate, to those who were bought and sold, slavery was certainly a form of tolerated tyranny.
One has to be careful of a certain normalcy bias = The concept of emancipation was a brand new thing in both England and the States. Something so vastly rooted in history has it's own sort of mass. It does not (cannot) be swept away in a day and an hour, once it is realized. Remember, there had never been a time without slavery prior to the West.
All I can liken it to is in myself - I am a Messianic Christian... And as much as I know my beliefs to be right, proven to be right in my own mind, it is a very hard thing for me to discount what I was raised with - What Christians have believed for so very long. It doesn't come easy, I'll tell you what... Even fully knowing, and full of conviction.
And that is but in a single mind... Extrapolate that into societal norms wrt slaves... How does an agrarian society replace that necessary manpower? It is no small thing.
-
But it was the lake itself that provided the biggest and strangest clue of all: its normally clear blue waters has turned a deep, murky red. The scientists began to wonder if there was more to the legend of the “bad lake” than anyone had realized.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-century/
-
Since almost every diverse group on the planet has a flood story, I would say there was a global flood. However, it may have not been completely singular. And if you look around I think the science is there that shows that. 1200 +_ BC was an interesting time.
The problem, problem, problem is that now we have too many people, way too many people, PLAYING GOD.
My cynicism and pesssimism towards the pollys in this country is for that reason. R or D, L or C doesn't matter, IMO, anymore.
It is the pursuit of happiness. Not a GDed stampede.
seeyaluvyabye
-
Moral anarchy is just the same thing as the shifting sands of myth.
"Ye shall not SURELY die..."
It echoes.
-
@musiclady
If Ryan is only going to take orders from Trump and not "teach" Trump he can't issue ultimatums and expect representatives of the people to bow down, then no decent bill for anything is going to pass. You see, we have representatives who "represent", and those represented make contact and tell their representatives what they want done. NO representative is going to go against the majority wishes of people in his district. I think Trump sees them as business men who have freedom to do whatever they want. They do not have such freedom and Trump doesn't know that - it would never occur to him as he makes any decision he wants at any time - that has been his life.
The other half of this is that it is up to the constituents to bombard our Representatives with our wishes, that they have a better picture of the desires of those they represent. Make no mistake, the Liberals have been community organized to the point they are doing this regularly, perhaps even claiming to be 'Republicans' (some are, for sure), and thus skewing the idea of what the people back home want.
It is up to us to ensure that stays in focus, just in case our representatives give a d@mn.
That means using the means of communication at our disposal--all of them, from snail mail to e-mail to internet sites for the home district, to phone calls, on at least a weekly, if not daily basis.
If we don't give them feedback, and plenty of it, they will be at the mercy of the Beltway media and the pressures of the GOP 'moderates'.
-
Well thank you, I have put a lot of thought into some of this. The plagues of Egypt are another fascinating thing from a Scientific perspective. Most of them make sense, but the one that I simply couldn't figure out for the longest time was the plague of the firstborn.
And then I read about this phenomena:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-25/news/mn-5703_1_poison-gas
Obviously a cloud of heavier than air gas emitted from underground seismic processes would follow the contours of a river because that is the lowest point in the landscape of which it is a part.
The Nile was sacred, and only the finest people were allowed to live on it or next to it. The slaves would be much further up the banks away from the river.
The wealthy and powerful would be struck down by a cloud of poison gas that flowed along the Nile's channel, because they would be the only ones living that close to the Nile.
God works in Mysterious ways, no?
A bit of a mad genius I would say!
:)
Certainly, many things in the bible reflect real events. Some are clearly more mythological in nature, and others are literally borrowed from neighboring cultures. It is an incredible collection of stories that together lay out the history of an early people, from their own perspective, and that alone gives it inestimable value. But it has to be seen in that context, not as some infallible story handwritten by God...inspired no doubt but loosely so...and full of the flaws of its very human authors.
And while I don't doubt that the men who wrote it strove to convey events and truth accurately, they wrote of things they had not necessarily seen personally and of things they poorly understood. Many of the facts and events are simply wrong as to date and time/location....and this holds true even into the New Testament. But that isn't anywhere near as important as many think...the importance of the bible is its spiritual message, not its literality. For me, those who strive so hard to pound the message that the bible is a literal historical account...deeply undermine the deeper message by pushing something that simply isn't credible.
The plagues and phenomenon you cite may very well be the core event around which a mythology grew about the Israelites departure from Egypt...certainly this departure was spurred by radical occurrences of a similar kind if not these exact causes. Its fascinating to consider. But the point isn't that their were literally plagues or that the Nile turned to blood or even that 1st borns were killed...it was that the commitment and faith of a people led to freedom and a relationship with god. The bible should be read for morality and ethics, IMHO, and its fascinating as a historical document...but this focus on literality needlessly chases many people away from it.
-
And that is but in a single mind... Extrapolate that into societal norms wrt slaves... How does an agrarian society replace that necessary manpower? It is no small thing.
No it isn't. It would be akin to Liberals telling us that we must cease using fossil fuels. It would be seen as an effort to shut down the core of our economic engine. I'm sure that's how many of the Slave states saw it as well.
Normalacy bias is a good term for the phenomena of judging the past by the present's mores. I often use the term "Zeitgeist" to describe the difference between modern perspectives and those of people who lived in those long ago times, but "normalacy bias" works well also.
-
Certainly, many things in the bible reflect real events. Some are clearly more mythological in nature, and others are literally borrowed from neighboring cultures. It is an incredible collection of stories that together lay out the history of an early people, from their own perspective, and that alone gives it inestimable value. But it has to be seen in that context, not as some infallible story handwritten by God...inspired no doubt but loosely so...and full of the flaws of its very human authors.
And while I don't doubt that the men who wrote it strove to convey events and truth accurately, they wrote of things they had not necessarily seen personally and of things they poorly understood.
This. If interpreted in that fashion, much of what the bible says can be understood within the realm of Scientific Reality.
Many of the facts and events are simply wrong as to date and time/location....and this holds true even into the New Testament. But that isn't anywhere near as important as many think...the importance of the bible is its spiritual message, not its literality. For me, those who strive so hard to pound the message that the bible is a literal historical account...deeply undermine the deeper message by pushing something that simply isn't credible.
And here I agree. I've had plenty of arguments with relatives over a too literal interpretation they chose to insist upon.
The plagues and phenomenon you cite may very well be the core event around which a mythology grew about the Israelites departure from Egypt...certainly this departure was spurred by radical occurrences of a similar kind if not these exact causes. Its fascinating to consider. But the point isn't that their were literally plagues or that the Nile turned to blood or even that 1st borns were killed...it was that the commitment and faith of a people led to freedom and a relationship with god.
Do not discount the effect of the right man being in the right place at the right time. Moses sold it as God demanding freedom for his people. Whatever else you can say about it, the man exploited the existing phenomena like a Maestro.
:)
-
Euhemerism
-
And the "answer" that history is providing right now is that the left has beaten this country towards socialism with relentless incrementalism. One step back, two steps forward by the left is how we've lost our liberty. Your demand that our liberty be restored only in a blinding flash of holy, liberating light is so unrealistic as to amount to a unilateral surrender.
All you are advocating is more two steps back to the Left and a hoped-for election promise that they will step right - upon which afterward, we are lectured that we are unrealistic to expect them to STOP stepping Left, or in order to take a half step Right, we must take two more Left. That is all I am reading the last few days from those who are preaching the holiness of compromise with imposed Statism as a tenet of salvation.
Well, unlike you and your oft-repeated hope that some mighty conflagration purifies us all, I prefer to fight back.
You are not fighting back. You are compromising yourself and your posterity into chains and telling yourself it is the best you can hope for; a breadcrumb at a time while you hand over more of your sustenance and liberty to politicians who promise you everything and do nothing because Statism was 'voted for' and the majority want it. Telling us we just have to accept Statism and try and get back little pieces of what was robbed from us via omnibus bills no one has the time to read before voting on them is hardly 'fighting back'. It's surrender.
That means scratching and clawing back at them, and reclaiming our liberty in bits and chunks if that's the only way it can be done.
It cannot be done that way at all. Adams spoke to that notion in a July 7, 1775 letter to Abigail.
But you go ahead and believe that indeed you can compromise principles with that which is anathema to freedom and win back liberty lost.
Good luck with that.
-
"Ye shall not SURELY die..."
It echoes.
Yes it does.
LOUDLY these days.
-
I think this is the research facility and the valley to which I was referring.
These programs were based at a newly funded state laboratory in Hamilton in the Bitterroot Valley, a facility that was soon incorporated into the US Public Health Service and is now the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/21/2/14-1276_article
Here's more.
Before 1875, the Salish or Flathead Indians lived there, eating the bitter roots of a pink spring flower as a medicine. They ground the roots in a mortar and pestle and made a medicinal porridge or tea, and named the river and the valley after the plant. The Salish showed no evidence of the illness that affected subsequent occupants of the valley. The Indians did know about it, however. Michie and Parsons reported in 1916 that an elderly Indian told them that in the spring evil spirits occupied the canyons west of the Bitterroot Valley
The blight of the Bitterroot, the mysterious Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and the significant role of Wilson and Chowning—a commentary (http://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032%2801%2970703-X/fulltext)
-
I really appreciate the insight you guys have freely given to me.
-
I really appreciate the insight you guys have freely given to me.
@Smokin Joe
Joe suggested giving more feedback .I think we should, but I think we should pull the feed back. Stop feeding the monster. It doesn't listen, it just wants more. And we keep feeding it.
The history lessons are great but no one learns from history. They just learn about it. I think that is mostly because they are too busy playing God.
If someone has some thoughts on how to stop feeding the monster I am all for that.
But it will have to wait. I need to get to bed so I can feed the monster tomorrow. ^-^
-
I've had plenty of arguments with relatives over a too literal interpretation they chose to insist upon.
Either the bible is 'God breathed' (inspired) as it claims, or it is not. If it is not, then our faith is in vain.
Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’ ? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken — then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?… John 10:34-25
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" - II Timothy 3:16
As a former Atheist - those were the two scriptures I targeted for proving the entire bible a fraud. What better way to do so by using its own words? If scripture cannot be 'broken' (contravened, set aside, set at naught) and every word "God breathed" - theopneustos, then all I had to do was prove any part of it untrue by it's own words.
I ended up proving it to be indeed, the literal, God-breathed Word of God. And either it is true - and cannot be broken, or it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind by other men.
For me, the spiritual principles in scripture alone testify to the fact that it is not from the mind of man, and therefore I take it very literally.
Especially the account of Jonah. Because if Jonah did not indeed spend three days and three nights in the belly of the fish - then the belief in Yeshua as the son of God and Messiah is bogus - for spending three days and three nights in the grave was the only sign He gave to prove His Messiahship.
-
This. If interpreted in that fashion, much of what the bible says can be understood within the realm of Scientific Reality.
How gray the world must be bereft of the recognition of the supernatural. :shrug:
-
Either the bible is 'God breathed' (inspired) as it claims, or it is not. If it is not, then our faith is in vain.
Indeed, if the Bible is not true, ALL faith is in vain... And we are not 'endowed by our Creator', and the veritable foundations of Western life and law crumble beneath us. If there is nothing more, there is nothing at all.
I ended up proving it to be indeed, the literal, God-breathed Word of God.
Yup. and it can be no other. Every single word will be proven true in the end.
-
Well thank you, I have put a lot of thought into some of this. The plagues of Egypt are another fascinating thing from a Scientific perspective. Most of them make sense, but the one that I simply couldn't figure out for the longest time was the plague of the firstborn.
And then I read about this phenomena:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-25/news/mn-5703_1_poison-gas
Obviously a cloud of heavier than air gas emitted from underground seismic processes would follow the contours of a river because that is the lowest point in the landscape of which it is a part.
The Nile was sacred, and only the finest people were allowed to live on it or next to it. The slaves would be much further up the banks away from the river.
The wealthy and powerful would be struck down by a cloud of poison gas that flowed along the Nile's channel, because they would be the only ones living that close to the Nile.
God works in Mysterious ways, no?
:)
All very nice, but it does not account why an unbreathable atmosphere would be confined to the lungs of the firstborn. Adults and younger siblings should have been equally susceptible.
-
All very nice, but it does not account why an unbreathable atmosphere would be confined to the lungs of the firstborn. Adults and younger siblings should have been equally susceptible.
It's both literal and unliteral.
It took the firstborn.
Also took the others, but many Egyptians even today have a strange relation with their kids. The firstborn male is a little king. The rest are, well, spares, until you get to the youngest, who is another mini king. It's also in the Bible, if you look. Lots of stories about the firstborn sons. Lots of stories of lastborn sons (the light of their age). Bog all about the ones in the middle - think a grand total of two are mentioned despite an entire book being solely begats.
It's not our way. It is theirs.
-
It's both literal and unliteral.
It took the firstborn.
Also took the others, but many Egyptians even today have a strange relation with their kids. The firstborn male is a little king. The rest are, well, spares, until you get to the youngest, who is another mini king. It's also in the Bible, if you look. Lots of stories about the firstborn sons. Lots of stories of lastborn sons (the light of their age). Bog all about the ones in the middle - think a grand total of two are mentioned despite an entire book being solely begats.
It's not our way. It is theirs.
Well, maybe. Traditionally, the eldest inherited the farm/business, the last to leave the nest was coddled, but the second son (and other "middle" children) were the explorers, the achievers, because to have much of a lot in life they had to.
There is even a name for it: Middle Child Syndrome, if you choose to believe.
http://middlechildpersonality.com/middle-child-syndrome/ (http://middlechildpersonality.com/middle-child-syndrome/)
The theory is that Middle Children had to compete and do outstanding things (good or bad) to get as much attention as the firstborn or the baby. In reality, without either the magnitude of inheritance or the doting the youngest supposedly got, they had to make their own lot for the future. It isn't as strictly adhered to today in a more egalitarian society (in theory), but still is present enough.
-
Your truth is what you want it to be.
It all boils down to two things. The good and the bad, black and white, male and female, God and Satan, fire and ice, Conservative and Liberal.
Call it what you will.
What you seek between the two isn't compromise.
It is balance.
-
The other half of this is that it is up to the constituents to bombard our Representatives with our wishes, that they have a better picture of the desires of those they represent. Make no mistake, the Liberals have been community organized to the point they are doing this regularly, perhaps even claiming to be 'Republicans' (some are, for sure), and thus skewing the idea of what the people back home want.
It is up to us to ensure that stays in focus, just in case our representatives give a d@mn.
That means using the means of communication at our disposal--all of them, from snail mail to e-mail to internet sites for the home district, to phone calls, on at least a weekly, if not daily basis.
If we don't give them feedback, and plenty of it, they will be at the mercy of the Beltway media and the pressures of the GOP 'moderates'.
You're exactly right, @Smokin Joe, and I'm pretty sure this is the main reason that abomination never came to a vote.
-
You're exactly right, @Smokin Joe, and I'm pretty sure this is the main reason that abomination never came to a vote.
I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!
The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus, noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".
A fragile compromise that could attract majority support was rejected [by the Freedom Caucus] in favor of sustaining Medicaid's march into insolvency. Republicans may not get a better chance for decades to modernize Medicaid in a way that helps the poor and taxpayers, and voters would be right to doubt the Freedom Caucus's evanescent fiscal bona fides.
The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.
-
@Smokin Joe
Joe suggested giving more feedback .I think we should, but I think we should pull the feed back. Stop feeding the monster. It doesn't listen, it just wants more. And we keep feeding it.
The history lessons are great but no one learns from history. They just learn about it. I think that is mostly because they are too busy playing God.
If someone has some thoughts on how to stop feeding the monster I am all for that.
But it will have to wait. I need to get to bed so I can feed the monster tomorrow. ^-^
@bigheadfred
I have one suggestion! Stop voting for the guy with the most money in primaries. There is a reason why he has the most money in most cases! Already bought and paid for.
-
I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!
The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus, noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".
The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.
Facts just don't get through to you, do they?
-
Bog all
Ahh! a quaint British colloquialism!
It took a minute for the penny to drop on that one. :)
-
It's both literal and unliteral.
It took the firstborn.
Also took the others, but many Egyptians even today have a strange relation with their kids. The firstborn male is a little king. The rest are, well, spares, until you get to the youngest, who is another mini king. It's also in the Bible, if you look. Lots of stories about the firstborn sons. Lots of stories of lastborn sons (the light of their age). Bog all about the ones in the middle - think a grand total of two are mentioned despite an entire book being solely begats.
It's not our way. It is theirs.
Actually I heard a fair theory on the firstborn thing having to do with that privileged status. Another thing the first born got was the first crack at the food... The first loaf , the best cut...
Now, if the flooding had spoiled the grain, the mold would be in the very top layer... fetching the grain, the top layer would be taken first, and thus made into the first loaf...
An interesting idea, but that doesn't explain the old man. or the father. It is true the firstborn was first among siblings, but he was not before the patriarch, or his father, who got first crack at everything
If one MUST find a mechanism (which I don't need at all), more likely it would be tied to the firstborn generally being charged with the herd. He would likely be the one to let the herd out in the morning, and take them to water and pasture.
-
I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!
The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus, noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".
The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.
You got cajones the size of King Kong @Jazzhead to be ragging the Freedom Caucus in here, I'll lighten up after I get some coffee.
-
You got cajones the size of King Kong @Jazzhead to be ragging the Freedom Caucus in here, I'll lighten up after I get some coffee.
Well, then, so does the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ's take is that the Freedom Caucus has foolishly set back the cause of conservatism and free markets, and has blown a chance to fundamentally reform Medicaid that may never come again.
Of course, to the unwashed here, even the WSJ is a bunch of wicked commies. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Well, then, so does the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ's take is that the Freedom Caucus has foolishly set back the cause of conservatism and free markets, and has blown a chance to fundamentally reform Medicaid that may never come again.
Of course, to the unwashed here, even the WSJ is a bunch of wicked commies. *****rollingeyes*****
@Jazzhead
Some people on our side likes to live in a safe space. WSJ did state the truth..
-
Well, then, so does the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ's take is that the Freedom Caucus has foolishly set back the cause of conservatism and free markets, and has blown a chance to fundamentally reform Medicaid that may never come again.
Of course, to the unwashed here, even the WSJ is a bunch of wicked commies. *****rollingeyes*****
@Jazzhead
The unwashed, huh? Yeah.
Personally I think the author of whatever you're referencing is probably a moderate to liberal Republican, and one who happens to be egregiously wrong.
Every single thinking conservative I have heard or read understands that the Freedom Caucus saved this country from a disaster of a bill. My congressman was in that number. I thanked him for it and encouraged him to keep up the good work.
-
Personally I think the author of whatever you're referencing is probably a moderate to liberal Republican, and one who happens to be egregiously wrong.
Well, if it's east of Michigan (see @Cripplecreek , that was for you) and north of the Mason-Dixon Line, you've pretty good odds you're right.
-
@Jazzhead
Some people on our side likes to live in a safe space. WSJ did state the truth..
Indeed. Safe spaces are comfortable, and allow one to be seduced by slogans and easy answers. But political coalitions to achieve fundamental conservative change are ephemeral, fragile things, which once gone may never present themselves again. That's the WSJ's take on the Freedom Caucus - their ideological blinders rendered a body blow to an historic chance for conservatives.
-
Well, if it's east of Michigan (see @Cripplecreek , that was for you) and north of the Mason-Dixon Line, you've pretty good odds you're right.
You'd better exclude part of Ohio from that grouping, my friend. ^-^
-
Indeed. Safe spaces are comfortable, and allow one to be seduced by slogans and easy answers. But political coalitions to achieve fundamental conservative change are ephemeral, fragile things, which once gone may never present themselves again. That's the WSJ's take on the Freedom Caucus - their ideological blinders rendered a body blow to an historic chance for conservatives.
You're fighting a losing battle, @Jazzhead. You're trying to change perceptions, and that's not easy to do.
The problem I see with a lot of people over toward the left of the spectrum is that they tend to see people's problems and don't much care about the practicality of going about helping them. Thus Obamacare: a heap of regulations built on the sand of economic fantasies.
And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law. It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not. Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.
There's a middle ground, of sorts, where the people and practicalities should be considered at the same time, but it's a very delicate balancing act. And yet that is where political compromise has to be found. If the Freedom Caucus cannot admit the consequences of their policies, or the "moderates" cannot accept the economic realities of their concerns, then no good changes are possible -- and we're left with the fetid mess that is Obamacare.
-
Indeed. Safe spaces are comfortable, and allow one to be seduced by slogans and easy answers. But political coalitions to achieve fundamental conservative change are ephemeral, fragile things, which once gone may never present themselves again. That's the WSJ's take on the Freedom Caucus - their ideological blinders rendered a body blow to an historic chance for conservatives.
What a steaming pile of horseshiite! 'Fundamental change'??? 'Ideological blinders'? Okay Obama.
This whole 'We need to compromise with the Statists and the Left in order to achieve 'fundamental Conservative change' is beyond laughable.
-
Well, if it's east of Michigan (see @Cripplecreek , that was for you) and north of the Mason-Dixon Line, you've pretty good odds you're right.
@roamer_1
I'm in safe territory...central Virginia, redneck country.
There are exceptions to the rule, though. Mark Levin was born in NYC, I think.
Mark R. LevinVerified account @marklevinshow 17h17 hours ago
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE FREEDOM CAUCUS - ACTUALLY, A MERE 18 CONSERVATIVES - FOR PROTECTING THE COUNTRY FROM A DISASTROUS RINOCARE BILL.
-
What a steaming pile of horseshiite! 'Fundamental change'??? 'Ideological blinders'? Okay Obama.
This whole 'We need to compromise with the Statists and the Left in order to achieve 'fundamental Conservative change' is beyond laughable.
Rational people dismiss such silly mouth-foaming, INVAR. You're not going to convince anybody if you talk like that in public, except maybe to convince them that anything you're for, they're gonna be against. Primarily because you act like a jerk.
Try to remember the manners your mother taught you, and you'll be a lot more effective.
-
And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law. It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not. Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.
That ain't a fair shake at all. NO ONE here would object to some sort of self-contained sunset within a year or two... Written into the law, and completed BEFORE the midterm election. That way, it will actually happen. Anything more than that is a crap shoot, and one with poor odds at that.
And it doesn't escape observation that liberal enactments are absolutely sudden, to include the upset this fetid law engendered. Millions of people lost their insurance, yet somehow that gets overlooked. They tipped it over in less than a year, but somehow, it can't be fixed in two. Go figger.
-
You'd better exclude part of Ohio from that grouping, my friend. ^-^
*SIGH*
@musiclady
All y'all just need to pick up and move to Jesusland... Then I can go back to the normative 'East of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon Line'... I already had to eat Chicago and Detroit...And Anne Arbor, for Pete's sake...
-
That ain't a fair shake at all. NO ONE here would object to some sort of self-contained sunset within a year or two... Written into the law, and completed BEFORE the midterm election. That way, it will actually happen. Anything more than that is a crap shoot, and one with poor odds at that.
The people talking about "repeal" don't seem to be talking about a sunset provision, so I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Nevertheless, I think my general point is sound: you see it all the time here at TBR -- enact my principles, and to heck with those leeches who are stealing my money.
The idea of a sunset provision is appealing, but as a matter of political reality that would lead to a solution that leans heavily on "replacement," rather than "repeal." I actually don't have too big a problem with that, so long as the needle moves in the right direction. But I wonder if the Freedom Caucus guys would go along with it.
And it doesn't escape observation that liberal enactments are absolutely sudden, to include the upset this fetid law engendered. Millions of people lost their insurance, yet somehow that gets overlooked. They tipped it over in less than a year, but somehow, it can;t be fixed in two. Go figger.
Absolutely. The whole mess of regulation and economic fantasy had terrible consequences.
-
Rational people dismiss such silly mouth-foaming, INVAR. You're not going to convince anybody if you talk like that in public,
I'm not interested in convincing Jazzhead of anything. That was a proven wasted effort some time back. He has demonstrated he is a Leftist/Communist with an agenda to spew here, nothing more.
I'm calling him and his ideas what they are and I frankly do not care if anyone likes it or not.
I do not play nice with tyrants or bullies.
-
I do not play nice with tyrants or bullies.
Meaning you don't play with yourself, I guess. Which is nice in a "keeping your eyesight" sort of way, but blatant hypocrisy otherwise.
I tend to avoid any interaction with you -- I rarely even read your rants -- precisely because of the way you behave. Trying to get past your attitude just isn't worth the trouble.
-
I'm in safe territory...central Virginia, redneck country.
@CatherineofAragon
But of course!
There are exceptions to the rule, though. Mark Levin was born in NYC, I think.
You'll note I gave you 'pretty good odds', allowing for the rare authentic Conservative. The exception, I think, proves the rule.
Mark R. LevinVerified account @marklevinshow 17h17 hours ago
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE FREEDOM CAUCUS - ACTUALLY, A MERE 18 CONSERVATIVES - FOR PROTECTING THE COUNTRY FROM A DISASTROUS RINOCARE BILL.
AMEN!
-
Meaning you don't play with yourself, I guess. Which is nice in a "keeping your eyesight" sort of way, but blatant hypocrisy otherwise.
I tend to avoid any interaction with you -- I rarely even read your rants -- precisely because of the way you behave. Trying to get past your attitude just isn't worth the trouble.
Ask me if I care. If you cannot get past the 'tone' to the substance of what I'm saying, then you definitely should not read anything I post.
-
Ask me if I care. If you cannot get past the 'tone' to the substance of what I'm saying, then you definitely should not read anything I post.
Whatever. I'm really not interested in the "substance" of what you're saying, because of the hip-deep crap I'd have to wade through to get there. Not worth the trouble.
If you want to be seen as anything more than a crank, a modicum of good manners would go a long way toward helping you out.
Moreover, the thinking time required to practice good manners would probably moderate some of the idiocies your bad temper makes you type.
Just a bit of advice -- which you unfortunately will ignore.
-
The people talking about "repeal" don't seem to be talking about a sunset provision, so I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Nevertheless, I think my general point is sound: you see it all the time here at TBR -- enact my principles, and to heck with those leeches who are stealing my money.
Nah. Money's just a way of keeping score. It's about liberty. Individualism. Taking care of your own. The nanny state prevents all of that, in the same way as the guy in the van offering children candy.
The idea of a sunset provision is appealing, but as a matter of political reality that would lead to a solution that leans heavily on "replacement," rather than "repeal." I actually don't have too big a problem with that, so long as the needle moves in the right direction. But I wonder if the Freedom Caucus guys would go along with it.
Such a sunset clause IS repeal. It is automatic and unstoppable. And of course the Freedom Caucus would go for it. I don't think anyone sees it overturned overnight. Shoot, It will take half a year to a year just for the insurance companies to find equilibrium, and normalize their policies.
The problem is stretching it past that to 3 years, where simply losing a house in the election might well stop or reverse it, and certainly, CERTAINLY not 5 years, which is just a way for everyone to say they did it without it did at all. A reasonable, committed disassembly is perfectly acceptable, and very possible if written into the repeal. AS LONG AS IT IS A COMPLETE REPEAL. Not a vestige left.
Keep your promises.
-
You're fighting a losing battle, @Jazzhead. You're trying to change perceptions, and that's not easy to do.
.....
No, he's trying to change the facts to fit his preconceptions.
-
If you want to be seen as anything more than a crank, a modicum of good manners would go a long way toward helping you out.
Right, because 'being nice' and placating Statists and Leftists has worked out so well in the recent past.
I don't care how I am seen by men.
I call things what they are, and I fully expect to be hated for it.
In fact, I embrace it.
-
*SIGH*
@musiclady
All y'all just need to pick up and move to Jesusland... Then I can go back to the normative 'East of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon Line'... I already had to eat Chicago and Detroit...And Anne Arbor, for Pete's sake...
@roamer_1
hehe..................... my role here is to cause trouble. :dx1:
Not moving south. I like seasons that act like seasons. Summer Fall Winter Spring
Jesus created them, and I'm enjoying them. ^-^
-
Nah. Money's just a way of keeping score. It's about liberty. Individualism. Taking care of your own. The nanny state prevents all of that, in the same way as the guy in the van offering children candy.
As I was saying.... Liberty, individualism, taking care of your own -- they all sound fine until you run up against a policy that causes somebody's mother to lose coverage. We forget that at our political peril.
Such a sunset clause IS repeal. It is automatic and unstoppable. And of course the Freedom Caucus would go for it. I don't think anyone sees it overturned overnight. Shoot, It will take half a year to a year just for the insurance companies to find equilibrium, and normalize their policies.
But again: the political realities are probably against this, because the implication is that after two years there are people who will be left with nothing. The necessary political compromise would result in some measure to prevent that from happening -- some level of replacement, rather than outright repeal -- while at the same time reducing the scope of such replacement. It would move the needle in our direction; but I still wonder if the Freedom Caucus could be persuaded to accept such a compromise. I think a compromise of that sort could become effective in a couple of years.
The problem is stretching it past that to 3 years, where simply losing a house in the election might well stop or reverse it, and certainly, CERTAINLY not 5 years, which is just a way for everyone to say they did it without it did at all. A reasonable, committed disassembly is perfectly acceptable, and very possible if written into the repeal. AS LONG AS IT IS A COMPLETE REPEAL. Not a vestige left.
Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house. We've already seen how it would be used as a specific example that the Democrats could use as they run against the general political noxiousness of the Trump administration.
-
All right, people.
It isn't the posters here. Not their perceptions. Their views, their ideas, or the manner in which they are stated.
The problem is Congress.
They annihiliated my healthcare. I don't have any insurance. And I am not going to even have the chance for some time to come.
I appreciate all of what you have to say, even though there is cringing and gnashing of teeth at times.
I am giving Congress, every one of them, the Roman thumb down. They can go to hell.
-
All right, people.
It isn't the posters here. Not their perceptions. Their views, their ideas, or the manner in which they are stated.
The problem is Congress.
They annihiliated my healthcare. I don't have any insurance. And I am not going to even have the chance for some time to come.
I appreciate all of what you have to say, even though there is cringing and gnashing of teeth at times.
I am giving Congress, every one of them, the Roman thumb down. They can go to hell.
I concur BHF. And I share your predicament.
All of the arguing is just so much noise when you've lost your insurance. It becomes personal.
-
I concur BHF. And I share your predicament.
All of the arguing is just so much noise when you've lost your insurance. It becomes personal.
@skeeter
@bigheadfred
And it's hard to dig out of a hole like that without help. The question for you guys is, what should "help" look like?
-
Ask me if I care. If you cannot get past the 'tone' to the substance of what I'm saying, then you definitely should not read anything I post.
The hypocrisy and irony is rich with this one. While preaching to you about bad manners (always seen in others, never in himself, natch).... he/she/it/whatever proceeds to insult you (passive aggressively, of course) with every post he/she/it/whatever makes. Using the olde "I don't usually read or respond to your posts, but...." BS.... and then proceeding to harangue you throughout this thread.
You must have been getting too close to the target, eh?
-
@roamer_1
Mark R. LevinVerified account @marklevinshow 17h17 hours ago
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE FREEDOM CAUCUS - ACTUALLY, A MERE 18 CONSERVATIVES - FOR PROTECTING THE COUNTRY FROM A DISASTROUS RINOCARE BILL.
It is real easy for people like Levin to govern from behind the microphone.
-
It is real easy for people like Levin to govern from behind the microphone.
Do you really think so? It's always hard to take an unpopular stand.
-
All right, people.
It isn't the posters here. Not their perceptions. Their views, their ideas, or the manner in which they are stated.
The problem is Congress.
They annihiliated my healthcare. I don't have any insurance. And I am not going to even have the chance for some time to come.
I appreciate all of what you have to say, even though there is cringing and gnashing of teeth at times.
I am giving Congress, every one of them, the Roman thumb down. They can go to hell.
This is why I get really sick of the crap that comes from the faces of "brilliant theoreticians."
-
The problem is Congress.
Not just Congress, but a people who WANT Communism/Statism and attempt to reason with us that this is a necessary political reality we must accept if we want to 'win' anytime in the future.
It fits the adage that America could survive a tyrant, but it cannot survive the millions of fools who make him their prince.
The majority WANT Communism.
The arguments happening now are about how Conservatives must compromise and capitulate to that 'reality' or face extinction.
-
Not just Congress, but a people who WANT Communism/Statism and attempt to reason with us that this is a necessary political reality we must accept if we want to 'win' anytime in the future.
It fits the adage that America could survive a tyrant, but it cannot survive the millions of fools who make him their prince.
The majority WANT Communism.
The arguments happening now are about how Conservatives must compromise and capitulate to that 'reality' or face extinction.
Ergo, that "Give me liberty or give me death" saying. It has even more meaning now, in this era and political environment, IMO.
-
The hypocrisy and irony is rich with this one. While preaching to you about bad manners (always seen in others, never in himself, natch).... he/she/it/whatever proceeds to insult you (passive aggressively, of course) with every post he/she/it/whatever makes. Using the olde "I don't usually read or respond to your posts, but...." BS.... and then proceeding to harangue you throughout this thread.
You must have been getting too close to the target, eh?
Defending Liberalism and Statism and those espousing it seems to be the prevailing motivation, though couching it in the disdain of 'my tone' even though they admitted they do not read anything I post.
Convoluted logic used to be the hallmark of Liberals, I guess the disease has spread.
-
Ergo, that "Give me liberty or give me death" saying. It has even more meaning now, in this era and political environment, IMO.
Kind of an ironic sentiment for those who resent the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance. Death may well be the direct result of your exercise of foolish liberty.
-
Kind of an ironic sentiment for those who resent the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance. Death may well be the direct result of your exercise of foolish liberty.
All Communists and Statists call liberty 'foolish'.
You keep revealing what you are and then get all bent out of shape when you are called on it.
-
Defending Liberalism and Statism and those espousing it seems to be the prevailing motivation, though couching it in the disdain of 'my tone' even though they admitted they do not read anything I post.
Convoluted logic used to be the hallmark of Liberals, I guess the disease has spread.
Convoluted logic sounds like an oxymoron to me.... since it implies no logic at all (if it has to be convoluted). And yeah, that's liberals all over.
-
@skeeter
@bigheadfred
And it's hard to dig out of a hole like that without help. The question for you guys is, what should "help" look like?
The government dug the hole I'm in. I suppose 'help' to me would look like them getting the hell out of my life. Or healthcare system, at least.
But everyone tells me thats impossible now. So I suppose I'm screwed.
-
Not moving south. I like seasons that act like seasons. Summer Fall Winter Spring
Jesus created them, and I'm enjoying them. ^-^
@musiclady
Well you could head west. Although I must admit, fall in a deciduous forest is a wonderland. The Taiga won't give you that... It's pretty here in the fall, but back east is spectacular. But I wouldn't trade the majesty of these Rocky Mountains for anything.
-
Kind of an ironic sentiment for those who resent the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance. Death may well be the direct result of your exercise of foolish liberty.
Yeah....well..... like I said to another "similar-minded" member the other day....
good thing our nation's founding and survival in the early days didn't depend upon folks that think like you do. And I can't even imagine what they (the founders) would have thought about government forcing people to purchase something even back then. It's inconceivable. Or should be.
-
The government dug the hole I'm in. I suppose 'help' to me would look like them getting the hell out of my life. Or healthcare system, at least.
But everyone tells me thats impossible now. So I suppose I'm screwed.
You are supposed to rejoice that government is there to help and cry aloud "Thank you! May we please have another!"
Because you know - Communism is political reality and we have to compromise with it.
-
As I was saying.... Liberty, individualism, taking care of your own -- they all sound fine until you run up against a policy that causes somebody's mother to lose coverage. We forget that at our political peril.
@r9etb
There are plenty right here on this board, on this very thread, that are now uninsured because of governmental interference.
THAT s what you forget at your peril.
But again: the political realities are probably against this, because the implication is that after two years there are people who will be left with nothing. The necessary political compromise would result in some measure to prevent that from happening -- some level of replacement, rather than outright repeal -- while at the same time reducing the scope of such replacement.
Not gonna happen. All that is just weasel words. They promised repeal, they had better deliver. PERIOD.
It would move the needle in our direction; but I still wonder if the Freedom Caucus could be persuaded to accept such a compromise. I think a compromise of that sort could become effective in a couple of years.
They will accept a sunset of some short duration for the sake of repeal. I don;t think you can get them to leave a single vestige in place. Conservatives mean to keep their promises. Or they will not be re-elected.
Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house.
Quite the other way around. Refusing to repeal will do so. Keep the bloody promise. Why is that so hard?
-
Kind of an ironic sentiment for those who resent the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance. Death may well be the direct result of your exercise of foolish liberty.
Newsflash: Death is the direct result of us being born.
The federal government should not force anyone to purchase anything.
The federal government was actually designed to do very little.
Sad that this truth is gone now.
-
@r9etb
There are plenty right here on this board, on this very thread, that are now uninsured because of governmental interference.
THAT s what you forget at your peril.
Not gonna happen. All that is just weasel words. They promised repeal, they had better deliver. PERIOD.
They will accept a sunset of some short duration for the sake of repeal. I don;t think you can get them to leave a single vestige in place. Conservatives mean to keep their promises. Or they will not be re-elected.
Quite the other way around. Refusing to repeal will do so. Keep the bloody promise. Why is that so hard?
Exactly! 888high58888
-
Right, because 'being nice' and placating Statists and Leftists has worked out so well in the recent past. I don't care how I am seen by men.
I call things what they are, and I fully expect to be hated for it. In fact, I embrace it.
Maybe they should change the model on the crucifix....
-
Maybe they should change the model on the crucifix....
Wow. And it's usually rabid lefties that make lame and irrelevant Jesus comparisons. :shrug:
-
The government dug the hole I'm in. I suppose 'help' to me would look like them getting the hell out of my life. Or healthcare system, at least.
But everyone tells me thats impossible now. So I suppose I'm screwed.
What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system. I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.
Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient. I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.
-
It's always hard to take an unpopular stand.
@Sanguine
I don't think that's always true. Taking an unpopular stand may make you unpopular with the majority, but it may make you wildly popular with a minority. That may make it both very easy and very lucrative. And I'm not saying that to imply base motives to those who take unpopular, but principled stands. Just pointing out that guys like Levin, Limbaugh, etc., have made a very nice living, and have a great many fans, by stating opinions that are "unpopular" to the majority. Heck, that's the whole premise off which a lot of cult leaders operate, right? They want to be persecuted, because it is part of the "us v. them" image that is the core of being in a cult.
Point is, it may be hard to take an unpopular stand. Then again, it may not be.
-
Quite the other way around. Refusing to repeal will do so. Keep the bloody promise. Why is that so hard?
It's hard to keep promises that are a lot easier said than done.
As for the rest.... It seems as if you are not ready to accept the political reality of the situation. The Freedom Caucus is barely 10% of the GOP majority. No matter how excellent their principles, for situations in which those principles are not generally held they're never going to accomplish anything unless they enter the political deal-making process. If they don't, then at best they're good only as spoilers, and at some point there won't be enough of them to even be that.
-
@r9etb
And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law. It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not. Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.
There's a middle ground, of sorts, where the people and practicalities should be considered at the same time, but it's a very delicate balancing act. And yet that is where political compromise has to be found.
I'm actually further to the right than you are on this, but you make a good point. We have to be aware of how our actions/proposals are likely to be perceived, and adopt a strategy of persuasion that will enable us to maintain a political majority to move where we want to go. The "take it or leave it, you statist freaks" approach simply does not work because people are scared of major change. You lose the next election, after which the left will continue its incremental march towards more statism. That's basically been the approach from many on the right for a long time.
To the extent some of us want a far more laissez-faire society, that kind of legal reality is not going to pop up overnight, or as the result of a single election. We have to take a step in that direction, show people that not only did the world not end, but it actually got better, and then take the next step. If we do that well, we can maintain majorities and actually make our desired reality much more likely.
The Contract for America, which was generally a success, was not a overnight reversion to a minimalist government. It consisted of reasonable steps acceptable to many people, and that were politically defensible. Newt blew it politically later by making some stupid statements, but that general course of action was exactly what we needed then, and it's what we need now.
My difference with the hard-lines isn't in the desire to get from point A to point B. The difference is in the appropriate strategy for actually getting there.
-
All very nice, but it does not account why an unbreathable atmosphere would be confined to the lungs of the firstborn. Adults and younger siblings should have been equally susceptible.
This is a problem caused by taking too literally what was said. That the firstborn of Egypt were killed can only preclude others being killed if you insist on forcing it to mean that.
Given that other's deaths may have been regarded as incidental to the deaths of those most prized in Egyptian society, it is no surprise that Egyptian interests in it would focus primarily on the greatest and most powerful members of their society.
I presume that Egypt, like many other cultures since, granted special status and privilege to the "first born" as inheritors of their land and power. It may very well be that the most prized real estate on the Nile was very nearly entirely the domain of the "first born" while second sons would have lived elsewhere.
The deaths of other, lesser people (in Egyptian eyes) would not provoke the same level of outrage as those of their primary society members. Their deaths may very well have been ignored in light of what the Egyptians regarded as the worst aspect of the tragedy.
-
How gray the world must be bereft of the recognition of the supernatural. :shrug:
There is much that is natural that is mind boggling. It is no less so because we know that it is natural.
-
What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system. I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.
Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient. I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.
I pay out of pocket. Otherwise I avoid medical care.
There is no government solution for me that won't make me a hypocrite. So futile as it may be I'll aways insist on freedom from government interference here.
-
It's both literal and unliteral.
It took the firstborn.
Also took the others, but many Egyptians even today have a strange relation with their kids. The firstborn male is a little king. The rest are, well, spares, until you get to the youngest, who is another mini king. It's also in the Bible, if you look. Lots of stories about the firstborn sons. Lots of stories of lastborn sons (the light of their age). Bog all about the ones in the middle - think a grand total of two are mentioned despite an entire book being solely begats.
It's not our way. It is theirs.
Thank you. It makes the same point I did in my previous message.
-
I pay out of pocket. Otherwise I avoid medical care.
There is no government solution for me that won't make me a hypocrite. So futile as it may be I'll aways insist on freedom from government interference here.
People with extremely high deductible also pay out of pocket, in addition to paying premiums. The effect of not having insurance in the first place, at a cost that often exceeds peoples mortgage payments.
It's OK though...the theoreticians assure me everything will shake out, once the government fixes everything. If only those darn conservatives would just get out of government's way.
-
People with extremely high deductible also pay out of pocket, in addition to paying premiums. The effect of not having insurance in the first place, at a cost that often exceeds peoples mortgage payments.
It's OK though...the theoreticians assure me everything will shake out, once the government fixes everything.
Prolly TMI, but just my property tax alone with healthcare insurance policy premium(if I were to have any) would exceed 35k per year. Sans deductible.
-
Maybe they should change the model on the crucifix....
Maybe you might want to brush up on the scriptures:
"You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved". - Matthew 10:22
-
Maybe you might want to brush up on the scriptures:
"You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved". - Matthew 10:22
This thread has had a way of shaking things out, hasn't it? **nononono*
-
It's hard to keep promises that are a lot easier said than done.
It's only the hard promises that matter. That's when it means something to keep your word.
And I dunno how it is by you, but up in here, we set store by folks who keep their word. Nothing much matters more.
As for the rest.... It seems as if you are not ready to accept the political reality of the situation.
A GIANT part of this election is that repeal. My entire immediate family, with the exception of two houses (one an educator, one a LEO, Both with government guaranteed health insurance) got raped by Obamacare, and the raping continues. It is literally driving my brother and my sister into bankruptcy. I can only imagine it is much the same elsewhere.
That is the political reality. Five out of seven house destroyed, directly by Obamacare, and barely hanging on. They are never ever going to forgive it or forget it. And that is what Republicans are buying into by leaving it in place.
The Freedom Caucus is barely 10% of the GOP majority. No matter how excellent their principles, for situations in which those principles are not generally held they're never going to accomplish anything unless they enter the political deal-making process. If they don't, then at best they're good only as spoilers, and at some point there won't be enough of them to even be that.
Then you shouldn't need them to get your way. And it shouldn't be theirs in blame if they amount to so little. But they do. And they will tell you, keep your word. That is where it will start.
-
@roamer_1
One has to be careful of a certain normalcy bias = The concept of emancipation was a brand new thing in both England and the States. Something so vastly rooted in history has it's own sort of mass. It does not (cannot) be swept away in a day and an hour, once it is realized. Remember, there had never been a time without slavery prior to the West.
All I can liken it to is in myself - I am a Messianic Christian... And as much as I know my beliefs to be right, proven to be right in my own mind, it is a very hard thing for me to discount what I was raised with - What Christians have believed for so very long. It doesn't come easy, I'll tell you what... Even fully knowing, and full of conviction.
And that is but in a single mind... Extrapolate that into societal norms wrt slaves... How does an agrarian society replace that necessary manpower? It is no small thing.
I'm not criticizing the Founders for making that compromise. I understand why they did. I'm simply pointing out that it was a compromise, made because they didn't believe it was possible politically to achieve what (some of them) knew to be morally right. And I'm making that point because some are denigrating "half-steps" here as being immoral compromises, and I'd suggest that compromising on something as morally offensive as slavery would be even worse. But they did it because they knew it was the only way to increase net liberty.
And that increase in "net" liberty is an important distinction, because there are bad compromises, and good compromises. The difference between the two is in relation to the status quo. A bad compromise is one that makes us more statist than the status quo. An example of that was Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors. Yes, it was less liberal than Al Gore's, but it was still more statist than having no such plan at all, which was the status quo when Bush took office.
A good compromise is one that makes us less statist. Welfare reform in the mid-1990's didn't eliminate welfare, but it did reduce it, and add some restrictions that didn't previously exist. Now, the no-compromise crowd could criticize that and say "that just amounts to the GOP endorsing the welfare system that remained", but the net effect was nevertheless still positive.
Obviously, in making a "good" compromise, we always want to get as much as we can. I just don't think we should reject even baby steps in our direction if the only realistic alternative is no steps at all. Now obviously, people can disagree on what is truly possible politically. But once it is clear what is possible, and what is not, we shouldn't refrain from making the best "good" deal that we can, even if it leaves something we detest still in place partially.
Because that's what the Founder did with slavery. They surrendered Congress' right to eliminate the slave trade for 20 years, which certainly was immoral standing on it's own. But they did end up eliminating the trade in 1808, which was a better result than if no country had been formed at all.
-
Maybe you might want to brush up on the scriptures:
"You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved". - Matthew 10:22
I don't need to -- that was the precise verse of which I was thinking. The difference is that Jesus was referring to belief in him as a divine being. You're applying that verse to taking political stances on a health care bill.
Being hated because you take a certain position on a health care bill is not a ticket to heaven.
-
There is much that is natural that is mind boggling. It is no less so because we know that it is natural.
But it all pales to nothing before that face of YHWH. Why stay in the shallow end of the pool?
-
It's hard to keep promises that are a lot easier said than done.
As for the rest.... It seems as if you are not ready to accept the political reality of the situation.
And there it is again.
We must all accept the reality that Communism/Statism is now permanent and we must get used to it and compromise with it if we want a share in the spoils of government largesse.
-
Being hated because you take a certain position on a health care bill is not a ticket to heaven.
Being hated because I stand for the truth - whether biblical or political.
Truth is from God, period.
It has nothing to do with getting a 'ticket' to heaven.
It has to do with standing in the gap and for the truth once delivered.
-
It's only the hard promises that matter. That's when it means something to keep your word.
And I dunno how it is by you, but up in here, we set store by folks who keep their word. Nothing much matters more.
I dunno how it is by you, but over where I am, people who say they'll do things that they pretty obviously can't do .... we end up not believing their promises after a while. "Repeal Obamacare" was one of those. It sounds good as a slogan, but the political details matter, and they were never going to support keeping that promise -- not without compromise, anyway.
A GIANT part of this election is that repeal. My entire immediate family, with the exception of two houses (one an educator, one a LEO, Both with government guaranteed health insurance) got raped by Obamacare, and the raping continues. It is literally driving my brother and my sister into bankruptcy. I can only imagine it is much the same elsewhere.
That is the political reality. Five out of seven house destroyed, directly by Obamacare, and barely hanging on. They are never ever going to forgive it or forget it. And that is what Republicans are buying into by leaving it in place.
Then you shouldn't need them to get your way. And it shouldn't be theirs in blame if they amount to so little. But they do. And they will tell you, keep your word. That is where it will start.
That's true. And a politically feasible solution would have laid the groundwork for getting rid of or replacing the aspects of Obamacare that have caused so much trouble. Hell, just relaxing the regulations on what sorts of plans could appear on the exchanges would make things easier for your family and a lot of other families like yours.
But the truth is that Obamacare also addressed (badly) some issues that are widely perceived to be actual problems. To do away with a system that purports to address those problems, without providing something that also addresses those problems, is what lost Ryan a fair number of "moderate" votes, and would lose the same votes in any similar legislation.
-
Being hated because I stand for the truth - whether biblical or political. Truth is from God, period.
I don't think God has taken a position on the AHCA. You have. Hence, my initial reference to the crucifix.
Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic in which the votes of citizens determine the direction of the country. If you actually enjoy being hated for either your opinions, or the way you choose to present them, then you are essentially enjoying losing on the issues about which you claim to care so much.
In other words, you'd rather be a martyr than actually achieve anything worthwhile. And that, I believe, is a rather ugly form of pride.
-
@Sanguine
I don't think that's always true. Taking an unpopular stand may make you unpopular with the majority, but it may make you wildly popular with a minority. That may make it both very easy and very lucrative. And I'm not saying that to imply base motives to those who take unpopular, but principled stands. Just pointing out that guys like Levin, Limbaugh, etc., have made a very nice living, and have a great many fans, by stating opinions that are "unpopular" to the majority. Heck, that's the whole premise off which a lot of cult leaders operate, right? They want to be persecuted, because it is part of the "us v. them" image that is the core of being in a cult.
Point is, it may be hard to take an unpopular stand. Then again, it may not be.
Maj. Bill, I think you're right. One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance. Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view. I stand corrected.
-
I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!
The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus, noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".
Why sure. That's a good reason to do it. (As if they manage budgets responsibly in Washington DC)
The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.
What is wrong with you?
-
Maj. Bill, I think you're right. One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance. Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view. I stand corrected.
I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1. :shrug:
-
I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1. :shrug:
Six-dimensional chess, Cyber. It's beyond us mere mortals.
-
Maj. Bill, I think you're right. One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance. Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view. I stand corrected.
I restrained myself from using this thread as an example, so your insight is appreciated.
-
I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1. :shrug:
Perhaps I can help you with that!
This was then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7aRKhgusi0&feature=youtu.be.
-
Perhaps I can help you with that!
This was then: http://youtu.be/A7aRKhgusi0
LOL. Clears one thing up...I'm afraid I was always one of the cynics who never believed what he said. Now maybe I was correct to be that way. Doesn't help my friends who got thrown out of their plans and such, though.
-
Well, then, so does the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ's take is that the Freedom Caucus has foolishly set back the cause of conservatism and free markets, and has blown a chance to fundamentally reform Medicaid that may never come again.
This concept of "free markets" has been sold to us as part of Conservative boilerplate for the last 50 years or so, but the theory that this is indeed a fundamental conservative principle has developed a lot of cracks as of late.
When companies in other nations do not have to comply with our pollution or safety standards, when they can employ slave labor or near slave labor to manufacture products for sale in our country, how is this system equitable for those companies who have to live under our rules and compete with these people who don't?
Free Markets with Free Societies might be a valid point, but Free Markets with oligarchical or tyrannical societies are just foolish.
Yes, the Wall Street Journal is more concerned with financial bottom lines than they are of any question of fundamental principles of freedom. We had the same sort of people doing business deals with the Nazis back in the 1930s.
Of course, to the unwashed here, even the WSJ is a bunch of wicked commies. *****rollingeyes*****
I would put them more in the category of "Crony Capitalists", the closest analogy of which is the German Industrialists of the 1930s.
-
@Jazzhead
Some people on our side likes to live in a safe space. WSJ did state the truth..
The "truth" huh? When does someone's opinion constitute the "Truth"? It remains to be seen if their opinion becomes "the truth" or not.
-
Six-dimensional chess, Cyber. It's beyond us mere mortals.
Fortunately we have "betters" who are more than happy to straighten us out.
-
@musiclady
Well you could head west. Although I must admit, fall in a deciduous forest is a wonderland. The Taiga won't give you that... It's pretty here in the fall, but back east is spectacular. But I wouldn't trade the majesty of these Rocky Mountains for anything.
We're going to visit the majesty of the Rockies this summer and enjoy their magnificence.
This entire country is filled with glorious beauty of all kinds (well.......... except that NW Colorado part that looks like Siberia without snow, and creates all sorts of images of roaming dinosaurs in one's mind. ^-^).
We, who live here are truly blessed, because there is no other land so remarkable and touched by God, on the whole earth.
@roamer_1
-
And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law. It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not. Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.
Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance, and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't. If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.
Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do. Roe v Wade was a sudden change. Gay marriage was a sudden change. Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.
Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.
There's a middle ground, of sorts, where the people and practicalities should be considered at the same time, but it's a very delicate balancing act. And yet that is where political compromise has to be found. If the Freedom Caucus cannot admit the consequences of their policies, or the "moderates" cannot accept the economic realities of their concerns, then no good changes are possible -- and we're left with the fetid mess that is Obamacare.
Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us. Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void. The blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it, and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.
-
Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance, and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't. If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.
Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do. Roe v Wade was a sudden change. Gay marriage was a sudden change. Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.
Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.
Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us. Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void. The blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it, and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.
It seems like sudden changes are only good if the lurch is to the left. :shrug:
-
What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system. I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.
Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient. I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.
Affordable health care should be that. Affordable. Paying more for the same service with insurance isn't the answer. Since I am neither an economist or a businessman, though I've had a lot of exposure, it seems like some type of competitiveness would help. There isn''t much of that happening now. That I can see, anyway.
Fundamental transformation is that. Fundamental transformation. Pointed in any direction and made to happen with enough impetus.
-
This is a general statement not pointed at anyone.
If you think the person depicted on the cross, or the cross matter, I think you missed the point. And I do feel sorry for you.
-
Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance, and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't. If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.
I do apply it to both sides. Obamacare was a disaster for millions of people who first lost their existing plans, and then saw the new, "better" plans cost a whole lot more. But that doesn't change the fact that "repeal" will apparently result in the loss of coverage for people who are now covered, and political realism says you've got to avoid that, whatever one's principles are.
Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do. Roe v Wade was a sudden change. Gay marriage was a sudden change. Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change. Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.
Well, the world ain't fair, where matters of left vs. right are concerned. But it's the world we live in.
Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us. Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void. The blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it, and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.
A fair assessment, but you'll notice that the case still isn't being effectively made.
I really don't understand the hurry to get the AHCA bill on the floor, when September (at the earliest) would have had the advantage of allowing more time for comments and revisions, and also for laying the groundwork as you've laid it out.
I'd suggest also that making the case for what's wrong with Obamacare would also be a good place to start for addressing the issues piecemeal, rather than all at once.
-
Such a sunset clause IS repeal. It is automatic and unstoppable. And of course the Freedom Caucus would go for it. I don't think anyone sees it overturned overnight. Shoot, It will take half a year to a year just for the insurance companies to find equilibrium, and normalize their policies.
The problem is stretching it past that to 3 years, where simply losing a house in the election might well stop or reverse it, and certainly, CERTAINLY not 5 years, which is just a way for everyone to say they did it without it did at all. A reasonable, committed disassembly is perfectly acceptable, and very possible if written into the repeal. AS LONG AS IT IS A COMPLETE REPEAL. Not a vestige left.
Keep your promises.
This. They promised to repeal it. They've voted to repeal it numerous times. Either they were lying to us through a "Legislation Drama" show they've been playing at, or they need to simply do what they've already done before.
Why was a repeal acceptable last year when Obama was going to veto it but that same repeal is suddenly now unacceptable now that Trump would be the one who would have to sign it?
-
If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.
Never gonna happen. Progressivism will only work when the issue is defined by them in black and white terms. They are never conflicted on what they should do, the losers be damned.
We are only enjoined to consider all sides when their agenda is threatened, and then only to paralyze the opposition.
-
Affordable health care should be that. Affordable. Paying more for the same service with insurance isn't the answer. Since I am neither an economist or a businessman, though I've had a lot of exposure, it seems like some type of competitiveness would help. There isn''t much of that happening now. That I can see, anyway.
Fundamental transformation is that. Fundamental transformation. Pointed in any direction and made to happen with enough impetus.
One possibility is the move of some doctors toward offering "concierge medicine," where they don't accept insurance. For routine medical care you either pay as you go, or you can buy a yearly "subscription." The rationale is twofold: first, it gives the doctors a lot more leeway in how they practice medicine, and second, it significantly reduces their operating overhead. I've known a few doctors who have gone this route, and apparently they like it.
I don't know how well it would work as a general system, and it doesn't cover things like hospitalization and catastrophic care. But in conjunction with true insurance (as opposed to the overarching cost-sharing system we have now) it is a possible approach.
-
If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.
Never gonna happen. Progressivism will only work when the issue is defined by them in black and white terms. They are never conflicted on what they should do, the losers be damned.
We are only enjoined by them to consider all sides when their agenda is threatened, and then the intent is only to paralyze and prevent action.
-
Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do. Roe v Wade was a sudden change. Gay marriage was a sudden change. Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.
Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us.
I think it's fair to note that Roe v. Wade and Gay Marriage both came through the courts, as did the Supreme Court striking down state gun control laws. The Courts aren't constrained by having to assemble political majorities in three different entities.
Obamacare arguable was a "sudden" change, but that has to be put into context. The left has been pushing for some form of national health care since the 70's, and repeatedly tried and failed. Even with control of both houses and the Presidency in the first two years of the Clinton Administration, they failed. Eventually, after nearly a half-century of trying, they managed to get ObamaCare through. But even then without the large public option for which the left has been pushing.
I don't want to wait for a half century to get rid of it, so unless those straight repeal votes appear somehow in both the House and Senate (and I don't think they will), I'll take getting rid of as much of it as we can now, even if that means leaving some of it in place.
-
As I was saying.... Liberty, individualism, taking care of your own -- they all sound fine until you run up against a policy that causes somebody's mother to lose coverage. We forget that at our political peril.
I fully believe that changes which cause significant impact to people should be done slowly enough that people can adjust their affairs to deal with the changes.
Of course Obama didn't follow this common sense policy, and so I am less inclined to follow it concerning anything that bastard did. Make his people suffer. He made ours suffer. Teach the ignorant little sh*t why he shouldn't have acted like an ignorant little sh*t.
Actually he would learn nothing, but some of his supporters might.
But again: the political realities are probably against this, because the implication is that after two years there are people who will be left with nothing. The necessary political compromise would result in some measure to prevent that from happening -- some level of replacement, rather than outright repeal -- while at the same time reducing the scope of such replacement.
And the Liberal ratchet effect never quite clicks back in the other direction.
Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house. We've already seen how it would be used as a specific example that the Democrats could use as they run against the general political noxiousness of the Trump administration.
You mean it gives the New York Controlled Liberal Democrat propaganda system an excuse to constantly attack people who voted for freedom.
I've got an idea. How about we drop a nuke hammer on that propaganda system and destroy it so they won't be able to manipulate the public? Wouldn't that actually solve some problems instead of just papering them over with concessions to the Eternal Left?
The Left has a massive Trillion dollar voice. We have blogs and websites. Let us take over or destroy the left's Trillion dollar propaganda system, and a lot of problems would simply disappear.
-
It is real easy for people like Levin to govern from behind the microphone.
It is even easier for people like George Stephanopolous to govern from behind the Studio cameras.
Which they do.
-
This is why I get really sick of the crap that comes from the faces of "brilliant theoreticians."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
-
This. They promised to repeal it. They've voted to repeal it numerous times. Either they were lying to us through a "Legislation Drama" show they've been playing at, or they need to simply do what they've already done before.
They were lying to us the whole time, it was "drama," as you put it. A cynical lie to get votes, never meaning to follow through. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. What's surprising are some of the arguments I've heard in favor of the crap sandwich that was just defeated.
-
Not just Congress, but a people who WANT Communism/Statism and attempt to reason with us that this is a necessary political reality we must accept if we want to 'win' anytime in the future.
It fits the adage that America could survive a tyrant, but it cannot survive the millions of fools who make him their prince.
The majority WANT Communism.
The arguments happening now are about how Conservatives must compromise and capitulate to that 'reality' or face extinction.
This post strikes me as being pertinent and rational. Indeed, many people love Uncle Sugar to give them free stuff.
My position on this topic is "F*** those people." They are using the power of Democracy to deny me my fundamental rights. Natural law informs me that I have no moral obligation to tolerate the tyranny of the majority.
-
@r9etb
Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house.
If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship. After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare. Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.
If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that. Unless we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved. My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out. And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.
-
They were lying to us the whole time, it was "drama," as you put it. A cynical lie to get votes, never meaning to follow through. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. What's surprising are some of the arguments I've heard in favor of the crap sandwich that was just defeated.
I'm sure some of them -- maybe even a lot of them -- actually meant it to some extent. There's a lot to like about the idea of doing something about the crap sandwich we already have.
But meaning something it isn't the same as doing it. The doing of a major political effort is messy, especially when the vote margins are slim to begin with.
-
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
I like Ben Shapiro's version: "You have to be highly educated to be that stupid."
-
@r9etb
If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship. After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare. Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.
If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that. Until we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved. My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out. And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.
You're saying it a lot better than I am. I still think major changes to Obamacare are possible, but it will take some effort to sell the changes. And I think they'll have to be done in pieces, as a matter of political necessity, and also as a show of good faith toward meeting the spirit of the campaign promise.
Of course, now that the AHCA debacle has occurred, it will be a lot harder to do that.
-
My position on this topic is "F*** those people." They are using the power of Democracy to deny me my fundamental rights. Natural law informs me that I have no moral obligation to tolerate the tyranny of the majority.
As long as one side acquiesces, there will be peace. When the other side finally says enough, the fur will fly. Its a matter of time. That being said, I'm right there with you.
-
What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system. I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.
Cause paying cash for medical services rendered is just crazy talk.
Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient. I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.
The problem with the system *IS* Insurance and Government. Remove both of them and it will cure itself.
Look at Eye surgery and Dental surgery for examples of medical care where the costs keep getting less every year. The difference? They are often elective processes not paid for by insurance.
-
@r9etb
If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship. After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare. Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.
If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that. Until we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved. My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out. And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.
And there's the quandary. We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished. The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done.
I think it was poor legislative strategy going for this item on the list first. Should have gone for the tax reform. If somebody thought this was going to be an easy get, then they should be kept well away from a leadership position in Congress.
-
Look at Eye surgery and Dental surgery for examples of medical care where the costs keep getting less every year. The difference? They are often elective processes not paid for by insurance.
Excellent point. High deductible policies to protect against catastrophic injuries, and HSA to pay for other stuff are the clear path to a more rational system. They also have the virtue of fewer claims being processed, which means less money wasted in administrative costs.
-
Excellent point. High deductible policies to protect against catastrophic injuries, and HSA to pay for other stuff are the clear path to a more rational system. They also have the virtue of fewer claims being processed, which means less money wasted in administrative costs.
Large corporations with a huge pool of employees can self-insure. It's been working for years. My company still does it, and contracts out to Aetna for networking services. The problem is, fewer and fewer people are in the pool.
-
We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished. The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done.
If you assume that a full repeal would actually pass, then you're correct.
My view is that a complete repeal won't pass, which means we either do a partial repeal, or nothing. I think if we do nothing, we'll definitely get clobbered in 2018. I don't think we'd have gotten clobbered with the AHCA because most of the "negative" effects, like converting Medicaid to block grants, would have been delayed.
But I think this is a reasonable point on which people can disagree. None of us can actually know/prove whether a complete repeal would pass or not, so reasonable people can disagree on that. And whether or not you believe it would pass basically controls what you advocate should be done right now.
-
Erica Werner
@ericawerner
Mcconnell making clear Obamacare repeal efforts dead. "We have the existing law in place and we'll just have to see how that works out."
Steve DeaceVerified account @SteveDeaceShow 49m49 minutes ago
I hate these people.
#KillTheGOP
-
@r9etb
I'm actually further to the right than you are on this, but you make a good point. We have to be aware of how our actions/proposals are likely to be perceived,
Here we go again. And what, pray tell, is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate?
If you said "The New York and Los Angeles controlled liberal Media propaganda system" then go to the head of the class.
You cannot simply ignore the elephant in the room. We have a trillion dollar propaganda system aimed at destroying policy at odds with Liberal ideas and doctrines.
Back in 1995 when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House, in pushing for a balanced budget the headlines screamed "How the Gingrich stole Christmas!"
(https://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gingrichgrinch.jpg)
This coordinated Liberal propaganda went out on every network television station and virtually all the magazines.
The perception of what Gingrich was actually trying to do was not shaped by reality, but instead was shaped by the near total control the New York Liberal Democrat propaganda system had on the electorate.
We should be trying to figure out ways to utterly F*** up the Liberal Democrat propaganda system instead of trying to figure out how we can sneak our way past the power they wield by giving them concessions.
Fight them, don't reward them. Fight them like the Barbary pirates. Don't pay them tribute.
-
And there's the quandary. We either pass it and maybe lose a House or more, or we diddle around with it and lose everything, all the while getting nothing accomplished. The crap sandwich was, in my feeble opinion, just a diddle at the edges, it wouldn't have gotten the job done.
I think it was poor legislative strategy going for this item on the list first. Should have gone for the tax reform. If somebody thought this was going to be an easy get, then they should be kept well away from a leadership position in Congress.
That's always been my biggest question: why must we pass an "it" to deal with Obamacare? IMO, one big reason it didn't work, is that they tried to do it in one big piece -- an "it", rather than trying to deal with specific aspects of Obamacare that can be fixed or eliminated.
I definitely agree with you about the timing. There was every reason to take the time to get the health care stuff right, and to ensure that it would pass both houses with comfortable margins.
-
If you assume that a full repeal would actually pass, then you're correct.
My view is that a complete repeal won't pass, which means we either do a partial repeal, or nothing. I think if we do nothing, we'll definitely get clobbered in 2018. I don't think we'd have gotten clobbered with the AHCA because most of the "negative" effects, like converting Medicaid to block grants, would have been delayed.
But I think this is a reasonable point on which people can disagree. None of us can actually know/prove whether a complete repeal would pass or not, so reasonable people can disagree on that. And whether or not you believe it would pass basically controls what you advocate should be done right now.
I agree with what you said right there. I don't think a "full repeal" where everything get cancelled tomorrow would fly, but a definite sunset date next year would. It would give the insurance markets some certainty, which is something they haven't had since Obumbler first tripped into office. With certainty, they can start their prep work to get us back to where we were.
-
This story, The Civil War is Here, has some relevance to this discussion: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256004.0.html
-
Here we go again. And what, pray tell, is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate?
All it means to me is that Republicans are too timid to advance any kind of agenda even when they're in control.
-
But it all pales to nothing before that face of YHWH. Why stay in the shallow end of the pool?
I think YHWH is natural too.
-
That's always been my biggest question: why must we pass an "it" to deal with Obamacare? IMO, one big reason it didn't work, is that they tried to do it in one big piece -- an "it", rather than trying to deal with specific aspects of Obamacare that can be fixed or eliminated.
I definitely agree with you about the timing. There was every reason to take the time to get the health care stuff right, and to ensure that it would pass both houses with comfortable margins.
I called this "slip shod work" yesterday, and got screeched at by the resident lefty over it. But it was slip shod, there was no reason to rush this piece of crap into production. Now we have Turtle over in the Senate saying "It's over, I give up" (See @CatherineofAragon's comment above). And people want to blame "conservatives" for stopping an endeavor that should never have been undertaken in the manner it was.
This bill just defeated was so bad, it was worse than no bill. We'd have gotten maybe 10% of what we wanted, and no more. That's not what Reagan was suggesting at all when he said "If you can get 80%, take it."
-
All it means to me is that Republicans are too timid to advance any kind of agenda even when they're in control.
Bingo! Do you smoke cigars? Because you just earned one! 888high58888
-
Here we go again. And what, pray tell, is the most salient factor in how Republican politicians and ideas are perceived by the electorate? If you said "The New York and Los Angeles controlled liberal Media propaganda system" then go to the head of the class. You cannot simply ignore the elephant in the room.
I never said to ignore that. I'm actually saying we need to be aware of that, and plan strategy accordingly.
We should be trying to figure out ways to utterly F*** up the Liberal Democrat propaganda system instead of trying to figure out how we can sneak our way past the power they wield by giving them concessions.
I know that you've previously advocated governmental bodies to compel some type of level playing fieldfairness with the media, and I've strongly disagreed with you on that. But regardless of who is right on that issue, the fact is that there is zero chance of getting anything like that passed anyway in time for these particular bits of legislation. So to that extent, it is a red herring. The press landscape is what it is, at least for now.
My point is simply that we need to be aware of what the political landscape is, so we can maximize our chances of actually getting to the end result we are trying to reach.
-
This story, The Civil War is Here, has some relevance to this discussion: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256004.0.html
When Buckley retired, I spent years looking for as solid a mind as his was. Daniel Greenfield is that man. Thanks for the link!!
-
Bingo! Do you smoke cigars? Because you just earned one! 888high58888
@Cyber Liberty
I don't smoke at all, but I'll take a bag of dark M&Ms instead! :laugh:
-
I don't think God has taken a position on the AHCA.
I think God takes a position with everything that misrepresents it's intentions while subjecting a people to tyranny that robs them of essential liberty, which, according to the Founders, comes from Him to begin with.
Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic in which the votes of citizens determine the direction of the country.
Ever read the story about Shaadrach, Meschak and Abednego? I don't care if 99.99% of the entire country votes for evil and programs anathema to the liberty intended for us, I will still refuse to bow down and surrender to government tyranny - even when the vast majority want it.
The fact the majority have discovered they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury does not mean I fall into lockstep with compromising with what is an evil.
In other words, you'd rather be a martyr than actually achieve anything worthwhile. And that, I believe, is a rather ugly form of pride.
You are free to believe that. I'd rather stand for what is right, even if no one else does and even if I stand alone. The whole country can go seig-heil itself to despotism and I will forever refuse to take part in working with it or compromising essential liberty to obtain an empty promise .
If you think that is pride - you can take that up with the scriptures and argue with God about it.
I refuse to compromise with evil, Communism, Statism, Socialism and tyranny because it is the only way "the wise" say we can obtain a breadcrumb of liberty back that was stolen from us by the hands of tyrants.
To me, your argument is akin to someone who advises victims who were roughed up by the mob for 'protection money', that it is noble to negotiate and compromise with the thugs to keep what they will permit us to have after they take their cut.
I do not subscribe to such serfdom.
-
I agree with what you said right there. I don't think a "full repeal" where everything get cancelled tomorrow would fly, but a definite sunset date next year would. It would give the insurance markets some certainty, which is something they haven't had since Obumbler first tripped into office. With certainty, they can start their prep work to get us back to where we were.
I generally agree with you on this; however, the "back to where we were" part is still somewhat problematic, as that includes the same underlying problems that were used to sell Obamacare in the first place.
On the political plane, I don't think it's actually necessary to fully address the problems of Obamacare, so long as the GOP can show that they're actually working on it. Dealing with the truly ugly aspects of the current system is politically a smart move, and it also creates momentum in the right direction.
-
I don't think God has taken a position on the AHCA. You have. Hence, my initial reference to the crucifix.
Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic in which the votes of citizens determine the direction of the country.
And if the votes of the citizens demand that certain of us must have our property seized from us, and perhaps we be placed into camps, then we must simply salute the tyranny of the majority?
I thought one of the characteristics of a Republic is that the foundational laws do not bow to the whim of the people?
Certain foundational premises establish the rights of the individuals to be free from public tampering.
"Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-
Bingo! Do you smoke cigars? Because you just earned one! 888high58888
Great. There go our insurance premiums, up another 50%.
-
It seems like sudden changes are only good if the lurch is to the left. :shrug:
Thank you for stating my point more eloquently.
-
Oh, I have and I will. Political idiocy needs to be called out, time and again if need be. The Freedom Caucus has damaged the cause of conservatism, and left us with ObamaCare as its dubious legacy. Simply idiots, as Rep. Poe has pointed out, in gentler language than mine.
The morons in charge made no attempt to repeal ObamaCare. That's the fact.
-
I thought one of the characteristics of a Republic is that the foundational laws do not bow to the whim of the people?
Certain foundational premises establish the rights of the individuals to be free from public tampering.
"Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The "Political reality" that we are being told that we must accept is that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' has been fundamentally changed into 'choice, welfare and the pursuit of other people's money'.
We are unreasonable to refuse surrender and compromise with tyranny that we are told the vast majority want and demand. We are told that if we will not compromise with Communism and Statism, that seats will be lost in the next election of those who refused to compromise.
I say "nuts".
-
I do apply it to both sides. Obamacare was a disaster for millions of people who first lost their existing plans, and then saw the new, "better" plans cost a whole lot more. But that doesn't change the fact that "repeal" will apparently result in the loss of coverage for people who are now covered, and political realism says you've got to avoid that, whatever one's principles are.
You mean we can't take back the freebies from the moochers? Because the New York Liberal Democrat propaganda system will make us look bad for doing it?
Math says we can't keep this freebies to moochers program going much longer. When are we going to stop it, or is the plan to just let it collapse?
Well, the world ain't fair, where matters of left vs. right are concerned. But it's the world we live in.
Well it's certainly been unfair to our side. How about we let the liberal side get their turn at "unfairness"?
A fair assessment, but you'll notice that the case still isn't being effectively made.
I really don't understand the hurry to get the AHCA bill on the floor, when September (at the earliest) would have had the advantage of allowing more time for comments and revisions, and also for laying the groundwork as you've laid it out.
I'd suggest also that making the case for what's wrong with Obamacare would also be a good place to start for addressing the issues piecemeal, rather than all at once.
My position is that Federalism does not allow the government to meddle in the Health Care system. It is not a constitutionally granted power, and it is more akin to European nannystateism than it is to anything American.
It is fundamentally at odds with a Free Society simply as a matter of principle. The Government should confine itself to defending our borders and enforcing criminal laws across state lines.
Repeal the thing. Do not replace it at all. The Government has no legitimate or moral business involving itself in healthcare.
I oppose the very principle of government control of healthcare. Again, that's Euro-weenie crap.
By seeking compromise, you are ceding the premise to the other side.
-
My position is that Federalism does not allow the government to meddle in the Health Care system. It is not a constitutionally granted power, and it is more akin to European nannystateism than it is to anything American.
It is fundamentally at odds with a Free Society simply as a matter of principle. The Government should confine itself to defending our borders and enforcing criminal laws across state lines.
Repeal the thing. Do not replace it at all. The Government has no legitimate or moral business involving itself in healthcare.
I oppose the very principle of government control of healthcare. Again, that's Euro-weenie crap.
By seeking compromise, you are ceding the premise to the other side.
And THAT ladies and gentlemen is the nuts and bolts of the entire issue in a:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/XMuZv.jpg)
-
Never gonna happen. Progressivism will only work when the issue is defined by them in black and white terms. They are never conflicted on what they should do, the losers be damned.
We are only enjoined to consider all sides when their agenda is threatened, and then only to paralyze the opposition.
And this is why I advocate fighting through a new paradigm.
Their propaganda system needs to be destroyed or conquered and the days of allowing them to define the premise of the debate need to be gone.
Their premises of the purpose of government need to be rejected and replaced with originalism.
Their ideas need to be fought at every opportunity, not accepted as the starting point for every debate.
We need to address liberals with an effective new strategy.
Something like this for example. (http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/)
-
One possibility is the move of some doctors toward offering "concierge medicine," where they don't accept insurance. For routine medical care you either pay as you go, or you can buy a yearly "subscription." The rationale is twofold: first, it gives the doctors a lot more leeway in how they practice medicine, and second, it significantly reduces their operating overhead. I've known a few doctors who have gone this route, and apparently they like it.
I don't know how well it would work as a general system, and it doesn't cover things like hospitalization and catastrophic care. But in conjunction with true insurance (as opposed to the overarching cost-sharing system we have now) it is a possible approach.
And this is the direction in which we should be going. Suggestion, not coercion.
-
By seeking compromise, you are ceding the premise to the other side.
And by rejecting it, you're ensuring that everything you say you're against with Obamacare, will persist.
Politics just isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.
-
And this is why I advocate fighting through a new paradigm.
Their propaganda system needs to be destroyed or conquered and the days of allowing them to define the premise of the debate need to be gone.
Their premises of the purpose of government need to be rejected and replaced with originalism.
Their ideas need to be fought at every opportunity, not accepted as the starting point for every debate.
We need to address liberals with an effective new strategy.
Something like this for example. (http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/07/245635-gun-rights-advocates-have-a-devastating-new-argument-against-gun-control-here-it-is/)
Unfortunately for most, when you take that position (as you should if you want Liberty), then you will be chastised for your 'tone' and lack of gentle Christian compassion which is argued to be the ONLY way to persuade tyrants to stop treading upon you and your property. We are told you should be glad to retain 10% of your property and liberty for otherwise you would lose all of it.
Apparently the 'wisdom' from our 'betters' is that Compromising with tyranny is the only way to remain free.
-
It is real easy for people like Levin to govern from behind the microphone.
@kevindavis
I don't think he's governing as much as just issuing a common-sense response.
-
I am at work, on break, so I can't talk much. I want to point out that as a worker I do have insurance as a sort. Workman's comp. Just throwing it in the mix.
-
I think it's fair to note that Roe v. Wade and Gay Marriage both came through the courts, as did the Supreme Court striking down state gun control laws.
So did Obamacare. Without that Idiot Roberts turning Traitor, that heap of Fascist garbage would have been left to die on Obama's doorstep like he and it so rightly deserved.
Obamacare *WAS* a court overreach, Same as the other stuff.
I don't want to wait for a half century to get rid of it, so unless those straight repeal votes appear somehow in both the House and Senate (and I don't think they will), I'll take getting rid of as much of it as we can now, even if that means leaving some of it in place.
The longer something is tolerated as a principle, the more ingrained it becomes in the system. Our side was utter fools for trying to palliate that monstrosity. They should have insisted it go into effect immediately, and they should have worked to make it's effects as horrible as possible.
The public needed to be bitchslapped hard by this thing to wake them up to the fact they had elected a f***ing moron who did not have their best interests at heart.
But what did we do? We tried to shovel sugar into the poison instead of letting people suffer immediately over it's consequences.
That was dumb politics.
-
Politics just isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.
It's not "politics".
It's tyranny.
Plain and simple. Nothing complicated about it.
-
I don't think God has taken a position on the AHCA. You have. Hence, my initial reference to the crucifix.
Like it or not, we live in a democratic republic in which the votes of citizens determine the direction of the country. If you actually enjoy being hated for either your opinions, or the way you choose to present them, then you are essentially enjoying losing on the issues about which you claim to care so much.
In other words, you'd rather be a martyr than actually achieve anything worthwhile. And that, I believe, is a rather ugly form of pride.
Not really..... since "most" Americans did NOT want ObamaCare to be the "law of the land". So much for bowing to the will of the people.
-
So did Obamacare. Without that Idiot Roberts turning Traitor, that heap of Fascist garbage would have been left to die on Obama's doorstep like he and it so rightly deserved.
Traitor? He was simply doing his job as a judge. Are you demanding that judges act as political animals?
The "Fascist garbage" you refer to was the individual mandate. That mandate (as well as the employer mandate) would have been eliminated by the AHCA. The survival of that "fascist garbage" is the direct result of the obstruction of the Freedom Caucus. So give Justice Roberts a break.
-
Well it's certainly been unfair to our side. How about we let the liberal side get their turn at "unfairness"?
Republicans now hold all branches of government. All we need to do to prevail is be unified. The failure to fix the ACA is our own damn fault. We can't handle the responsibilities of governance; we're happier being aggrieved back-benchers.
-
Traitor? He was simply doing his job as a judge
By declaring a penalty to be a "tax" and rewriting legislation?
Separation of powers much?
I didn't think so.
Republicans now hold all branches of government. All we need to do to prevail is be unified.
Unifying in order to promote Statism, Communism, Liberalism and tyranny is not an option.
-
Republicans now hold all branches of government. All we need to do to prevail is be unified.
Couldn't agree more. So, who exactly has to bend their beliefs to unify? I'm assuming it won't be you.
-
By declaring a penalty to be a "tax" and rewriting legislation?
Separation of powers much?
I didn't think so.
Unifying in order to promote Statism, Communism, Liberalism and tyranny is not an option.
Not for me it isn't! That's for sure!
-
The reason I bring up workman's comp. Businesses that offer insurance pay that, too. My employer pays it. How can it or can't it be expanded or modified to include small business overall coverage with addendums for family?
Maybe it is another dumb idea.
-
@EC
So, who exactly has to bend their beliefs to unify?
That's a great question that kind of cuts to the core of the whole thing.
The side that should bend the most is the side that has the most to lose if no deal is struck - the side least willing to live with the status quo. That's a basic rule of bargaining.
-
They were lying to us the whole time, it was "drama," as you put it. A cynical lie to get votes, never meaning to follow through. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. What's surprising are some of the arguments I've heard in favor of the crap sandwich that was just defeated.
Yup.
-
@r9etb
If we're not willing to make major changes because we may lose some control afterwards, we may as well give up the ship. After all, the Democrats did lose the House after ObamaCare passed, but the result was that they actually got ObamaCare. Had they been afraid of the reaction, they wouldn't have gotten it all.
If we get through a bunch of major reforms on different legislation, and lose the House as a result, I'm fine with that. Unless we lose the House, Senate, and Presidency, we'll be able to protect what we achieved. My concern is that the prospect of getting clobbered will mean that complete repeal will not pass in the first place, and we'll waste so much time trying to force votes on it that the clock will run out. And then we'll lose the House without actually having accomplished a damn thing.
Thank you. Quite a rational perspective on it in my opinion.
-
Not really..... since "most" Americans did NOT want ObamaCare to be the "law of the land".
How do you know that most Americans didn't want ObamaCare to be the law of the land? Public opinion polls?
So much for bowing to the will of the people.
I didn't say "the will of the people". I said their votes. We don't run the country by results of public opinion polls, or by something as ephemeral and difficult to quantify as "the will of the people." We're a representative republic, and we determine the direction of the country through elections. And the fact is that the Dems won the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. And when we wanted to change course, we had to convince people to vote for someone different. And if the people running for office don't care if they are hated, they probably aren't going to last.
-
I like Ben Shapiro's version: "You have to be highly educated to be that stupid."
Or George Orwell. “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
-
As long as one side acquiesces, there will be peace. When the other side finally says enough, the fur will fly. Its a matter of time. That being said, I'm right there with you.
If only the congress were as well.
-
Excellent point. High deductible policies to protect against catastrophic injuries, and HSA to pay for other stuff are the clear path to a more rational system. They also have the virtue of fewer claims being processed, which means less money wasted in administrative costs.
But to paraphrase professor Glenn Reynolds, "this leaves Washington insufficient opportunities for graft."
But yes, this is a more rational approach than letting the government run it as well as they do the VA.
-
Erica Werner
@ericawerner
Mcconnell making clear Obamacare repeal efforts dead. "We have the existing law in place and we'll just have to see how that works out."
Steve DeaceVerified account @SteveDeaceShow 49m49 minutes ago
I hate these people.
#KillTheGOP
Me too.
-
All it means to me is that Republicans are too timid to advance any kind of agenda even when they're in control.
I used to think it was timidity. Now I think they are playing the role of the Washington Generals to the Democrat's Harlem Globetrotters.
-
I used to think it was timidity. Now I think they are playing the role of the Washington Generals to the Democrat's Harlem Globetrotters.
888high58888 Right there with you on that!
-
Couldn't agree more. So, who exactly has to bend their beliefs to unify? I'm assuming it won't be you.
Moderates and conservatives both have to bend. And the AHCA represented just such a compromise. There was PLENTY in the AHCA for conservatives. But in the end, the Freedom Caucus refused to respect party leadership, and the game was lost.
-
I used to think it was timidity. Now I think they are playing the role of the Washington Generals to the Democrat's Harlem Globetrotters.
It has nothing to do with timidity. It has to do with unity. The Dems are unified, we are not.
-
It has nothing to do with timidity. It has to do with unity. The Dems are unified, we are not.
And, the dems are wrong, so what's your point?
-
I never said to ignore that. I'm actually saying we need to be aware of that, and plan strategy accordingly.
The strategy which I believe we should accordingly plan is the decapitation of that beast, not to work out some kind of an "eat me last" compromise.
I know that you've previously advocated governmental bodies to compel some type of level playing fieldfairness with the media, and I've strongly disagreed with you on that.
It appears to be the only part of what you think I said that you remember. I suggested a range of things, one of which was an elected board of governors to oversee hiring in the media. You interpreted this as "government control" which I disagree that it is.
I argued that the government already controls the media, meaning the Washington Establishment system keeps a government friendly media in power.
But regardless of who is right on that issue, the fact is that there is zero chance of getting anything like that passed anyway in time for these particular bits of legislation. So to that extent, it is a red herring. The press landscape is what it is, at least for now.
And my point is that rather than ignoring "the man behind that curtain" , we ought to be directing live fire at the controllers of the voice of OZ.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RwOehFvsy8A/WHOzhuBls1I/AAAAAAACA1g/Bzz8UnPo-2MuB9g8r_j2RJ8HWtGYwRjtACLcB/s320/PayNoAttnManBehindCurtainToto.gif)
Trump had the right idea. Destroy the existing prestitutes and expose them as frauds at every opportunity.
My point is simply that we need to be aware of what the political landscape is, so we can maximize our chances of actually getting to the end result we are trying to reach.
Doing what we say we will do will pay us dividends in the long run. Maybe not in the next election, but certainly at some point.
-
And, the dems are wrong, so what's your point?
His point is for us to be unified with the Democrats and their agenda.
-
His point is for us to be unified with the Democrats and their agenda.
Yeah, that's been the point (or slight variations thereof) the boy's been making since he first signed up. "Unify around me and all will be Jake, otherwise you all are a bunch of knuckle-draggers." *****rollingeyes*****
-
And by rejecting it, you're ensuring that everything you say you're against with Obamacare, will persist.
I hear it will collapse under it's own weight and has nearly done so already. Why would it persist but for the lack of Gonads among the Republicans who refuse to rid us of it's remnants?
The enforcement mechanism has already been destroyed by Trump. The rest of this is merely a fight over principle.
Politics just isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.
I've had some experience at politics. My methods worked pretty well I think. Certainly the enemy lost. BADLY. Worst loss in my state ever.
I've got a letter from the FEC in my desk drawer telling me I was a bad little boy. :)
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256034.msg1274819/topicseen.html#msg1274819
Talks restarting.
-
Traitor? He was simply doing his job as a judge.
I absolutely disagree. There is no support in the law for Obamacare. Roberts had to do a sleigh of hand just to make up a ridiculous argument to act as a fig leaf for his betrayal.
He called it a "tax" when in fact, congress explicitly said it was not a tax, because if it were a tax, it would have had to originate in the House, per constitutional requirements.
No, Robert's was not doing his job as a Judge. He was acting as an Obama boot lick for some reason.
Are you demanding that judges act as political animals?
When one side is absolutely correct, and when going along with the correct side is indistinguishable from acting as a "political animal" then I say go for it.
The Liberal judges vote en bloc, so I don't see "political animal" as being very different from what the Supreme Court already is.
The "Fascist garbage" you refer to was the individual mandate.
No, it's the whole thing and all of it's pieces. As a matter of principle, the government has no business being involved in healthcare (beyond regulating safety and criminal behavior) at all.
That mandate (as well as the employer mandate) would have been eliminated by the AHCA. The survival of that "fascist garbage" is the direct result of the obstruction of the Freedom Caucus. So give Justice Roberts a break.
No, it's the direct consequence of that lying snake bastard ignoring actual law, and allowing that abomination to survive a court challenge. It's the direct consequence of the New York Liberal Democrat controlled propaganda system pushing into power an affirmative action imbecile.
The New York Liberal Democrat propaganda system is where the consequences of this folly need to be addressed.
-
Republicans now hold all branches of government. All we need to do to prevail is be unified. The failure to fix the ACA is our own damn fault. We can't handle the responsibilities of governance; we're happier being aggrieved back-benchers.
We were unified in the preceding years when our Republican majorities voted to repeal the piece of sh*t.
The Position of the Freedom Caucus did not change from last year to this. The fault for a lack of unification lies at the feet of those moderates who did change their position on Obamacare being repealed.
Blame them. Don't blame the people who haven't moved.
-
I absolutely disagree. There is no support in the law for Obamacare. Roberts had to do a sleigh of hand just to make up a ridiculous argument to act as a fig leaf for his betrayal.
He called it a "tax" when in fact, congress explicitly said it was not a tax, because if it were a tax, it would have had to originate in the House, per constitutional requirements.
No, Robert's was not doing his job as a Judge. He was acting as an Obama boot lick for some reason.
No, it's the whole thing and all of it's pieces. As a matter of principle, the government has no business being involved in healthcare (beyond regulating safety and criminal behavior) at all.
Perfectly and excellently stated.
But it will be ridiculed, ignored, discounted and attacked by our resident Leftist and self-identifying Conservatives who somehow see compromising with tyranny to be some kind of noble virtue.
-
@EC
That's a great question that kind of cuts to the core of the whole thing.
The side that should bend the most is the side that has the most to lose if no deal is struck - the side least willing to live with the status quo. That's a basic rule of bargaining.
I think the side which is most in the wrong should yield. That's a basic rule of morality.
(https://themusicschool.wikispaces.com/file/view/hat_on_pole.jpg/94697242/413x318/hat_on_pole.jpg)
-
Yeah, that's been the point (or slight variations thereof) the boy's been making since he first signed up. "Unify around me and all will be Jake, otherwise you all are a bunch of knuckle-draggers." *****rollingeyes*****
Yes, I find it laughable when his commentary towards Conservatives who slam everything Leftist is greeted with epithets of one kind and/or another during his defense of Communism and Statism.
-
It has nothing to do with timidity. It has to do with unity. The Dems are unified, we are not.
Half our side *IS* unified... with the Democrats and the Washington Establishment.
-
This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity. So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.
If they don't find a way to cooperate...on the things most of us want...you know what happens? Absolutely nothing.
Some here are OK with glorious failure...or "nothing", as long as they can mentally march their egos into righteous heaven like Martyrs from Quo Vadis proclaiming what great holy soldiers they are...armored in their own pride and wielding the sword of their own moral prejudice. Its a very grand form of political suicide that seems to send a saintly thrill down the legs of moral narcissists throughout the party.
The rest of us would like to actually pass real legislation that turns this nation back towards the right...to the greatest extent possible. So you can imagine how frustrated we are to be thwarted by the inflated egos who prefer the purity of glorious suicide to an incremental but consistent turn to the Right.
-
No bill is better than a bad bill. Start with that and build, it'll be golden. No more crap sandwiches.
-
This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity. So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.
If they don't find a way to cooperate...on the things most of us want...you know what happens? Absolutely nothing.
Some here are OK with glorious failure...or "nothing", as long as they can mentally march their egos into righteous heaven like Martyrs from Quo Vadis proclaiming what great holy soldiers they are...armored in their own pride and wielding the sword of their own moral prejudice. Its a very grand form of political suicide that seems to send a saintly thrill down the legs of moral narcissists throughout the party.
The rest of us would like to actually pass real legislation that turns this nation back towards the right...to the greatest extent possible. So you can imagine how frustrated we are to be thwarted by the inflated egos who prefer the purity of glorious suicide to an incremental but consistent turn to the Right.
That's because we don't believe in unicorns or "an incremental but consistent turn to the Right."
-
That's because we don't believe in unicorns or "an incremental but consistent turn to the Right."
No, indeed, you apparently believe in actually achieving...nothing.
-
Half our side *IS* unified... with the Democrats and the Washington Establishment.
I don't think that is true. They are all unified. D and R is only a matter of convenience. It is clear they are unified against me. I don't think I want to be a martyr. I will leave that up to them.
-
No, indeed, you apparently believe in actually achieving...nothing.
So you'd rather compromise your principles and surrender your integrity for the sake of saying that you achieved something regardless of how crappy it really is. Gottcha. Yep ... you'd be just as well off passing unicorn farts!
-
This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity. So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.
If they don't find a way to cooperate...on the things most of us want...you know what happens? Absolutely nothing.
Some here are OK with glorious failure...or "nothing", as long as they can mentally march their egos into righteous heaven like Martyrs from Quo Vadis proclaiming what great holy soldiers they are...armored in their own pride and wielding the sword of their own moral prejudice. Its a very grand form of political suicide that seems to send a saintly thrill down the legs of moral narcissists throughout the party.
The rest of us would like to actually pass real legislation that turns this nation back towards the right...to the greatest extent possible. So you can imagine how frustrated we are to be thwarted by the inflated egos who prefer the purity of glorious suicide to an incremental but consistent turn to the Right.
Allow me to simplify - GET LOST.
You go ahead and compromise with tyranny and Communism. Do it on your own, because we have no intention of joining you in getting along by negotiating with and compromising with despotism and tyranny.
-
No, indeed, you apparently believe in actually achieving...nothing.
How times change, eh?
Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.
-
So you'd rather compromise your principles ....
What principles?
All he cares about is the empty perception of 'winning' and achieving Socialism while insisting that it is not so bad when run by his party and his political messiah.
-
I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!
This fight isn't over, unless the Liberal wing of the GOP is ready to roll over for the Democrats--and then it still isn't over. You sure are defeatist, trying to infect the rest of the Republicans with your "we tried and the world is going to end" stuff.
In the words of one of my favorite seafarers, "We have not yet begun to fight!" The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus, noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".
I'm sure WaPo and the NYT had more things you'd agree with, maybe even CNN and MSNBC, too. They can all #sand.
The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.
Not for Conservativism, it won't. If we lose, more like the 300, if we prevail, more like the Alamo. We aren't going to win every battle--Washington didn't win until Trenton--but we're going to prevail in the end.
-
So you'd rather compromise your principles and surrender your integrity for the sake of saying that you achieved something regardless of how crappy it really is. Gottcha. Yep ... you'd be just as well off passing unicorn farts!
Oh the drama.
Again, put simply. No compromise, and nothing happens. Is this what you want?
If you are so rigid, so certain that only you are 100% in the right that you can't move an iota from your position to gain consensus with fellow Republicans....that's not principle, its arrogance and foolishness. Most intelligent and wise human beings can compromise with their colleagues WITHOUT compromising their principles and integrity....because they don't let the certitude of their own righteousness obliviate their reasoning faculty.
-
How times change, eh?
Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.
I've never been against dealmaking. No legislative achievement of any kind can be achieved in its absence.
-
What principles?
All he cares about is the empty perception of 'winning' and achieving Socialism while insisting that it is not so bad when run by his party and his political messiah.
I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days. The first principle I hold is the assumption that while god may be perfect, I am not....meaning I don't get to speak for god nor pretend that my understanding of his will is exclusively right and that those who disagree are expansively wrong. Only an arrogant...and ignorant...fool would do otherwise.
Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.
-
Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy.
Exactly what I would expect someone like you to say.
So, the person whose political positions against abortion or Homosexuality is directed by their understanding of the scriptures is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy?
I do not think you know what spirit you speak from.
-
I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days. The first principle I hold is the assumption that while god may be perfect, I am not....meaning I don't get to speak for god nor pretend that my understanding of his will is exclusively right and that those who disagree are expansively wrong. Only an arrogant...and ignorant...fool would do otherwise.
Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So what do you call that thing that is the bases of human rights which is the very foundation of our "political positions"?
-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So what do you call that thing that is the bases of human rights which is the very foundation of our "political positions"?
That foundational phrase referring to the Creator...which notably refers to a theistic deity rather than a specifically Christian one, is a reflection of Enlightenment thought declaring all men to be innately of equal value...it's an abrogation of earlier Christian/conservative thought that asserted the innate superiority of the nobility and of royalty. A refutation, if you will, of the pre-enlightenment thought about the "divine right" of kings and nobles to rule over the common man.
So, the quote you cite precisely counters your own assertion that specific political positions such as your view on Health Care, come from god. On the contrary, this phrase makes clear that the measuring stick is now that of reason rather than religious fervor....it is making clear that asserting "divine" privilege for one's views is supplanted entirely...and that all men now must operate on a field that has been leveled by the Creator...who now leaves each men to support or fail his own ideals/concepts through the power of his own intellectual ability.
Why you would cite the specific phrase that most undermines your general assertion...is fascinating.
-
Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.
These are the sins of pride and hubris.
-
Again, put simply. No compromise, and nothing happens. Is this what you want?
@Mesaclone
If what happens SUCKS, then YES. If the government is trying to push its way in where it has no business going, if it's trying to force on me a lousy piece of legislation that would be practically as harmful as the one forced on me by the previous Democrat, then YES.
-
These are the sins of pride and hubris.
"I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being"
@Jazzhead
@Mesaclone
-
"I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being"
@Jazzhead
@Mesaclone
Be fair, CofA - you omitted this important qualifier in Mesaclone's post:
I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days.
Mesaclone's responding to INVAR's self-righteousness and hubris. INVAR basically thinks he's God's Baghdad Bob.
-
Be fair, CofA - you omitted this important qualifier in Mesaclone's post:
Mesaclone's responding to INVAR's self-righteousness and hubris. INVAR basically thinks he's God's Baghdad Bob.
@Jazzhead
I've seen quite a bit of virtue signaling around here, tbh.
-
@CatherineofAragon
If the government is trying to push its way in where it has no business going....
The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed. If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA. But we're not.
-
@CatherineofAragon
The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed. If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA. But we're not.
The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.
-
@CatherineofAragon
The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed. If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA. But we're not.
@Maj. Bill Martin
No, it isn't 2010. It's post-election 2017, after Trump and almost every Republican out there swore for years they would repeal it. They need to live up to that. I won't give them a pass for lying.
-
These are the sins of pride and hubris.
That's hilarious coming from you. Given your Apologetics for homosexuality and abortion alone, you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what sin even is in accordance with scripture.
But from your perspective, I am sinning against Liberal Statism and daring to be arrogant against your intellectual superiority.
-
The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.
My issue with the tactics, not the goal. My concern is if there is no deal at all. That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018, and the Democrats getting to "fix" it by making it even more socialistic. I would hope that if necessary, the FC would compromise for something less than full repeal rather than have that nightmare scenario.
I want to get enacted into law the most conservative, least-intrusive deal we can. I do not think that's a full repeal, but I'd be happy if it was.
-
My issue with the tactics, not the goal. My concern is if there is no deal at all. That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018, and the Democrats getting to "fix" it by making it even more socialistic. I would hope that if necessary, the FC would compromise for something less than full repeal rather than have that nightmare scenario.
I want to get enacted into law the most conservative, least-intrusive deal we can. I do not think that's a full repeal, but I'd be happy if it was.
I can agree with that. Reading up and down this now-long thread, that seems to be everybody's deal: It's not the goals, it's the tactics. Well, everybody except for one troll. :whistle:
-
The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.
If you want to talk about "correct solutions," it's useful to consider how they might be achieved. A solution that you just talk about is useless; it's got to be put in place.
Which brings up the main problem with the FC: it's at most 30 people. However wonderful their stated goals, they're only about 7% of the House. Any solution they may propose is going to require them to convince about 190 other representatives just to get a bare majority in the House, and the Senate is a separate matter.
If they want to be effective in any way, they're going to have to adjust their strategy.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
I won't give them a pass for lying.
Who is "them"?
You can't hold every Republican to promise made by some of them. Some of them were open about wanting to preserve parts of Obamacare.
But here's the bottom line -- would you rather they pass nothing than anything less than a full repeal?
-
My issue with the tactics, not the goal. My concern is if there is no deal at all. That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018
If they do not repeal ObamaCare "Root and branch" as they promised, the same or worse political price is going to be paid in 2018.
None of this 'half measures' crap, because the purpose of Obamacare is to collapse the entire system and pave the way for Single Payer. Period. It is a wrecking ball. That is it's purpose on top of taking over 1/7 of the economy and creating the largest entitlement ever created.
If they just pass small 'fixes' and create ObamaCare Lite, the collapse of the insurance industry happens anyway and the Uniparty at Mordor on the Potomac pushes for Single Payer.
-
If they do not repeal ObamaCare "Root and branch" as they promised, the same or worse political price is going to be paid in 2018.
Well, I'm sure you won't vote them. But a whole lot of other people would be willing to accept something less than complete repeal, especially if the alternative is to do nothing. And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed. That's why they won't vote for it.
The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.
-
How times change, eh?
Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.
@skeeter
But it's different this time /s
-
If you want to talk about "correct solutions," it's useful to consider how they might be achieved. A solution that you just talk about is useless; it's got to be put in place.
Which brings up the main problem with the FC: it's at most 30 people. However wonderful their stated goals, they're only about 7% of the House. Any solution they may propose is going to require them to convince about 190 other representatives just to get a bare majority in the House, and the Senate is a separate matter.
If they want to be effective in any way, they're going to have to adjust their strategy.
I wouldn't be too hung up on the relative size of the FC. For the purposes of discussion, I'll concede they're 7% (I didn't bother plugging the numbers into my calculator, because I'm busy). In Colonial times, only 3% of Americans wanted Independence from England, and it was enough to do the job.
-
I wouldn't be too hung up on the relative size of the FC. For the purposes of discussion, I'll concede they're 7% (I didn't bother plugging the numbers into my calculator, because I'm busy). In Colonial times, only 3% of Americans wanted Independence from England, and it was enough to do the job.
I'm reasonably sure that you understand the difference between gunfire and the political processes of a democratic republic.
-
I'm reasonably sure that you understand the difference between gunfire and the political processes of a democratic republic.
Of course. Does not negate my point.
-
And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed. That's why they won't vote for it.
The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.
It's always the moderates who suffer when the party leadership tries to force extremism. There sure as heck aren't many blue-dog Dems left. And the only GOP representatives in vast sections of the country are more moderate than conservative, and survive by triangulating themselves with respect to the partisan ideologues in both parties.
-
Of course. Does not negate my point.
Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.
If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.
-
Well, I'm sure you won't vote them. But a whole lot of other people would be willing to accept something less than complete repeal, especially if the alternative is to do nothing. And the reality for some of those GOP moderates -- whose votes are absolutely essential if legislation is to pass -- is that a "root and branch" repeal without preservation of some popular elements of Obamacare will lead to them getting crushed. That's why they won't vote for it.
The political calculus is not the same for the moderates as it is for the conservatives because their constituencies are different.
It is amazing that in America, we are busy arguing over how much Socialism and Communism we have to accept and vote for because it's what we are told everyone wants.
As Adams famously stated, there isn't a democratic Republic yet that hasn't committed suicide.
Here we are watching our country slit its own throat, and pretending it's not really that bad.
-
Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.
If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.
What on earth are you asking? If 3% could accomplish something in the 1770's, then surely 3% could do something now.
-
Given what the 3% did back in the 1770s, unless you're suggesting that the FC lead a New Revolutionary War, it's not clear what your point would be.
If the idea is for the FC to work within established political processes, then they've got to be willing to bend a bit.
If you don't get my point, nothing I say will get through so what's the point in trying any more?
The FC was, simply speaking, asked to bend too much for their tolerance. Try again, and don't blame them if they tell you to go pound sand again because you're willing to tolerate more infringement upon your freedom than their constituents.
If they're number is so tiny, you should have no difficulty running roughshod over them anyway, right?
-
What on earth are you asking? If 3% could accomplish something in the 1770's, then surely 3% could do something now.
The 3% started a war. Is that what CL is suggesting the FC do? I doubt it.
-
If you don't get my point, nothing I say will get through so what's the point in trying any more?
Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.
The FC was, simply speaking, asked to bend too much for their tolerance. Try again, and don't blame them if they tell you to go pound sand again because you're willing to tolerate more infringement upon your freedom than their constituents.
Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it. If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.
Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate. There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.
-
Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.
Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it. If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.
Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate. There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.
Then I'll repeat my question: If the FC is so tiny, you should have no trouble running roughshod right on over them. Therefore, this conversation is dumb. See you next fight.
-
Unless you're suggesting that the FC behave like the supposed 3% of 1776, then the point in question is comparing apples to oranges -- wars to legislation.
Principle is all very nice, if all you want to do is talk about it. If you're part of a tiny minority that wants to put its principles in action, then unless you plan to win a revolution you're going to have to work within the political system.
Bottom line: if the FC is going to get anything done, they're going to have to work within the system, with the other elected representatives who make up the remainder of the House and Senate. There just aren't very many people in the FC: their strategy is going to have to rely on deal-making and persuasion.
:amen:
-
Then I'll repeat my question: If the FC is so tiny, you should have no trouble running roughshod right on over them. Therefore, this conversation is dumb. See you next fight.
I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this. The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers.
-
I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this. The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers.
I never said I was "worked up" over anything. Are you projecting or something? Like I said, run over them, Mr. Huge Majority on Your Side. :shrug:
-
Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.
Compromising with tyranny is surrender.
-
One of the really big problems is people have been sold on the idea that health care is really expensive and full coverage insurance is a must.
IMO, neither of those things are true.
There are too many vampires and too many zombies in this country to bring about anything in the way of any reform.
PS: I am one of the 3%.
-
Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.
Compromising with tyranny is surrender.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/45/f3/3e45f31066eb7e372cc5bd4aeceb0fa4.jpg)
-
Always and forever it is the Principled Conservatives who are demanded to 'compromise', give up, surrender, capitulate and go along with that which is anathema to liberty if they want to have any influence on that which is going to be rejected for the continued imposition of tyranny anyway.
Compromising with tyranny is surrender.
You do realize that this country was founded on a compromise correct?
-
One of the really big problems is people have been sold on the idea that health care is really expensive and full coverage insurance is a must.
IMO, neither of those things are true.
There are too many vampires and too many zombies in this country to bring about anything in the way of any reform.
PS: I am one of the 3%.
You should know, my dear friend. Feeling OK these days?
-
I honestly don't understand why you're so worked up about this. The reality is that the FC is going to have to change their approach if they want to be effective as anything other than swing-vote spoilers.
I respectfully disagree with your conception of reality here @r9etb , you are saying the FC needs to abandon or soften on their 'principles' in order to accomplish anything in the House and I think that is what got is in this mess, to begin with - people throwing their morals and principles out the window to the breeze.
-
I want to ADD, this thread is one of the reasons this place is so Great, such a diverse group of people with respectful opinions, from G_d and Spirituality to the evil's of the FC on one dam thread. thanks to the owner and the light handed mods for keeping the peace and sanity.
-
You do realize that this country was founded on a compromise correct?
Wrong.
The Founders did not compromise by surrendering the liberty they knew the Crown intended to subjugate with tyranny. They went to war to secure liberty, not appease tyrants and compromise. Especially when it was clear that olive branch petitions only emboldened the Crown to impose greater measures of despotism.
And what we are talking about is tyranny. ObamaCare and government control of health care is tyranny having been imposed on us via corrupt and unlawful means. We give into that, then we have traded essential liberty for tyranny and made what was done to impose tyranny - a legal precedent.
Now if you want to compromise your liberty with tyranny, and call it freedom and democracy, be our guest.
We reject the premise.
-
I respectfully disagree with your conception of reality here @r9etb , you are saying the FC needs to abandon or soften on their 'principles' in order to accomplish anything in the House and I think that is what got is in this mess, to begin with - people throwing their morals and principles out the window to the breeze.
I'm not saying that they need to soften their principles. On the other hand, if they simply stand on their soap-boxes and demand to be given their way and only their way ... what do you suppose they'll actually achieve? Nothing, that's what. They'll become a joke, and deservedly so.
The hard reality -- which some on this thread simply refuse to acknowledge -- is that the FC are a small bloc of politicians who are part of a system that's made up of other people, most of whom, even within their own party, do not agree with everything they stand for.
The FC is highly unlikely to get everything it wants. The best it can do, is work to make incremental changes that move things in the direction of their principles. It requires deals, and persuasion, and most importantly, it requires them to enter fully into the political fray. They can't rely on others to do their work for them.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/45/f3/3e45f31066eb7e372cc5bd4aeceb0fa4.jpg)
(http://i1.wp.com/olivetjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Gal5.1_9.Leaven.png?resize=300%2C273)
-
Wrong.
The Founders did not compromise by surrendering the liberty they knew the Crown intended to subjugate with tyranny. They went to war to secure liberty, not appease tyrants and compromise. Especially when it was clear that olive branch petitions only emboldened the Crown to impose greater measures of despotism.
And what we are talking about is tyranny. ObamaCare and government control of health care is tyranny having been imposed on us via corrupt and unlawful means. We give into that, then we have traded essential liberty for tyranny and made what was done to impose tyranny - a legal precedent.
Now if you want to compromise your liberty with tyranny, and call it freedom and democracy, be our guest.
We reject the premise.
Wrong:
http://classroom.synonym.com/list-describe-three-famous-compromises-constitutional-convention-17742.html
-
Wrong:
http://classroom.synonym.com/list-describe-three-famous-compromises-constitutional-convention-17742.html
Kevin my friend you DO know don't you that the U.S.A. existed prior to the Constitution and that what you call the Constitutional convention was in fact a rump convention that went FAR beyond the bounds of it's charter?
-
Kevin my friend you DO know don't you that the U.S.A. existed prior to the Constitution and that what you call the Constitutional convention was in fact a rump convention that went FAR beyond the bounds of it's charter?
Oh, FFS.... don't tell me you're gonna go all anti-Federalist on us now.
-
ObamaCare and government control of health care is tyranny having been imposed on us via corrupt and unlawful means.
Whatever you may think of the merits of ObamaCare, it is a product of the Constitutional process for the enactment of laws by our democratically-elected representatives.
Your railing against "tyranny" is really just railing against your fellow citizens who view the obligations of government differently than you do. You demand a special dispensation to exist outside the community. I say stop whining.
-
I'm not saying that they need to soften their principles. On the other hand, if they simply stand on their soap-boxes and demand to be given their way and only their way ... what do you suppose they'll actually achieve? Nothing, that's what. They'll become a joke, and deservedly so.
The hard reality -- which some on this thread simply refuse to acknowledge -- is that the FC are a small bloc of politicians who are part of a system that's made up of other people, most of whom, even within their own party, do not agree with everything they stand for.
The FC is highly unlikely to get everything it wants. The best it can do, is work to make incremental changes that move things in the direction of their principles. It requires deals, and persuasion, and most importantly, it requires them to enter fully into the political fray. They can't rely on others to do their work for them.
Your entire argument is based on the premise that the FC must compromise with Statists for the vain hope of an incremental rollback of tyranny, instead of demanding that Statists compromise with them and the tenets of liberty.
Sure fire method of making yourselves slaves to tyrants.
-
Whatever you may think of the merits of ObamaCare, it is a product of the Constitutional process for the enactment of laws by our democratically-elected representatives.
No. That's a bold-faced lie. Passed in the middle of the night without a single representative having read the bill and made "legal" by a supreme court judge who rewrote the legislation for them.
It's tyranny, plain and simple, I do not care how you wish to dress it up. It's tyranny and I will continue to call it that. Ad nauseum, because that is what it is.
Your railing against tyranny is really just railing against your fellow citizens who view the obligations of government differently than you do.
Exactly. Sic Semper Tyrannis
And their supporters.
-
Your entire argument is based on the premise that the FC must compromise with Statists for the vain hope of an incremental rollback of tyranny, instead of demanding that Statists compromise with them and the tenets of liberty.
Sure fire method of making yourselves slaves to tyrants.
*****rollingeyes*****
So what's your suggestion? How do you recommend that the FC, or people like them, become politically effective?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
So what's your suggestion? How do you recommend that the FC, or people like them, become politically effective?
They should stand fast, even if they lose. The principles they claim they stand for are worth suffering and dying for.
If everyone else wants Communism and tyranny - they shall have it. Nothing the FC is going to be able to do to stop it. But there is no reason that those who claim Liberty and Conservative principles should compromise with tyrants to advance liberty, because all that does is leaven their principles in Statism and makes tyranny permanent.
Stand for what is right, even if you stand alone.
Laugh at that if you think it foolish. But there is a Greater Judge than a mob of people who have made government their god.
-
Laugh at that if you think it foolish. But there is a Greater Judge than a mob of people who have made government their god.
Martyrdom is idiotic. But it suits you just fine.
-
They should stand fast, even if they lose. The principles they claim they stand for are worth suffering and dying for.
If everyone else wants Communism and tyranny - they shall have it. Nothing the FC is going to be able to do to stop it. But there is no reason that those who claim Liberty and Conservative principles should compromise with tyrants to advance liberty, because all that does is leaven their principles in Statism and makes tyranny permanent.
Stand for what is right, even if you stand alone.
Laugh at that if you think it foolish. But there is a Greater Judge than a mob of people who have made government their god.
:thud:
-
Martyrdom is idiotic. But it suits you just fine.
I can hear you telling the Adams', Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and the rest of the Continental Congress that very same thing were this 1776.
You are always a perfect example of the wisdom of men.
-
You are always a perfect example of the wisdom of men.
Honest question: if you're such an all-or-nothing, win-or-die sort, and reality says you won't win, why do you even keep posting?
-
Honest question: if you're such an all-or-nothing, win-or-die sort, and reality says you won't win, why do you even keep posting?
We win in the end.
But, for the current age, what I post Serves as a witness.
No one is going to have any excuse to deny the fact that the truth was present and rejected.
-
We win in the end.
But, for the current age, what I post Serves as a witness.
No one is going to have any excuse to deny the fact that the truth was present and rejected.
Except that you come across as a self-righteous nutcase. That gives folks an easy excuse to reject the "truth" you've "presented".
-
I can hear you telling the Adams', Jefferson, Franklin, Washington and the rest of the Continental Congress that very same thing were this 1776.
Wouldn't that be the working description of the word, "Tory?"
-
One possibility is the move of some doctors toward offering "concierge medicine," where they don't accept insurance. For routine medical care you either pay as you go, or you can buy a yearly "subscription." The rationale is twofold: first, it gives the doctors a lot more leeway in how they practice medicine, and second, it significantly reduces their operating overhead. I've known a few doctors who have gone this route, and apparently they like it.
I don't know how well it would work as a general system, and it doesn't cover things like hospitalization and catastrophic care. But in conjunction with true insurance (as opposed to the overarching cost-sharing system we have now) it is a possible approach.
Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.
A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.
The regulations, many of which are well-intentioned, are in the way. They keep the costs extremely high'
I won't go to the doc to get stitched up. That'd be well over a couple hundred dollars.
But the Cheyenne will do it for a bottle of jack, and probably do a better job - He was battlefield trained, and doesn't miss a stitch. My DIL is a very competent nurse, and could easily di it for free. But don't let the nanny state catch you, or they'd be in biiiig trouble for practicing medicine.
-
I don't want to wait for a half century to get rid of it, so unless those straight repeal votes appear somehow in both the House and Senate (and I don't think they will), I'll take getting rid of as much of it as we can now, even if that means leaving some of it in place.
Leave any of it in place and it will just come back.
-
Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.
A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.
The regulations, many of which are well-intentioned, are in the way. They keep the costs extremely high'
I won't go to the doc to get stitched up. That'd be well over a couple hundred dollars.
But the Cheyenne will do it for a bottle of jack, and probably do a better job - He was battlefield trained, and doesn't miss a stitch. My DIL is a very competent nurse, and could easily di it for free. But don't let the nanny state catch you, or they'd be in biiiig trouble for practicing medicine.
Reasonable and workable suggestions: nurse practitioners already do a lot of that sort of thing at my Dr's office.
As for letting the Cheyenne do it.... Sheriff Longmire, is that you?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
So what's your suggestion? How do you recommend that the FC, or people like them, become politically effective?
THEY JUST WERE.
-
Except that you come across as a self-righteous nutcase. That gives folks an easy excuse to reject the "truth" you've "presented".
I do not care how I come across to people like you who are pushing an agenda anathema to everything I believe in.
I'm not interested in being applauded by men, or people like you.
I state the truth, and I refuse to massage it to make it easier to swallow by snowflakes who hate the truth for their own versions of it anyway.
-
Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.
A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.
My wife concurs. She is an RN with a whole lot of letters after her name.
-
Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.
A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.
The regulations, many of which are well-intentioned, are in the way. They keep the costs extremely high'
I won't go to the doc to get stitched up. That'd be well over a couple hundred dollars.
But the Cheyenne will do it for a bottle of jack, and probably do a better job - He was battlefield trained, and doesn't miss a stitch. My DIL is a very competent nurse, and could easily di it for free. But don't let the nanny state catch you, or they'd be in biiiig trouble for practicing medicine.
My wife and daughter are both life long healthcare professionals and agree with that 100%. We have discussed it many times in fact! The ONLY thing standing in the way are lawyers and the courts!
-
Reasonable and workable suggestions: nurse practitioners already do a lot of that sort of thing at my Dr's office.
As was yours - but the point in either case lays the fault at regulation for the high cost of health care - Without the high cost, insurance is not necessary, and without the need for high cost insurance to cover the high cost of doctors, Uncle Nanny doesn;t need to take over 1/7th of the national economy (which can inevitably only drive the cost still higher, or lower the quality... take your pick)
This is a perfect example of the value of deregulation and free market solutions, well within Conservative principles. And it will work. Obama care, currently becoming TrumpCare, will not.
As for letting the Cheyenne do it.... Sheriff Longmire, is that you?
Heh. Different Cheyenne. my real general prac is a Cheyenne medic from Nam, well versed in taking things out and putting things back on... And is equally informed in native meds, essential oils, tinctures and teas, which I find to be infinitely more useful than western medicines. His now ex wife is a midwife, and handles female problems and such. A very good team, who keep the hillbillies well... The hillbilies, who don't qualify for big gubmint insurance, don't have insurance, and can't afford doctors, and wouldn't go to them if they could.
Which brings another point: Why should I have to pay for a healthcare system that I would be loathe to use? I get far better results from native med, chiropractors, and Vietnamese acupuncturists - ALL of which are not covered by TrumpyCare.
-
My wife and daughter are both life long healthcare professionals and agree with that 100%. We have discussed it many times in fact! The ONLY thing standing in the way are lawyers and the courts!
@Bigun
@INVAR
That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.
When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.
We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.
Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.
-
@Bigun
@INVAR
That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.
When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.
We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.
Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.
:amen: My friend! :amen: I don't think it can be said any better than that!
-
@Bigun
@INVAR
That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.
When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.
We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.
Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.
That runs contrary to what a certain other poster keeps saying, that we need government to level the playing field. And stuff. Oh, and he keeps calling hisself a "conservative Republican."
-
This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity. So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.
Sure. But conservatives make up the vast majority of their constituency, so instead of letting the tail wag the dog, they should do what the bulk of their constituency want, not the little rump caucus of moderates and libertarians trying to split the difference with Democrats.
-
That runs contrary to what a certain other poster keeps saying, that we need government to level the playing field. And stuff. Oh, and he keeps calling hisself a "conservative Republican."
But it illustrates why the other poster is stone-dead wrong. Ray Charles could see the sense in it.
Let nurses practice medicine.
Let churches make money with hospitals and handle charity (which they do far better than business).
Bring alternative medicines into the light - many times they work BETTER.
All three of these , right off the top of my head, would have a tremendous effect in lowering health costs, and all three are stifled only by regulation.
-
Sure. But conservatives make up the vast majority of their constituency, so instead of letting the tail wag the dog, they should do what the bulk of their constituency want, not the little rump caucus of moderates and libertarians trying to split the difference with Democrats.
How about sticking to the platform?
How about fulfilling their promises?
If anyone should be getting an ass-chewing it should be thos so-called moderates who are the ones obstructing what the party purports to stand for.
-
Whatever you may think of the merits of ObamaCare, it is a product of the Constitutional process for the enactment of laws by our democratically-elected representatives.
No it isn't. It is an exact perversion of that process. If you think this was normal and proper law making, you simply weren't paying attention. It was like a Frankenstein monster made up of dead flesh patched together and called a person.
-
Close. I'll do you one better. Allow nurses more latitude and independence.
90% of health care can just as easily be handled by a nurse - You don't need a doctor to splint your finger, stitch you up, or treat common sicknesses - All easily within a nurse's training and capability.
A nurse in a minivan doing house calls can be excellent medical service - more than adequate... And it would be a pittance by comparison, the nurse would make more money, and the patients would not be getting sick from each other getting jammed together in waiting rooms.
The regulations, many of which are well-intentioned, are in the way. They keep the costs extremely high'
I won't go to the doc to get stitched up. That'd be well over a couple hundred dollars.
But the Cheyenne will do it for a bottle of jack, and probably do a better job - He was battlefield trained, and doesn't miss a stitch. My DIL is a very competent nurse, and could easily di it for free. But don't let the nanny state catch you, or they'd be in biiiig trouble for practicing medicine.
The system has a supply bottleneck because it suits the interests of certain groups of people who make more money because there is a supply bottleneck.
Allow nurses to go further in their practice, expand what Physician's assistants can do, and make getting a medical license easier and cheaper for people.
I would become a doctor if it wasn't so damned expensive and restricted. So would many others I would wager.
-
Leave any of it in place and it will just come back.
It will grow like a cancer from any cells left behind.
-
@Bigun
@INVAR
That is where the rubber hits the road - the rest of this is all kabuki theater - slight of hand - The point is *not* the high cost of insurance. The point is the high cost of healthcare.
When the cost of something is way too high, the only, ONLY reason why is because market forces are not able to moderate the cost. That is invariably a bubble caused by monopoly, governmental interference, or governmental regulation.
We don't need more government and regulation. We need LESS. LESSENING the regulation will allow market forces to intervene and the price will come down.
Simply allowing nurses to practice medicine is a perfect example.
Thank you. This is exactly correct.
-
How about sticking to the platform?
How about fulfilling their promises?
If anyone should be getting an ass-chewing it should be thos so-called moderates who are the ones obstructing what the party purports to stand for.
Yes. The wrong people are being called out for this debacle. It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now, not the people who have consistently said the same thing.
-
No it isn't. It is an exact perversion of that process. If you think this was normal and proper law making, you simply weren't paying attention. It was like a Frankenstein monster made up of dead flesh patched together and called a person.
It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process. But the times have changed; bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.
But the ACA was Constitutional, and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes.
-
Yes. The wrong people are being called out for this debacle. It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now, not the people who have consistently said the same thing.
Yep, let's toss out all the Republicans. That'll advance the cause of conservatism. *****rollingeyes*****
Backbenchers have the luxury of not having to take responsibility. That luxury's gone now that we are in power. To just "get rid" of the ACA without regard for the human consequences (let alone the political consequences) is I-N-S-A-N-E.
Sometimes I think that conservatives are like disturbed teenagers who cut their legs and arms just so they can watch themselves bleed.
-
@Mesaclone
Right, the Freedom Caucus...those guys who actually were fighting to keep seven years' worth of promises.
And the two dozen or so moderates who jumped ship to side with them. Don't forget them, now.
There was nothing good about that mess Trump and Ryan tried to push off on the American people. But you go right ahead and side with the Democrats.
:amen:
Well said! I'm getting so tired of conservatives being told they must forget their principals and promises to the voters in order to satisfy those with little or no principals and who's loyalty is only to govt. The freedom caucus did the right thing.
-
It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process. But the times have changed; bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.
But the ACA was Constitutional, and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes.
No, the ACA was NOT constitutional. Still isn't.
-
It was unusual, perhaps unprecedented, lawmaking because Republicans were frozen out of the process. But the times have changed; bi-partisanship is apparently dead as we hurtle, metaphorically speaking, toward a second civil war.
But the ACA was Constitutional, and the Republicans, now that they are in power, have the Constitutional ability to get rid of some or all of it if they can cobble together the votes.
It was not constitutional, despite that made up bullsh*t from Roberts. All tax legislation must originate in the House. Roberts declared it a "tax" and ignored the part about it not originating in the house.
The congress swore up and down that it was not a "tax", but instead it was a "fine" or "penalty."
Everybody is lying, including Judge Roberts.
-
Yes. The wrong people are being called out for this debacle. It ought to be the ones that have changed their positions from last year to now, not the people who have consistently said the same thing.
This isn't about "ought to be's" or "should be's", its about what is possible in terms of votes. The Reagan method of getting the most conservative legislation you can get. Do you actually think the FC is going to be able to put forward a piece of legislation that has ANY chance of becoming law...without making some compromises with moderates and other conservatives?
I would love to see full repeal of Obamacare...flat out with no strings...followed by very minimal federal involvement in our overall Healthcare system. When I'm king, that's what will happen. Since none of us here are likely to become king anytime soon, the only path forward is for all the groups within the GOP to find a compromise bill that has sufficient voting support to pass. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around waiting for the Dems turn to pass even MORE leftwing legislation when they return to power...which is, at some point, inevitable.
-
It was not constitutional, despite that made up bullsh*t from Roberts. All tax legislation must originate in the House. Roberts declared it a "tax" and ignored the part about it not originating in the house.
The congress swore up and down that it was not a "tax", but instead it was a "fine" or "penalty."
Everybody is lying, including Judge Roberts.
While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional. That's because the very definition of constitutional is determined by the Supreme Court itself...as intended in that very same constitution. Just another reason why Gorsuch must be confirmed and why we must hold the White House and Senate through the next Supreme Court appointment.
-
Yep, let's toss out all the Republicans. That'll advance the cause of conservatism. *****rollingeyes*****
Backbenchers have the luxury of not having to take responsibility. That luxury's gone now that we are in power. To just "get rid" of the ACA without regard for the human consequences (let alone the political consequences) is I-N-S-A-N-E.
Not forcing it to go into effect immediately was what was I-N-S-A-N-E. Those F***ing moderates kept watering it down to make it tolerable instead of letting that piece of sh*t explode on a helpless population which would than have been filled with a need for vengeance on those bastard Congressman and that Bastard Odumbo for doing it to them.
Obama would have *LOST* in 2012 if his legislation had been quickly applied as written. Those F***ing moderates saved Obama and hurt *US*.
Even President Grant said "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."
Sometimes I think that conservatives are like disturbed teenagers who cut their legs and arms just so they can watch themselves bleed.
Sometimes I think those people out there who think they know politics need to shut up and let those of us who *DO* know politics take it from here.
The Republicans should not have watered down the horrors of Obamacare. They should have forced it onto the public as quickly and onerously as possible. It would have saved us four F***ing years of Obama, and it may have saved many millions of lives as a result.
When Iran Nukes someone, It will be the Moderate Republicans who indirectly caused that bloodshed.
-
This isn't about "ought to be's" or "should be's", its about what is possible in terms of votes. The Reagan method of getting the most conservative legislation you can get. Do you actually think the FC is going to be able to put forward a piece of legislation that has ANY chance of becoming law...without making some compromises with moderates and other conservatives?
I bring this point up often. Are you familiar with the NRA? Are you familiar with the methodology they have used that has been so highly successful for them?
Do they compromise? No, they make a bloody example of people who cross them. *THAT* is how it is done.
Well that is exactly what I propose we do. Cut off some F***ing heads once in awhile "pour encourager les autres."
I would love to see full repeal of Obamacare...flat out with no strings...followed by very minimal federal involvement in our overall Healthcare system. When I'm king, that's what will happen. Since none of us here are likely to become king anytime soon, the only path forward is for all the groups within the GOP to find a compromise bill that has sufficient voting support to pass. Otherwise, we're all just sitting around waiting for the Dems turn to pass even MORE leftwing legislation when they return to power...which is, at some point, inevitable.
As Reagan said of the Democrat's submitted budget. "The Democrats have a great budget if you only plan to live for the next few years."
I have long been an advocate of the long game. You seem to be playing for just the next two elections.
Our position should be this: Tell them to repeal it all. (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255897.0.html) *AFTER* that is done, we can discuss what if anything we want the Federal Government to do in the area of "replacing" it.
-
While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional. That's because the very definition of constitutional is determined by the Supreme Court itself...as intended in that very same constitution. Just another reason why Gorsuch must be confirmed and why we must hold the White House and Senate through the next Supreme Court appointment.
As Lincoln said: "Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."
How about we get Gorsuch confirmed, submit a new lawsuit charging it is unconstitutional because the "tax" that Traitor Roberts dreamed up, wasn't originated in the house per constitutional law?
Then the cowards in congress can have their cover while the Court forces it to disappear.
Oh, and as a bonus, we'll correct the inaccurate claim that the law was constitutional.
-
While I agree it was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, Obamacare is beyond doubt now constitutional.
It is as Constitutional as Dredd Scott.
-
It is as Constitutional as Dredd Scott.
Now there I have to disagree. According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.
-
Now there I have to disagree. According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.
Is it still Constitutional, and therefore immovable and permanent and unable to be done away with as our resident Leftist would like us to believe ObamaCare is?
-
Now there I have to disagree. According to the US Constitution at the time, Dredd Scott was correctly decided.
According to the US Constitution at the time (as interpreted by SCOTUS), Obamacare was as correctly decided as Dred Scott.
-
Is it still Constitutional, and therefore immovable and permanent and unable to be done away with as our resident Leftist would like us to believe ObamaCare is?
Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th amendment.
-
According to the US Constitution at the time (as interpreted by SCOTUS), Obamacare was as correctly decided as Dred Scott.
This is an accurate statement, but since we can all read, we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.
-
This is an accurate statement, but since we can all read, we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.
The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade. 40 years of unrestricted murder. You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.
-
The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade. 40 years of unrestricted murder. You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.
Thanks. Exactly why I mentioned Dredd Scott.
Just because some nitwits in black robes declare tyranny to be Constitutional - or 535 moron Statists decide to impose tyranny "legally" does not negate our duty to resist it by every means possible.
-
Thanks. Exactly why I mentioned Dredd Scott.
Just because some nitwits in black robes declare tyranny to be Constitutional - or 535 moron Statists decide to impose tyranny "legally" does not negate our duty to resist it by every means possible.
I haven't scrolled back to see, but did Jazz defend Dred Scott?
To be consistent, he should.
-
The system has a supply bottleneck because it suits the interests of certain groups of people who make more money because there is a supply bottleneck.
Allow nurses to go further in their practice, expand what Physician's assistants can do, and make getting a medical license easier and cheaper for people.
I would become a doctor if it wasn't so damned expensive and restricted. So would many others I would wager.
Yep! It was recognized a LONG time ago!
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Frederick Bastiat
-
Hey @Cyber Liberty. I'm doing so much better. So much better in fact I can stand to be in the same room with other people for a pace. Even if they are vampires or zombies. You remember "Three Days of the Condor"?
Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
The government cultures fear. Breeding it in the halls of Congress, the courtrooms. Where ever they can. And whether people, even people on this board, think they aren't afraid of something, I would say they are lying to themselves.
I see a ton of debate going on here. Some good. Some reminds me of two imams arguing about when you can drink from a well after a dog pissed in it.
People are afraid of losing their insurance. Why? I don't have any and I am not afraid.
Take obamacare out back, tie it to a fence, and blow it to bits. Same with medicare/medicaid.
Then see how many people really become interested in who the responsible parties are. How they are going to fix it. When...
-
I haven't scrolled back to see, but did Jazz defend Dred Scott?
To be consistent, he should.
He keeps throwing out that ObamaCare was Constitutional (same as Abortion as a Right and Homosexual marriage) - and I'm making the comparison that just because black robed tyrants decide to make despotism "Constitutional" does not make it any less tyrannical, nor as untouchable as he tries to insist his sacraments are.
-
I do not care how I come across to people like you who are pushing an agenda anathema to everything I believe in.
I'm not interested in being applauded by men, or people like you.
I state the truth, and I refuse to massage it to make it easier to swallow by snowflakes who hate the truth for their own versions of it anyway.
@INVAR
Preach it! This 3%er couldn't agree more. As for JH et al, may their chains set lightly upon them and may posterity forget they were our countrymen.
-
Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th amendment.
Just as Roe was overturned by the Tenth Amendment as well as Article III. . . . . oh wait.
If the Constitution is already being ignored, then future amendments will be ignored as well.
-
This is an accurate statement, but since we can all read, we know that Obamacare is not constitutional despite what the Kooks on the Court claimed.
The Court did not rule Obamacare itself 'Constitutional'. They simply ruled that Congress did have the right to tax, and that Obamacare is a tax. As for the constitutionality of that tax, they did not rule since that tax had not yet taken effect. If it is brought up again, I am confident that Roberts would strike it down. Yet it won't be brought up again because Republicans actually support it.
-
If the Constitution is already being ignored, then future amendments will be ignored as well.
Makes the point that we are a post-Constitutional ... whatever. We suffer under a rogue government no longer constrained by the Constitution or the Rule of Law.
Which, renders anything coming out of this government in the last 10 years (or longer) illegitimate.
The only authority this government now has over us, is the guns their agents will put to our heads for refusing to comply and the wealth and property they will seize.
We used to call that tyranny.
Today we have grown accustomed to it, because evils are sufferable - even after a long train of abuses and usurpations that evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.
Despotism we lie to ourselves does not exist here, because hey man, I can still buy beer and porn.
Now we are being told we must compromise with Despotism in order to hope for a small step back towards liberty - because the majority want Despotism, sold to them as fairness, equality and bribed via provision and welfare handouts stolen from producers in ever-increasing amounts.
-
But from your perspective, I am sinning against Liberal Statism and daring to be arrogant against your intellectual superiority.
Whoa...Them's biggies. How many 'salami, salami, baloneys' are you going to have to say to atone for such egregious sins against the Statismists? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptv3NUjBXyw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptv3NUjBXyw)
-
Whoa...Them's biggies. How many 'salami, salami, baloneys' are you going to have to say to atone for such egregious sins against the Statismists?
I imagine I will be required to say 10 Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen's, and 5 Social Justice mantras or serve 5 weeks in a re-edcuation camp to acquire penance for my egregious sins against the state.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3e/45/f3/3e45f31066eb7e372cc5bd4aeceb0fa4.jpg)
@INVAR You guys have nailed it. I want my water free of harmful bacteria and parasites, (about the way I want government to be), compromise isn't on the table in either case.
At least I can boil my water, can't do that with Congress. :shrug:
-
The jazz one says that if the SCOTUS says it's so, then it's so. Because Roe V Wade. 40 years of unrestricted murder. You gotcher ipsos, you gotcher factos, you gotcher QEDs.
I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned. But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.
Now let the record show that I didn't raise the issue of abortion on this thread!
I agree with the arguments of the pro-life movement in all respects except one - the demand that the liberty of American women be denied. And that's that noxious demand that poisons the rest of the nation against pro-lifers.
Could Roe v. Wade be theoretically be overturned as Dredd Scott was? Yes - but it'll never happen. The choice has existed for too long and the principles of stare decisis will prevent any responsible conservative jurist from trashing the rights of millions. The notion that underpinned Dredd Scott - that slaves were the property of their masters - led to a civil war. What responsible conservative jurist would unleash a second civil war by declaring that the state can force women to be incubators?
Again - the way forward is persuasion, not coercion.
-
I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned. But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.
She has the right to decide whether to reproduce, just as I have the right to decide to own a gun. Yep. But that doesn't give either of us the right to kill someone for being inconvenient.
I agree with the arguments of the pro-life movement in all respects except one - the demand that the liberty of American women be denied. And that's that noxious demand that poisons the rest of the nation against pro-lifers.
Nonsense. See above. Those rights don't give someone the right to summarily kill anyone anytime.
Could Roe v. Wade be theoretically be overturned as Dredd Scott was? Yes - but it'll never happen. The choice has existed for too long and the principles of stare decisis will prevent any responsible conservative jurist from trashing the rights of millions.
Oh, horse manure! Slavery has existed for a lot longer than Roe, and it was thrown out, so, nonsense! The notion that underpinned Dredd Scott - that slaves were the property of their masters - led to a civil war.
Nope, there was a lot more involved. Slavery was just the final straw in a series of economic sanctions carried out by northern states against southern ones. What responsible conservative jurist would unleash a second civil war by declaring that the state can force women to be incubators?
Well, if womyn want to fight for the right to murder their children, at least they would have the option of suffering the same fate as their kids. I really don't think that is the hill to die on, nor the cause to die for, especially with so many different ways to prevent pregnancy.
Again - the way forward is persuasion, not coercion.
Like health 'care'?
-
You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder". It's not.
I understand your moral objection to abortion. I share that objection. But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others. You are.
-
You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder". It's not.
I understand your moral objection to abortion. I share that objection. But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others. You are.
But, the abortion is the thing that makes the fetus "non-viable".
-
I understand your moral objection to abortion. I share that objection.
No you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently
But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others. You are.
That is an utter and outright lie. I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.
Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with. That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not.
You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people. You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.
Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.
-
No you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently
That is an utter and outright lie. I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.
Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with. That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not.
You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people. You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.
Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.
This from a guy who thinks it's a grand idea to use the full power of the government to destroy anybody who chooses not to participate in "marriage" (Quotes on purpose) between two or more people of the same sex. He doesn't look like a hypocrite, he defines one.
-
You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder". It's not.
I understand your moral objection to abortion. I share that objection. But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others. You are.
A non viable fetus will self-abort. We call that a miscarriage. No one is talking about the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, here, we're talking about elective abortion.
As I said, a woman retains her right to decide whether or not to reproduce, just as I retain my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but neither of us has the right to take a life because that life is inconvenient to us.
There are more ways than ever to prevent procreation without killing anyone. Use them.
-
No you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't defend it so vehemently
I do not defend abortion. I defend human liberty. That's what conservatives are supposed to do.
That is an utter and outright lie. I would find it very hard to believe that you even typed it with a straight face.
Roe v Wade is the ultimate case of the Government forcing people to do things they don't agree with. That ruling basically told people your moral view on this issue doesn't matter. They took away the right of each individual state to decide whether they wanted abortion to be legal in their state or not.
States don't have moral consciences. Individuals do. And individuals - yes, that includes women - have natural rights, acknowledged under the Constitution, to privacy and self-determination. Why do you keep pushing back regarding the power of persuasion? Don't you have confidence in the strength of your argument that abortion is wrong?
You have no problem using the government to force your moral views on gay "marriage" and gun control on people. You're quite happy for the Federal government to force people to do things they don't want to or find morally objectionable as long as it fits your Liberal world view.
Stop trying to have it both way s on this issue...you just come off looking like a hypocrite.
WTF are you talking about? If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't. Gay marriage is a matter of the equal protection of the law. My neighbors' marriage doesn't affect yours in the slightest. You're no conservative if you insist on forcing your morality on others through the police power of the state.
As for guns, I support the Second Amendment and have said so repeatedly. But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.
-
@Jazzhead only a simpleton (I'm being nice) would think Abortion is an acceptable form of Birth Control, particularly when there are no many other options available, some as cheap as $10/month.
-
I do not defend abortion. I defend human liberty. That's what conservatives are supposed to do.
You don't defend ALL human Liberty. You pick and choose and nibble at the edges of Liberty.
As long as it fits your Liberal agenda you defend it...the minute something contradicts Liberal dogma...you're severely and extremely against Liberty and people's right to choose.
States don't have moral consciences. Individuals do. And individuals - yes, that includes women - have natural rights, acknowledged under the Constitution, to privacy and self-determination. Why do you keep pushing back regarding the power of persuasion? Don't you have confidence in the strength of your argument that abortion is wrong?
Thank you for demonstrating you have no clue about States rights.
WTF are you talking about? If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't. Gay marriage is a matter of the equal protection of the law. My neighbors' marriage doesn't affect yours in the slightest.
I'll ask the question again that you never want to answer...why should gays have a government protected right that straight people don't?
Marriage is not a right. It's not guaranteed in the Constitution.
You're no conservative if you insist on .
So what do you call the Federal government forcing states to accept abortion on demand as the law of the land? What about forcing states to recognize gay "marriage"? Isn't forcing a Christian backer to go against his beliefs and bake a cake for a gay "wedding" the definition of "forcing your morality on others through the police power of the state"?
You have no problem with the Federal government using the power of the police state to force people to buy expensive and unaffordable health insurance.
Like I said...you're all for the police state and judges creating rights where there are none in the Constitution as long as it supports your far left agenda.
As for guns, I support the Second Amendment and have said so repeatedly. But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.
You don't like the concealed or open carry laws. You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.
Abortion is not a right. There is not a "right" to abortion anywhere in the Constitution.
But there is a right to keep and bear arms.
-
I do not defend abortion. I defend human liberty. That's what conservatives are supposed to do.
No. You do not. You defend evil. You defend Statism. You defend tyranny.
You are no conservative based on your own words.
txradioguy nailed you on the rest of your spew.
-
You don't like the concealed or open carry laws. You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.
Abortion is not a right. There is not a "right" to abortion anywhere in the Constitution.
But there is a right to keep and bear arms.
He's lying through his teeth when he says he supports the Second Amendment. He's told me repeatedly he should be able to pass a law infringing the rights of yahoos to waltz around Philly with firearms.
-
But every Constitutional right - including the abortion right - is susceptible to reasonable regulation.
Except where it says 'shall not be infringed' right? We know what you would do - 'reasonably regulate' our enumerated rights that you hate - right out of existence while pushing upon us rights you manufactured right out of thin air to safeguard perverted behavior, sloth and wickedness.
-
He's lying through his teeth when he says he supports the Second Amendment. He's told me repeatedly he should be able to pass a law infringing the rights of yahoos to waltz around Philly with firearms.
Why shouldn't the City of Philadelphia be able to decide whether to permit open carry on public streets?
-
You don't like the concealed or open carry laws. You'd be perfectly happy if the Heller decision in D.C. was overturned.
I have repeatedly said I support the Heller decision. As for open carry laws, I am agnostic personally. But I think the City of Philadelphia ought to be able to decide that issue for itself.
-
But I think the City of Philadelphia ought to be able to decide that issue for itself.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The issue has been decided already...for everyone.
-
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The issue has been decided already...for everyone.
Heh. Toldja. :tongue2:
-
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The issue has been decided already...for everyone.
So you're the one who opposes Heller, not me. Justice Scalia confirmed in Heller that the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.
-
So you're the one who opposes Heller, not me. Justice Scalia confirmed in Heller that the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.
Nope I cheered Heller. Heller had to do with D.C.'s outright ban on anyone owning a handgun within the District...now concealed or open carry.
And it's a right that shall not be infringed upon.
Why is that so hard for you lefties to understand?
-
...the Second Amendment right, like any other, is subject to reasonable regulation.
Likewise, attempts to infringe upon that right will be subject to 'reasonable' resistance, mostly at a distance measured in yards.
-
Nope I cheered Heller. Heller had to do with D.C.'s outright ban on anyone owning a handgun within the District...now concealed or open carry.
And it's a right that shall not be infringed upon.
Why is that so hard for you lefties to understand?
I think he wants to retain the right to disarm knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos who want to waltz around his town armed because they scare him. That's what "reasonable regulation" means to lefties. I have a niece like that, I imagine she was pretty upset when her state went Constitutional Carry last Summer.
-
Nope I cheered Heller.
So did I. Including Scalia's statement that the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation.
-
I think he wants to retain the right to disarm knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos who want to waltz around his town armed because they scare him.
Not just the knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos. Open carry's a local issue, to be decided at the local level.
-
Not just the knuckle-dragging redneck yahoos. Open carry's a local issue, to be decided at the local level.
The Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed." Doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, unless somebody wants to stop not just knuckle-dragging yahoos from waltzing around at the local level."
-
@Jazzhead
How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything? It truly boggles the mind. And what you're doing on a conservative forum, other than rabble rousing and pretending is also a question for the ages...SMH
-
@Jazzhead
How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything? It truly boggles the mind.
He makes it a point to believe at least three impossible things every day before breakfast. Keeps him sharp.
-
I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government. That was true of the entire Bill of Rights. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well. In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.
That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want. It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns. If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.
-
I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government. That was true of the entire Bill of Rights. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well. In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.
That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want. It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns. If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.
Hadn't looked at it that way. That's going to be a handy thing to keep in my back pocket.
-
The Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed." Doesn't say "Shall not be infringed, unless somebody wants to stop not just knuckle-dragging yahoos from waltzing around at the local level."
Exactly.
-
Hadn't looked at it that way. That's going to be a handy thing to keep in my back pocket.
Trust me -- they have no answer for that one. Just say "did you know that it was legal for states to suppress speech, and assembly, and the press, and religion, until the 1920's?" Their jaw will drop.
-
Trust me -- they have no answer for that one. Just say "did you know that it was legal for states to suppress speech, and assembly, and the press, and religion, until the 1920's?" Their jaw will drop.
Liberals tend to not know what they don't know until someone points out to them what they don't know LOL!
-
.. the gun right is subject to reasonable regulation.
Many of us are of the mindset that infringing on that right is subject to reasonable resistance, usually at a distance measured in yards.
-
I've never suggested that a Supreme Court decision cannot be overturned. But a woman's right to decide for herself whether to reproduce is just as real under the Constitution as your right to own a gun.
It is, but once she has made the decision to reproduce, it is done. You don't get to kill people because you changed your mind.
Don't want a baby? Don't make one.
The rest of your post was just false premise gobbledygook, unworthy of rebuttal.
-
You put the rabbit in the hat when you declare, as if it's self-evident, that abortion of a non-viable fetus is "murder". It's not.
I understand your moral objection to abortion. I share that objection. But I am not prepared to use the government to force my moral views on others. You are.
I am completely prepared to use the government to force my moral views on to others. I believe that humans should not kill other humans, and I expect the government to force that moral view on everyone else.
I believe humans should not steal from other humans, and I want the government to force that moral view onto others.
I believe humans should not assault other humans, and I want the government to force that moral view onto others.
I believe slavery is wrong (both a form of theft and a form of assault) and I want the government to force that view on others, even if they disagree with me.
Yeah, I'm all up for government forcing morality on people, because that is exactly what government is supposed to do.
If you don't believe in using the government to force your morality on other people, step aside and do not object when I use the government to force my morality onto other people. If you object, you are trying to use the government to force *YOUR* morality onto me, and you don't believe in that, remember?
-
I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government. That was true of the entire Bill of Rights. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well. In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.
That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want. It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns. If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.
The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right. It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states. It is a human right, not a state given right.
-
I'll just point out that under the original understanding of the Second Amendment, it applied only to the actions of the federal government. That was true of the entire Bill of Rights. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment and the "incorporation doctrine" that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were held to apply to the states as well. In fact, a lot of towns in the old West limited open carry more than 100 years ago.
That's one argument I always through back in the face of leftists who argue that states should be able to do what they want. It was the 14th Amendment, which they pretty much use to run roughshod over states-rights in general, that is the basis for limiting the right of states to restrict guns. If they want to get rid of those gun rights, they're going to have to get rid of everything else based on "incorporation" as well.
Correct. Individual States had their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights (or not).
Constitution of North DakotaARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 1.
All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and
happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the
state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be
infringed.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/constit/a01.pdf (http://www.legis.nd.gov/constit/a01.pdf) for another example...
-
@Jazzhead
How do you successfully get through each day being so consistently wrong on everything? It truly boggles the mind. And what you're doing on a conservative forum, other than rabble rousing and pretending is also a question for the ages...SMH
No no no, I love him. I need him. Any time I think I may have done some backsliding I can read a couple of his posts for a reality check. And so far, I am still in this reality and not his. ^-^
-
The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right. It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states. It is a human right, not a state given right.
I agree, but I also don't view open carry as a natural right. How does open carry in a public space equate to "self-defense"? Why can't that be subject to the rules of the city or town you're in?
-
I also don't view open carry as a natural right.
Obviously, because you do not comprehend the what the words KEEP and BEAR mean.
-
No no no, I love him. I need him. Any time I think I may have done some backsliding I can read a couple of his posts for a reality check. And so far, I am still in this reality and not his. ^-^
I love you guys, too. I like to write, and you guys challenge my thinking, and it hones my arguments. And it IS fun getting at least one member all riled up and silly. I understand why some folks disagree with how I label myself, but my perspectives are eclectic, and my history is conservative. (I've modded conservative discussion boards in the past.)
You can best understand me as an old school guy who's not TEA party. Conservatism back in my day was progressive in the small "p" sense. Jack Kemp really did want to help the poor, and wanted to use free market ideas to do it. The TEA party is all about Leave Me Alone, and withdrawal from the larger community. TEA party types recoil from the notion of It Takes a Village, but I see no reason why conservative respect for free markets and individual liberty can't be reconciled with it.
Thanks for the opportunity to be a part of the community on this board. You may now resume the leg-peeing.
-
FYI:
If you don't have a suture kit in your first aid supplies you can heat and curve a sewing needle with the butane mini torch you use to light your crack pipe.
-
FYI:
If you don't have a suture kit in your first aid supplies you can heat and curve a sewing needle with the butane mini torch you use to light your crack pipe.
No, it's bourbon for me.
-
No, it's bourbon for me.
I've stitched myself up before. I burned a mole off my dad's back with a soldering gun once. It was his idea. Bout the first touch of that hot iron on him and he kinda changed his mind. But I planned ahead, figuring bailing is what I would do, and got him in a calf tie and finished the job.
The point is there are plenty of home fixes for things people go running to the doctor for.
I asked about municipal single payer insurance, but everyone was yelling, trying to get their word in, I got ignored. Since you have community things in mind maybe you know something about it.
My doctor charges by the minute. By appointment. Tell him in advance what you need to see him for, specifically, and that is what you see him for. It is how he does his scheduling. Most visits are in the $50 range. And he has a limited supply of some basic drugs. So I can get a script of my blood pressure meds while I am there. He is trying to get a surgical center in Idaho modeled after the one in Oklahoma. He has written a book about the health care crisis in America. He practices out of his house.
-
I agree, but I also don't view open carry as a natural right. How does open carry in a public space equate to "self-defense"? Why can't that be subject to the rules of the city or town you're in?
To answer this question with the degree of seriousness it requires would take me some time to think on it.
You may have a point. In 1776, it was more difficult to conceal a pistol with any degree of success, so as a necessity to have it, open carry would have been a prerequisite to exercising the right.
Today it is now not only possible, it is quite common.
So does a municipality have a right to regulate the display of arms? Maybe, but I would have to ask what public interest is at stake necessitating this? What is the justification for requiring this?
If it is the sensibilities of others, than it becomes a free speech/free expression issue.
Like I said, I will have to think on this.
-
Obviously, because you do not comprehend the what the words KEEP and BEAR mean.
I think he has clarified his position to be that he agrees people have a right to carry arms, he just disagrees that they have a right to display them if a municipality passes an ordinance prohibiting it.
I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this point as of yet, but I lean towards it being inherent in the right to carry it.
-
You can best understand me as an old school guy who's not TEA party. Conservatism back in my day was progressive in the small "p" sense. Jack Kemp really did want to help the poor, and wanted to use free market ideas to do it. The TEA party is all about Leave Me Alone, and withdrawal from the larger community. TEA party types recoil from the notion of It Takes a Village, but I see no reason why conservative respect for free markets and individual liberty can't be reconciled with it.
This part resonates with me. A society is a social contract, and I think it is the duty of a nation to do something for it's citizens that cannot help themselves.
Not give them the right to vote, of course, but also not leave them to die for lack of modern survival skills.
I've always thought there should be a base level of assistance that those in want or who have had a set back in life could get from the larger community of people of the state or nation for which they are a citizen.
It should not consist of checks which they get to spend at their discretion. The current methods of helping the poor are not helping them. They are enabling them to be foolish, and nothing more.
-
The right to defend yourself with arms is a natural law right. It does not require the incorporation doctrine of the 14th to be applied to the states. It is a human right, not a state given right.
That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally. If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.
-
We live in a culture of fear. I hate that. Around here there isn't so much of a "need' for open carry. But crime is on the rise. There used to be a lot of people who had gun racks in their back windows of their pickups. Don't see that much anymore. I don't care if people open carry. I don't care if they don't have any other kind of health insurance, either.
-
That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally. If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.
Have you seen any statistics on whether barring felons from having guns prevents crime? If you've done the time and paid for your crime why can't you have all your rights back? I don't see how marginalizing them helps. A person who got a felony for weed isn't someone that is a concern to me as far as them having a gun. If you need a gun, you can get one. And if you're a person who is planning on committing a crime with one, it being legal or illegal isn't going to stop them.
-
That's probably not much consolation if you're sitting in jail for carrying illegally. If you want to avoid that, you need incorporation or a state law to recognize the legal status of that natural right.
If you mean we've gotten far away from our foundational principles, then I agree. Much crap passes for law nowadays.
-
Correct. Individual States had their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights (or not).
Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.
Preamble - North Dakota Constitution
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]
Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.
-
Have you seen any statistics on whether barring felons from having guns prevents crime? If you've done the time and paid for your crime why can't you have all your rights back? I don't see how marginalizing them helps. A person who got a felony for weed isn't someone that is a concern to me as far as them having a gun. If you need a gun, you can get one. And if you're a person who is planning on committing a crime with one, it being legal or illegal isn't going to stop them.
Without knowing the stats, based on my gut instinct, I think that's reasonable, BHF. I don't think a non-violent felony (e.g., weed possession) ought to disqualify one from owning a gun, certainly not as a presumptive matter.
I paid the debt I owed 'em
But they still aren't satisfied
Now I'm a branded man, out in the cold.
- Hag
-
Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.
Preamble - North Dakota Constitution
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]
Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.
South Dakota Constitution
Preamble
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the state of South Dakota.
and
The Preamble to the Constitution is (Wyoming 1889):
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
My grandfather was born in 1881 in then Dakota Territory, then headed for Wyoming & Montana as a teen
-
Those State Constitutions had their own preambles as well.
Preamble - North Dakota Constitution
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.[/b]
Sadly, we have fallen a very long way from what our Constitution says, or more importantly what it does not say.
An examination of State Constitutions reveals similar sentiments throughout the Republic.