FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » omg ITS A TRAP! (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: omg ITS A TRAP!
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, so apparantly President Obama has invited the senior/leading Republicans to a open and televised discussion on Healthcare.

And they think they are walking into a trap.

I wonder why. Maybe its because they know they'll get humiliated?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Temposs
Member
Member # 6032

 - posted      Profile for Temposs           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, they're playing the angle that the Obama admin has some kind of sinister motive in mind. Well, that's probably true, from the perspective of the Republicans, in that they now are being forced to show their hand, whereas before all they have to do is fold(or continue the bidding, depending on your perspective).
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I hadn't heard about this. But it sounds quite excellent. And really, I don't see how Republicans can refuse. After all the complaining we've heard about how Obama has ignored them, he publicly invites them to discuss their ideas. What are they going to say? No? Then how are they going to complain?

Seems to me Obama just called their bluff.

I just looked at what Obama is proposing, and it's interesting. It's a summit, so structurally I'm not entirely sure how it'll work, but it looks like maybe it will be more rehearsed than the GOP House meeting we saw last month, but far less rehearsed than say the State of the Union back and forth, or a scripted debate. There will be ample opportunity for either side to engage the other, and the CBO will be in attendance to essentially call shenanigans if either side makes a wild accusation.

And all on television. This could be fun. Or it could be a big dud.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Obama sees the writing on the wall. He needs to move to the center or he'll be a one term president. He needs to televise a meeting to show his bipartisanship. He ran a campaign in the middle but spent the last year locking the republicans out of Health Care legislation meetings. He's met more with the union leaders than the Republican party. Despite his campaign promises, the people know he is the least open and most partisan president we've had in a very long time.

He's about to sell out Pelosi and Reid and the tension is building in the democrat party. All of the sudden, Obama is for offshore drilling, coal and nuclear power. He's going to talk to the Republicans because he knows which way the political wind is blowing. Republicans are going to take over the house and senate and if he expects a second term, he knows he needs to throw the left under the bus.

[ February 13, 2010, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, ignoring most of what you've said...his support of nuclear power isn't at all new.

The support for offshore drilling on the other hand was a dramatic shift that caught a lot of people by surprise.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
In his last state of the union he called for more coal and offshore drilling. He made an executive order shutting down yucca mountain...where's he going to store the nuclear waste from the new reactors he's now calling for? He'll reopen yucca mountain. Not because he believes in it, it's politically expedient.

He ran to shutdown Gitmo and defended the rights of terrorists. Gitmo is still open (and will remain open) and the trials in NY have been cancelled. He doesn't do what he thinks is right, he does what he thinks is best for him. Terrorists will be moved back to a military tribunal and the next crotch bomber will not be read his rights. He's learning from his mistakes. Unfortunately, his learning curve is bad for the American people. He might make a good second term president, like Clinton.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm convinced that you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you know perfectly well, and are pretending to be ignorant for some personal reason that I can't fathom.

And it seems to me that there's actually been a devolution of your rhetorical style. You used to at least be a functional, if bombastic and unhelpful, participant in these discussions. Now you just seem to be spewing talking points that often don't jive with reality, and that often are only tangentially related to the posts you're theoretically responding to.

Why do you even bother?

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
Talking points?

In his last state of the union he called for offshore drilling, increased coal and nuclear power.

All things he opposed before. He did shut down Yucca mountain and now he is calling for increased nuclear power. He was opposed to coal and now he is for it. He was opposed to offshore drilling and now he's called for it.

I said "called for it". These are words he included in his state of the union to get a bump in polls. In reality, I know he isn't really going to push offshore drilling, coal or nuclear power. Just words a speech writer inserted in his state of the union to get a bump in approval. Which he did.

State of the union Jan 27th. After his address, his approval increased to -4 from -17. (for the mathematically challenged, -4 is bigger than -17). Not to worry, speeches only boost ratings for a few days and his approval is back to it's normally low level. People know he really isn't for coal, offshore drilling and nuclear power.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.

Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong. How many white house staffers have resigned at midnight on Saturday because of the facts Glenn Beck has presented?

It's a sad world when the Enquirer is true breaking news,....ie John Edwards. The big media didn't want' to tarnish a Dem presidential candidate. I think it is funny that the Enquirer has applied for the Pulitzer prize. They deserve it. The other networks are too busy getting "chills up their legs" every time Obama speaks. If the Enquirer gets a Pulitzer, Beck can't be ridiculed for a lack of media credibility.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Have you seen the video where Jon Stewart nailed his paranoid deluded mannerisms down to a T?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.

With less style, and less intellect.

I wasn't sure the second part was possible until I started reading mal's posts.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong.

And I'm sure you're still waiting for posts that you think prove you wrong. Same issue, in one way or another. His metaphorical phone doesn't ring for him, just in the same way that none of the myriad interactions you've had on this forum even begin to penetrate your desperate illusions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
Come on folks, mal's been an obvious troll since day 1 - why pretend otherwise?

This discussion is a trap.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
What bugs me about the Republican position on energy is the fact that they'll turn even that political. Health care is one thing. People need to start taking responsibility for their own health. Get off the junk food, turn off the TV, exercise, stop smoking, etc. However, energy is a much more serious issue.

I, as an individual, have no realistic way to take responsibility for the fact that our government vehicles run on gas and diesel, or that millions of private cars also run on gas and diesel. I can have a tremendous effect on my own health (and therefore my own life experience) by changing certain behaviors. I can have almost zero effect on the fact that al-Qaeda, etc. are funded by everyone's gas and diesel use.

Of the two hazards that threaten my health and longevity, Islamic terrorism or heart disease/strokes (which run rampant in my family) I can do almost nothing, individually, to reduce the first one. Therefore, it is the government's job, every politician's job, to stop politicizing the issue and fix that already.

I suppose they may politicize partly because the Republicans are the Big Oil party, and admitting that something needs to be done that will NOT help big oil would be admitting that 8 years of Bush/Cheney (and years of supporting Big Oil BEFORE that) was wrong. But you know what? I don't care. Buck up, oh Republicans, bite the bullet, admit you were dead, dead, dead WRONG, and help get us off the sandy, oily tit of Islam. Please.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Glenn Beck is still waiting for his phone to ring to prove him wrong.
Glenn Beck has been proven wrong several times. What he's really "waiting" for is something that forces him to admit he's wrong, and that's not going to happen as long as his audience doesn't demand accuracy from him.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I think I prefer the Enquirer being the one who breaks news about sexual indiscretions in our leaders. To be honest, unless it is sexual harassment or a relationship that represents a conflict of interest (ie sleeping with an ambassador or maybe a lobbyist), I would rather not hear about politicians' sexual behavior at all.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I think I prefer the Enquirer being the one who breaks news about sexual indiscretions in our leaders. To be honest, unless it is sexual harassment or a relationship that represents a conflict of interest (ie sleeping with an ambassador or maybe a lobbyist), I would rather not hear about politicians' sexual behavior at all.

I would if they were running for public office, which they are constantly. Him having an affair while at the same time talking about how he stands with his dying wife, spoke volumes to me about his egotistical nature.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
To all who dog on mal for saying what he believes, if you feel so strongly that he is incompetent, a hack, a troll, or whatever, and don't want to debate him, then stop responding to his posts. Aren't we all just stating our opinions based on what we feel are the "facts"? That is the thing about politics. We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.

With less style, and less intellect.

I wasn't sure the second part was possible until I started reading mal's posts.

Whistled.

I get that you don't like mal. I don't really understand why, in light of this, you keep giving him exactly what he wants, but whatever. Stop breaking the TOS.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm unclear where the line is when looking into politician's private behavior, but I do think that things like cheating on your spouse or in your private life not following the values you espouse in your public life are things I want to know about. I am a character voter and I think that a lot of our political problems come from a lack of real character in our elected officials.

On the other hand, I don't know that journalists can be trusted to do this sort of looking in services of the public interest.

So, I don't know where to stand on this. I'm uncomfortable with the current state of affairs, but I'm not sure how I would change it to a more acceptable one.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SoaPiNuReYe
Member
Member # 9144

 - posted      Profile for SoaPiNuReYe           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Its like Glenn Beck is posting here.

Minus the crying.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Minus the crying.
How do you know?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
So, back to Blayne's original point, here's an excerpt from the White House invitation to the bipartisan summit:

quote:
Now is the time to act on behalf of the millions of Americans and small businesses who are counting on meaningful health insurance reform. In the last year, there has been an extraordinary effort to craft effective legislation. There have been hundreds of hours of committee hearings and mark-ups in both the House of Representatives and Senate, with nearly all of those sessions televised on C-SPAN. The Senate spent over 160 hours on the Senate floor considering health insurance reform legislation and, for the first time in history, both the House of Representatives and Senate have approved comprehensive health reform legislation. This is the closest our Nation has been to resolving this issue in the nearly 100 years that it has been debated.
Language like this doesn't indicate to me that the White House is serious about bipartisan ideas. It seems more a defensive reaction to the recent Republican talking points about back room deals and the President's CSPAN promise. If the White House really wanted Republicans to show up at the Blair House summit, it should at least pretend to understand that there are significant problems (political ones, if nothing else) with the health reform bill as presently constituted and attempt a modicum of humility. Something along the lines of, "We tried, it didn't work, but we can't stop trying. Reforming health care is essential to our national prosperity and security. So we're looking to improve on what we have and could really use your help."

I am encouraged by the fact that the White House will be posting "the text of a proposed health insurance reform package." I think another indication of the White House's real inclination for bipartisan solutions would be if the package they post diverges significantly from the current HCR bills in Congress.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kanelock1:
We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.

This is startlingly irrelevant, because people aren't 'dogging' on mal because they think he's a 'bad person for taking a position on the political right.' It's not even what's suggested.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I am encouraged by the fact that the White House will be posting "the text of a proposed health insurance reform package." I think another indication of the White House's real inclination for bipartisan solutions would be if the package they post diverges significantly from the current HCR bills in Congress.
I agree with you on the tone, but I think there's a problem with significant divergence. Look at the current HCR bill that passed the Senate, and look at the original proposal that Obama and like-minded Democrats wanted. You'll notice the resemblance is somewhat strained. They had to cut a lot of the things out that they wanted to make it more palatable to moderate Republicans who jumped ship, but Republicans have managed to convince most people that those cuts never happened.

So if Democrats try to reintroduce them, they appear to be hijacking bi-partisan bill with liberal addenda.

I don't think it's fair that liberals should have to give up the things they wanted the most, a lot of which frankly were their best ideas so far as care and cost go, just because Republicans spent the last six months with their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la!" and the public blindly went along with it.

Your post suggests to me a lack of recognition of the movement that has already taken place in the current legislation. Now, if Republican ideas like tort reform (a tiny fix) and removing some of the giveaways to individual states and some of the mess that was put into the bill to woo right leaning Dems on board, make it into a new bill, would that be enough to call it bi-partisan? Somehow I doubt it.

Democrats HAVE shown a willingness to work with Republicans in the past, and all it got them was a watered down bill with their best ideas killed, and Republicans complaining to any microphone that was turned on about how Democrats were intractable and refused to listen. If anything, they should have stuck to their guns and NEVER tried to negotiate. We'd be exactly where we are today, and they'd have a LOT more bargaining chips.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
I wish we could see a debate between Ron Paul and Obama on health care. That'd be worth watching.

The Republic leaders don't have the spine to insist that it be an open debate. This sham debate isn't going to be on health care reform; it's going to be on the Obama administration's plan for health care reform. And that's hugely different. Basically, they're going to set this up as "If you're against our plan for health care reform, you're against health care reform."

The Republicans are too cowardly to come straight out and say, "We have to reform health care in the direction of less government involvement than there already is." It's not just cowardice, though. It's because they really are in the center on this issue. The radicals are people like Obama, who would like to make everything government run (for our own good, of course) and Ron Paul, who wants to get the government out of our lives. The Republicans are wishily and washily floating in the middle, not wanting to act, but not liking the Obama extreme.

Of course it's a trap. They'll be eviscerated, because they have no alternative themselves, other than doing nothing. Ron Paul would trounce Obama on this subject.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with Obama inviting Republicans to a meeting to discuss National Health Care is that the Republicans have already put out their own Health Care Plan, which Democrats and Obama have totally ignored for months. So in having the "bipartisan" meeting, is the president really going to be bipartisan and listen to what the Republicans have already said, or is he just going to try to jawbone them, as if he is qualified to lecture anyone on anything?

When Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress after the November elections, then they can pass their own previously proposed Health Care Plan. And then Obama and the Democrats would be in a trap. How could they veto or vote against it?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Of course it's a trap. They'll be eviscerated, because they have no alternative themselves, other than doing nothing. Ron Paul would trounce Obama on this subject.

yeah right? Not that ron paul is particularly relevant at all in terms of a a health care debate (his proposals lack any kind of actionable support and would be rejected by a vast majority of the population, something like 80-90%) but the fact is that there's a surplus of extremely unpopular proposals that Paul would have to defend that Obama could hammer on ("What would YOU do with Medicare, Ron?") — pitting Obama against Paul is trying to represent one side through an unpopular fringe pedagogue. just a sure-fire way to scare the moderates towards Obama's side.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The problem with Obama inviting Republicans to a meeting to discuss National Health Care is that the Republicans have already put out their own Health Care Plan, which Democrats and Obama have totally ignored for months. So in having the "bipartisan" meeting, is the president really going to be bipartisan and listen to what the Republicans have already said, or is he just going to try to jawbone them, as if he is qualified to lecture anyone on anything?

When Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress after the November elections, then they can pass their own previously proposed Health Care Plan. And then Obama and the Democrats would be in a trap. How could they veto or vote against it?

Republican Health Reform Plan

I have issues with it, of course, because it's still statist in the extreme. It starts off by mandating state run insurance. Only it's state run, as opposed to federally run. I'm not sure that's such a huge improvement.

And inserting an anti-illegal immigrant agenda and an anti-abortion agenda into the bill isn't going to help it pass. I bet they could get more support for it without that caveat.

Making denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is obviously a crowd pleaser, but it's a precursor to government bailouts of insurance companies. Such denials may not be kind, but without them, the insurance companies will eventually go under.

But the comparison chart definitely shows it as a huge improvement over the Obama plan.

[ February 15, 2010, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
But the comparison chart definitely shows it as a huge improvement over the Obama plan.

Can John Boehner write a 'comparison chart' that doesn't look like it was written by push-pollers?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
To Lyrhawn:

I think much of the watering down you observed primarily served to make the bill more palatable to a few moderate Dems and possibly (hopefully?) Sens. Snowe and Collins. I said in another thread that the bill is moderate but not bipartisan and the White House's overtures don't seem to indicate a desire to change that. Which is fine; the Dems have majorities all around and are able to do whatever they want.

But the political reality is that the bill is unpopular with the public, particularly independents, and the Dems don't seem willing to take the political hit by passing it, whether through reconciliation or by outlasting the filibuster.

Taking the situation where it stands today, if the Democrats are serious about reforming health insurance they'll need to find a third way; something that isn't a watered-down version of anybody's agenda, but a wholly new approach. I don't think rewarming the current bill is going to change the direction of public opinion, and absent changing public opinion I don't think there will be the political will to get anything passed.

It's a recognition of this political reality that I would have hoped to see indicated in the White House's summit invitation. The fact that they appear more interested in perpetuating the finger-pointing is disappointing.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa -

I would love to see that debate as well. It would involve Ron Paul saying "get the government out of our lives!" And Obama saying "Okay people, you heard the man, no more medicare and medicaid. Get out there and have fun on the open market!"

Hatred of government is part of the great disconnect in American's demands of government. They want low taxes, but no reduction in services. Why do you think our deficits are so high? The easy answer is just to say "well cut spending!" but people go nuts when you start cutting tens of billions of dollars in domestic spending. Yet those same people will decry and demonize government spending (but generally, spending that affects other people, not them). I think if we really pulled the rug out on government spending and dropped it by the trillion dollars that it needs to be cut by, people would absolutely freak out. I think the problem is that for every bad government program, there's a good one that was created with good intentions that actually serves a good purpose. But when people talk about cutting spending, it tends to be without nuance for those differences.

I think that conservatives think that people hate government a more than they really do. Ron Paul is an extreme example of this.

And as far as your comparison chart: Where does it say where I get my free pony? I would have to see a serious analysis and discussion to believe even half of the claims made there. Basically they're saying we can get a LOT of something for less than nothing. Prove it.

Ron -

They didn't ignore it. They incorporated some of the ideas, like selling insurance across state lines, with some people have still pointed out problems with. And insurance exchanges. Two ideas that Republicans pushed big, and both made it into the final version. The problem with the rest of their "ideas" is that they sound a whole lot more like goals rather than specific policy elements. Those types of details could be discussed at a meeting, so it isn't like there's nothing to talk about.

As for Republican control of Congress and what not. Who's to say Republicans are going to be any more effective than Democrats at actually getting a vote? Republicans have to get to 60 just like Democrats, and if they DO get control of Congress, it's going to be an incredibly slim majority in the Senate, and I doubt they'll retake the House at all. This could be our first divided Congress in quite some time. How successful do you think they'll be in wooing seven or eight Democrats in the Senate, and maybe a Democratic House, onto their plan, especially after how they behaved when the Democrats were trying to push their own bill? Obama will never have to veto it. Nothing he'd consider vetoing will ever reach his desk.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Senoj -

The bill itself might be unpopular because of Republican propaganda, but the ideas and plans within it generally earn at least a majority's worth of support in polling when each individual bit is polled by itself, as not as a part of the whole.

In other words, a majority of the population likes almost everything in the bill. They just don't like the bill as a whole. It's a wonderful country we live in.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I would love to see that debate as well. It would involve Ron Paul saying "get the government out of our lives!" And Obama saying "Okay people, you heard the man, no more medicare and medicaid. Get out there and have fun on the open market!"

At which point, Obama would find out what it's like to debate someone who is actually informed.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think the problem is that for every bad government program, there's a good one that was created with good intentions that actually serves a good purpose.

And I don't think that intentions matter.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think that conservatives think that people hate government a more than they really do. Ron Paul is an extreme example of this.

But Ron Paul doesn't hate government. He isn't an anarchist. Neither am I. The preamble to the Constitution spoke of promoting the general welfare, and then specified how that could be achieved. And it was all by protecting us from the federal government and from foreign enemies. There was nothing in it about creating programs to help people. That's not the role of government; that's the role of other people.

The debate over proactive government went on for decades, with the Whig Party pushing for it and everyone else screaming "NO!" When the Whig Party finally went under and disappeared, a dedicated Whig named Abraham Lincoln decided to bring his Whig ideology into the Republican Party. And he used the Civil War as a tool with which to implement the platform of the Whig Party. The nation said no to the Whigs, but war fervor gave one very tricky Whig the opening to impose it on us anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And as far as your comparison chart: Where does it say where I get my free pony? I would have to see a serious analysis and discussion to believe even half of the claims made there. Basically they're saying we can get a LOT of something for less than nothing. Prove it.

....

The problem with the rest of their "ideas" is that they sound a whole lot more like goals rather than specific policy elements. Those types of details could be discussed at a meeting, so it isn't like there's nothing to talk about.

Since the link I posted contained a direct link to the actual legislation the Republicans are proposing, it's a little disingenuous to claim that there's nothing concrete.

Here is the direct link to the proposed bill.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
At which point, Obama would find out what it's like to debate someone who is actually informed.
Give me a brief rundown on how that would go exactly. I don't dislike Ron Paul. I loved what he had to say about the Iraq War in 2008, and I was infuriated by the way he was treated by his competitors for the Republican nomination. But whereas other candidates gave specific responses for how to fix specific problems, his response was some form of "remove government from the equation." I don't think government can solve every problem, but I also don't think it can't solve any problem, which seems to be the general message that Ron Paul has for anyone who will listen. If that isn't his message, he needs to master nuance fast. Seriously though, what would his argument against Obama be?

quote:
And I don't think that intentions matter.
When it comes to effectiveness, neither do I. But you didn't address the second part of my sentence.

quote:
But Ron Paul doesn't hate government. He isn't an anarchist. Neither am I. The preamble to the Constitution spoke of promoting the general welfare, and then specified how that could be achieved. And it was all by protecting us from the federal government and from foreign enemies. There was nothing in it about creating programs to help people. That's not the role of government; that's the role of other people.

The debate over proactive government went on for decades, with the Whig Party pushing for it and everyone else screaming "NO!" When the Whig Party finally went under and disappeared, a dedicated Whig named Abraham Lincoln decided to bring his Whig ideology into the Republican Party. And he used the Civil War as a tool with which to implement the platform of the Whig Party. The nation said no to the Whigs, but war fervor gave one very tricky Whig the opening to impose it on us anyway

You're painting a lovely version of history that I've not come across in my own studies. Republicans passed a lot of legislation 1861 and 1864, and most of it was wildly popular, like the Homestead Act. Some stuff, particularly relating to monetary policy, I seem to recall didn't go over so well. They ran on a platform promising increased government intervention, and people voted them into power. They then proceeded to enact almost everything they said they would. It seems you are claiming they did some sort of war-induced bait and switch to sneak in ideas that otherwise wouldn't have passed. That ignores the fact that they were elected before the war (obviously) and passed legislation they'd promised to enact before the war started.

I respect the position of a strict constructionist, which it seems is what you are touting. But 21st century America isn't 1789. The Founders never could have imagined the changes that the Industrial Revolution could have brought, or the problems that sprang up during the Gilded Age and into the 20th century. I would argue that government reluctance to involve itself has caused far more problems in history than over-involvement (with the possible exception of the last 20 years, I'm not sure about that).

Also, I question the basic premise of your belief that protecting the general welfare and what not automatically entailed protecting us from the federal government. I think that yes, initially many of them feared an overpowered and overpowering government, but not all of them. Remember that the Founders weren't a monolithic bloc. Many of them felt that the government should have quite a lot of power, so long as it was split amongst the various branches of government.

And I'll take a look at the actual bill in the next week or two. I don't have time this week, but I won't ignore it.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by kanelock1:
We all have a right to believe what we wish, just as we have a right to not believe what others do. I happen to lean more to the right than the left. Does that make me a bad person? No, just as someone who leans to the left is not a bad person. We all see things differently.

This is startlingly irrelevant, because people aren't 'dogging' on mal because they think he's a 'bad person for taking a position on the political right.' It's not even what's suggested.
And yet in every posting that I have seen(and I admit I am limited on what I read due to my schedule) mal seems to be belittled for his opinions, misinformed or not. My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
On the subject of the thread. Is it a trap? I don't know. All I can say is that from what I have seen, nothing that the White House, Pelosi, or Reed have done seems to lead me to believe that they care at all about being bipartason.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Yes. Do you think even one of my posts to him here indicate that I do not wish to debate his opinions? They actually represent something startlingly different: that I wish to clearly point out in which ways I believe him to be egregiously wrong.

Obviously, I lack any desire not to debate his opinions, and I possess the right to respond to his posts based on how credibly I think he represents himself as a party to the open dissemination of opinions.

And, to supplant an understanding of your schedule of understanding mal's interaction with this forum: mal is belittled constantly because he constantly makes misinformed opinions that he either cannot or will not retract even in the face of clear evidence of poor judgment, fallacious logic, et al.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I would argue that government reluctance to involve itself has caused far more problems in history than over-involvement (with the possible exception of the last 20 years, I'm not sure about that).

Could you elaborate?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
My original point still stands; if you do not wish to debate his opinions, than stop responding to his posts. Or am I thinking wrong here?
Yes. Do you think even one of my posts to him here indicate that I do not wish to debate his opinions? They actually represent something startlingly different: that I wish to clearly point out in which ways I believe him to be egregiously wrong.

Obviously, I lack any desire not to debate his opinions, and I possess the right to respond to his posts based on how credibly I think he represents himself as a party to the open dissemination of opinions.

And, to supplant an understanding of your schedule of understanding mal's interaction with this forum: mal is belittled constantly because he constantly makes misinformed opinions that he either cannot or will not retract even in the face of clear evidence of poor judgment, fallacious logic, et al.

Sam, you kinda just proved my point in your last paragraph. You will NEVER get him to change his opinion, no matter what you say, so what is the point? it's kinda like this. [Wall Bash]
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
On the health care issue, people seem to forget one little fact; the Democrats controlled EVERYTHING! They had a vast majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And they still could not pass reform. It seems to me that the Republicans were not the problem. It seems that the problem lies within the Democratic party itself.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
If I may butt in, the point I think is that some of us find some of the responses to mal's posts informative and enlightening. (Sam in particular is, I think, one of the more intelligent and entertaining posters here.)

And even if they're not, why do you care if Sam is butting his head against a wall?

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kanelock1:
On the health care issue, people seem to forget one little fact; the Democrats controlled EVERYTHING! They had a vast majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And they still could not pass reform. It seems to me that the Republicans were not the problem. It seems that the problem lies within the Democratic party itself.

The Democrats aren't the monolithic voting bloc that the Republicans are, and that's regardless of the fact that there were only 58 Democrats in the Senate, not 60.

Without a Republican filibuster, Democrats wouldn't have had a problem passing their reform bill in a straight up or down vote.

To me, your argument doesn't really mean a whole lot. It might make sense to someone who wasn't aware of how the Senate really works though. 60 is very much an arbitrarily magic number. Anyone who thought, and this includes stupid TV pundits, that just because Democrats got 60 votes, they could start passing whatever they want, doesn't know what they are talking about. Cloture votes are very much ad hoc coalitions that are heavily issue dependent. Party affiliation matters, but there will ALWAYS be people who defect depending on the issue, which makes having 60 official Democrats nice, but you're referring to a paper tiger. In reality they were never that strong.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
And to me, you just stated my whole point, only with different words. Or was the fact that I stated that the problem lies with the Democrats, and not the big, bad Republicans, kind of escape your grasp?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Not really. I guess I just don't see your point. It was Republicans who used parliamentary rule trickery to create the 60 vote necessity to begin with. They created an obstacle for Democrats, and you blame Democrats for not overcoming it?

If you're all about assigning blame, then how do you blame the guy who fell over an obstacle and never reached the finish line, but totally ignore the guy who put the obstacle there in the first place?

I just think you're wrong. Saying "Democrats had 60 votes, why didn't they get it done?" is misrepresenting Senate politics. It sounds nice to you, but means nothing without a lot more explanation that you don't seem particularly willing to engage (if your last couple posts are examples of your understanding of nuance in this subject, that is).

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kanelock1:
Sam, you kinda just proved my point in your last paragraph. You will NEVER get him to change his opinion, no matter what you say, so what is the point? it's kinda like this. [Wall Bash]

I have two points regarding this post. Both of them really reinforce why I'm not actually proving a point/standpoint you are making. It might get pedantic because I'm blitzed out of my mind on anti-allergens.

1. Directly implicating malanthrop with an inability to change his opinion, no matter what I say? Not only is that wrong (I've forced him to change his approaches and waffle small points frequently) but if it were true that it is no matter what I say, it would necessarily implicate that malanthrop's opinion is indeed impervious to correction, because there's 'no matter' how clearly corrective my statements would hypothetically be able to be. Not a very nebulous defense of the guy.

2. Whether or not my responses to malanthrop can be construed to have 'a point' by you is irrelevant to whether or not I "do not wish to debate his opinions" — I still obviously wish to debate his opinions, so as I mentioned before, your original point does not, in fact, stand.

So I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your stance before continuing to assert that I'm reinforcing it. Since this seems to be a technique you rely upon often, I should mention that you should re-evaluate whether Lyrhawn has just "stated [your] whole point" in the subsequent discussion between you two (hint: he didn't).

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kanelock1
Member
Member # 12230

 - posted      Profile for kanelock1   Email kanelock1         Edit/Delete Post 
Fact: I stated that the problem lies in the Democratic party. Fact: Lyrhawn stated that there will ALWAYS be people who defect depending on the issue. That sounds very similar to me.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That sounds very similar to me.
I'm sure it does. I am well aware you don't actually understand why your appraisal is wrong, yet.

The fact remains that what Lyrhawn is stating is very different from what you are claiming, and they're not just for reasons like how your entire construction of the liberal/conservative power balance doesn't take into account the fact that they only had supermajority through common caucus, not supermajority within the party.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2