Instituting law . . . the Obama way

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Are you saying you don't think he was referring to the Bush administration, and that everyone in the audience didn't know very well he was talking about the Bush administration?

YM is oddly picky and specific when it comes to others, isn't he/she?

He's like fucking Rainman.

[VinnieKulick]

The Republicans brought this on themselves by obstructing EVERYTHING Obama proposed. The only people who are bothered by this are you nutjob Teabaggers. Everyone else just wants the president and Congress to get shit done, so these are victories for the Democrats and defeats for the Republicans any way you slice it.

Again? Seriously? You're going to say that the GOP, which has a minority in both sides of the senate, prevented things from getting done?
How long are you going to hold on to that logic?


If the President and Congress could "get shit done" wouldn't unemployment be lower? Wouldn't the majority of the American public approve of their job ratings?

I don't have a problem with recess appointments, it's one of the nuances in our system. What I do have a problem with is policy that effects every American citizen being sneaked through the way this Administration seems to prefer, instead on a purely constitutional manner.

[tin00can]

The Republicans brought this on themselves by obstructing EVERYTHING Obama proposed. The only people who are bothered by this are you nutjob Teabaggers. Everyone else just wants the president and Congress to get shit done, so these are victories for the Democrats and defeats for the Republicans any way you slice it.

Again? Seriously? You're going to say that the GOP, which has a minority in both sides of the senate, prevented things from getting done?
How long are you going to hold on to that logic?


If the President and Congress could "get shit done" wouldn't unemployment be lower? Wouldn't the majority of the American public approve of their job ratings?

I don't have a problem with recess appointments, it's one of the nuances in our system. What I do have a problem with is policy that effects every American citizen being sneaked through the way this Administration seems to prefer, instead on a purely constitutional manner.

How was it "sneaked" through? As for unconstitutional, that remains to be seen.

[Hames Jetfield]

The Republicans brought this on themselves by obstructing EVERYTHING Obama proposed. The only people who are bothered by this are you nutjob Teabaggers. Everyone else just wants the president and Congress to get shit done, so these are victories for the Democrats and defeats for the Republicans any way you slice it.

Again? Seriously? You're going to say that the GOP, which has a minority in both sides of the senate, prevented things from getting done?
How long are you going to hold on to that logic?


If the President and Congress could "get shit done" wouldn't unemployment be lower? Wouldn't the majority of the American public approve of their job ratings?

I don't have a problem with recess appointments, it's one of the nuances in our system. What I do have a problem with is policy that effects every American citizen being sneaked through the way this Administration seems to prefer, instead on a purely constitutional manner.

How was it "sneaked" through? As for unconstitutional, that remains to be seen.

Yeah how was this thing ‘sneaked through?’ If I have my facts straight, the House decided not to use the sheepish “deem and pass,” and instead they voted on the bill that the Senate had passed earlier, with 60 votes. Sure it was a party line vote but the Republicans weren’t going to vote for anything—that’s just a fact. It would have been too politically advantageous to have the democrats continue to fight for healthcare rather than move along. The only sneaky thing was that Republicans, and many Democrats, thought they had killed the bill, but, in the end, they were owned by Pelosi—which has got to hurt.
As for the “fixes” they were passed by reconciliation, so what? It would have been jamming-it-through if they had passed the whole legislation that way but they didn’t. As for the constitutionality of the mandate, I think that the judicial intpretation of the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce is on the side of the Democrats. So, we’ll see.

[tin00can]

How can something simultaneously be rammed down our throats and sneaked through?

Republicans love oxymorons.

[Ugmo]

Again? Seriously? You're going to say that the GOP, which has a minority in both sides of the senate, prevented things from getting done?
How long are you going to hold on to that logic?


If the President and Congress could "get shit done" wouldn't unemployment be lower? Wouldn't the majority of the American public approve of their job ratings?

I don't have a problem with recess appointments, it's one of the nuances in our system. What I do have a problem with is policy that effects every American citizen being sneaked through the way this Administration seems to prefer, instead on a purely constitutional manner.

Hey, you are 100 percent wrong on this one since all it takes is a single Senator to put a blanket hold on Obama appointees:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02098.html

You need to inform yourself better.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

As for unconstitutional, that remains to be seen.

TBD

[Hames Jetfield]

As for the “fixes” they were passed by reconciliation, so what?

Except for that reconciliation was not created for that type of legislation. And they knew it, yet they did it anyway.

Well the Senate parliamentarian thought it was fine. But he's probably a commie too. TBD!

[VinnieKulick]

Again? Seriously? You're going to say that the GOP, which has a minority in both sides of the senate, prevented things from getting done?
How long are you going to hold on to that logic?


If the President and Congress could "get shit done" wouldn't unemployment be lower? Wouldn't the majority of the American public approve of their job ratings?

I don't have a problem with recess appointments, it's one of the nuances in our system. What I do have a problem with is policy that effects every American citizen being sneaked through the way this Administration seems to prefer, instead on a purely constitutional manner.

Hey, you are 100 percent wrong on this one since all it takes is a single Senator to put a blanket hold on Obama appointees:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02098.html

You need to inform yourself better.

So, tell me, what's the difference between a senator blocking a nominee until he gets a pork payment, and what Stupak did with his votes on healthcare?

[SmokeyRamone]

As for the constitutionality of the mandate, I think that the judicial intpretation of the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce is on the side of the Democrats. So, we’ll see.

the problem with that is that if someone doesn't buy insurance, there's no commerce, yet the government wants to punish people who don't buy insurance with excessive taxation anyway, so there may also be a taxation without representation argument brewing. Regulating commerce is one thing, mandating commerce is something totally different, I don't think congress has (or should have) that much power.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

As for the constitutionality of the mandate, I think that the judicial intpretation of the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce is on the side of the Democrats. So, we’ll see.

the problem with that is that if someone doesn't buy insurance, there's no commerce, yet the government wants to punish people who don't buy insurance with excessive taxation anyway, so there may also be a taxation without representation argument brewing. Regulating commerce is one thing, mandating commerce is something totally different, I don't think congress has (or should have) that much power.

This legal argument would embarrass Lionel Hutz. This law was passed by your nation's representatives so the 'taxation without representation' argument is null and void. The commerce clause applies to the potential for commerce as well as actual commerce. As for your opinion about mandating commerce, who knows? The courts may agree with you.

[lerxstcat]

As for the constitutionality of the mandate, I think that the judicial intpretation of the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce is on the side of the Democrats. So, we’ll see.

the problem with that is that if someone doesn't buy insurance, there's no commerce, yet the government wants to punish people who don't buy insurance with excessive taxation anyway, so there may also be a taxation without representation argument brewing. Regulating commerce is one thing, mandating commerce is something totally different, I don't think congress has (or should have) that much power.

This legal argument would embarrass Lionel Hutz. This law was passed by your nation's representatives so the 'taxation without representation' argument is null and void. The commerce clause applies to the potential for commerce as well as actual commerce. As for your opinion about mandating commerce, who knows? The courts may agree with you.

That is possible, and then the alternative will be to go on and implement a public option, enlist all those who don't have private insurance into that plan, and use taxation to pay for it - much as the Europeans do. There is no doubt that it is constitutional to do it that way.

It is the insurance industry in general, not just the health insurance industry, that are raping the citizens of this country, taking our money for decades and then fucking us and leaving us by the roadside when we need the insurance we paid for. We continue to take it because our entire Congress and even our Presidents have been bribed to look the other way, for decades. Well now the peasants have revolted and they aren't going back.

The things that turn up wrong with this, will have to be fixed. There is no going back, conservatives better get used to the idea, or their selfishly gained wealth will be burned down around their heads when the whole nation explodes. If you don't realize that, get it through your head. Your armchair bitching is nothing compared to what people who have nothing to lose will do.

[Ugmo]

So, tell me, what's the difference between a senator blocking a nominee until he gets a pork payment, and what Stupak did with his votes on healthcare?

They're not even remotely similar, as Stupak didn't "block" anything. He refused to vote for something that compromised his principles until given a guarantee by Obama that federal funding would not go to abortions. Richard Shelby on the other hand basically wants a bribe.... give me millions in pork for my state or I alone among the 100 U.S. Senators will refuse to allow appointments to important positions. You could possibly draw a parallel with Ben Nelson and the Cornhusker Kickback, but even he wanted Medicare-related benefits for his state in order offset what he thought would be disadvantages resulting from the health care reform bill.

I don't how you can argue with a straight face that the Republicans haven't been obstructionists, considering that a) they have filibustered more bills in one year than the Democrats filibuster in decades, and then voted overwhelmingly in favor of them once the Democrats achieve cloture, b) not a single damn one of them voted for a health care reform bill originally designed by the Heritage Foundation and proposed in 1993 BY REPUBLICANS and c) Jim Demint admitted last sping that by blocking health care reform they could destroy Obama's ability to govern (Obama's "Waterloo"). You do not have a leg to stand on here. The size of the Democrats' majority does not change the fact that they have refused to cooperate on everything so far. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[VinnieKulick]

SO, again, you think that people who are outnumbered, by a super majority, and cannot block anything via filibuster, are to blame when there was a faction of DEMOCRATS who opposed the bill and had to get bribed to vote for it.

Just keep thinking the GOP are all evil and not playing nice.

That's what they are SUPPOSED to do when they oppose legislation. Just because they seem to have a united front, and the Dems can't don't blame the GOP.


OH the highly principled Bart Stupak. Vowed to not vote for the bill if it paid for abortions.

In case you didn't know it, the bill DOES provide funding for abortions.

Now Stupak and every other Dem who claimed to be pro life and changed their vote are in line for a 3 billion dollar pork payment.

Is that not the same exact thing?

Not agreeing with legislation, and fighting against it, on principal is what people SHOULD be doing, instead of selling out.

[tin00can]

Yes, it funds for abortions in cases of rape or incest. How evil is that!

http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/11/09/bre ... alth-bill/

But I guess you'd rather they keep the baby.

[Ugmo]

SO, again, you think that people who are outnumbered, by a super majority, and cannot block anything via filibuster, are to blame when there was a faction of DEMOCRATS who opposed the bill and had to get bribed to vote for it.

Just keep thinking the GOP are all evil and not playing nice.

That's what they are SUPPOSED to do when they oppose legislation. Just because they seem to have a united front, and the Dems can't don't blame the GOP.

1) Explain to me why not a single one of them voted for a bill orginally written and proposed by Republicans in 1993.

2) Are you seriously claiming that the Republicans' united opposition to anything proposed by Obama has not made it more difficult for him to govern? (A simple yes or no answer will suffice here.)

[Ugmo]

Not agreeing with legislation, and fighting against it, on principal is what people SHOULD be doing, instead of selling out.

Hey, I agree with this. Which is why it is fucking disgusting that the Republicans voted in lock-step against a bill that was basically written by their own party not out of principal, but rather purely for political reasons (i.e. to render Obama unable to govern).

If you believe Joe Biden, he said seven Republican senators wanted to vote for the bill but were told by GOP leadership that they couldn't.

The GOP: putting politics over the good of the country since the 1930s.

[Hames Jetfield]

This really is funny and you've got to give it to the Republicans here: they have convinced are large percentage of people that they can be the party of Fiscal Responsibility and big ideas when they certainly weren't when Bush was in office. I mean, a large portion of them voted for corporate welfare in TARP. But now they've changed, baby. And they're gonna make it all better once you give them control.

[Ugmo]

What's even better is that Jim Bunning clown blocking unemployment benefits to protest deficit spending when he had no problem with Bush's unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded prescription drugs bill, the Iraq war and raising the debt ceiling every time under Bush.

At least Richard Shelby is just an asshole holding out for pork rather than a hypocrite (although he's probably a hypocrite too, for that matter).

[thejuggernaut]

SO, again, you think that people who are outnumbered, by a super majority, and cannot block anything via filibuster, are to blame when there was a faction of DEMOCRATS who opposed the bill and had to get bribed to vote for it.

Just keep thinking the GOP are all evil and not playing nice.

That's what they are SUPPOSED to do when they oppose legislation. Just because they seem to have a united front, and the Dems can't don't blame the GOP.

1) Explain to me why not a single one of them voted for a bill orginally written and proposed by Republicans in 1993.

2) Are you seriously claiming that the Republicans' united opposition to anything proposed by Obama has not made it more difficult for him to govern? (A simple yes or no answer will suffice here.)

LOL

[Ugmo]

Thank you for another valuable contribution to the War Board.

[VinnieKulick]

1) Explain to me why not a single one of them voted for a bill orginally written and proposed by Republicans in 1993.

2) Are you seriously claiming that the Republicans' united opposition to anything proposed by Obama has not made it more difficult for him to govern? (A simple yes or no answer will suffice here.)

Is every senator who's in Congress now the same as were there in 1993?

And, Obama can govern just fine.
In case you forgot 7th grade civics class, the President isn't above Congress. It isn't their boss. They are equal partners. The President's job is to ensure the laws that are on the books are enforced. It's Congress' job to make the laws.

If Congress can't come to a conclusion on what is right, it isn't the President's job to make that determination for them.

Not only that, but you still don't grasp cloture, do you? Regardless of 40 Republican's opposing something, if the other 60 are united (or to use your terms, lockstepping) they can call a cloture vote. If they don't have 60 votes, it's NOT the minority party's fault, it's their own.
No matter how much you cry about the evil GOP blocking Obama from turning the USA into a nation of people dependent upon the government, it simply isn't the case.

Cornhusker kickback. Louisiana Purchase... Ring any bells? They had to bribe their own party to make them vote the way they wanted, because they didn't have the votes on their own, ON THEIR OWN, to pass the bill.

As for believing Joe Biden, I wouldn't believe a word he said, if his tongue was notarized.

The GOP has done nothing in the nations interest since the 30s? I guess civil rights was bad.

Yes, it funds for abortions in cases of rape or incest.

So, it does pay for abortion.

This really is funny and you've got to give it to the Republicans here: they have convinced are large percentage of people that they can be the party of Fiscal Responsibility and big ideas when they certainly weren't when Bush was in office. I mean, a large portion of them voted for corporate welfare in TARP. But now they've changed, baby. And they're gonna make it all better once you give them control.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration is nothing close to comparable to what the current administration has done, so, nice try.

[thejuggernaut]

Thank you for another valuable contribution to the War Board.

Thanks for another Ugmo crying session.

[Ugmo]

Thank you for another valuable contribution to the War Board.

Thanks for another Ugmo crying session.

Yes! It's not that your posts are completely worthless and devoid of any value, it's that you're so intimidating you make me cry!

Ever wonder whether other people see you the same way you see yourself?

[thejuggernaut]

Yes! It's not that your posts are completely worthless and devoid of any value, it's that you're so intimidating you make me cry!

Aww, poor mattie had better call the message board posting standards bureau and report the people who he feels are worthless (even though half the time it's your colossal stupidity that serves as your own roadblock)

Ever wonder whether other people see you the same way you see yourself?

Ever wonder if I give a flying fuck how other people on the internet see me, least of all someone like you ?

[Ugmo]

Is every senator who's in Congress now the same as were there in 1993?

A bunch of them are! In fact, a handful of the same exact senators who proposed the leglislation in 1993 voted lock-step against it this time. Why do you think that is? Any idea? Obviously they opposed it out of principal this time, as their values have really changed since then!

And, Obama can govern just fine.

He sure can. He certainly the GOP's ass on healthcare. They could have worked with him and gotten something out of the bill, but instead they went the obstruction route and got nothing at all. Unfortunately the end result is probaby a weaker bill than it could have been, since the Republicans were more interested in playing political games than crafting sound legislation.

Not only that, but you still don't grasp cloture, do you? Regardless of 40 Republican's opposing something, if the other 60 are united (or to use your terms, lockstepping) they can call a cloture vote. If they don't have 60 votes, it's NOT the minority party's fault, it's their own.

Vinnie, I grasp cloture just fine. Do you want me to explain this to you for the 100th time? Even Jake Yonkel is somewhere out there going "Oh god, not this shit again."

No matter how much you cry about the evil GOP blocking Obama from turning the USA into a nation of people dependent upon the government, it simply isn't the case.

Cornhusker kickback. Louisiana Purchase... Ring any bells? They had to bribe their own party to make them vote the way they wanted, because they didn't have the votes on their own, ON THEIR OWN, to pass the bill.

Yes, just imagine, if a couple of the more reasable Republicans hadn't been ordered by their leadership not to cooperate, the Democrats wouldn't have had to make concessions to assholes like Joe Liebermann and Ben Nelson.

The GOP has done nothing in the nations interest since the 30s? I guess civil rights was bad.

LBJ wasn't a Republican. And I know what you're getting at, but all the Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans out of opposition to the civil rights bills.

The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration is nothing close to comparable to what the current administration has done, so, nice try.

Explain? Obama has passed enormous unfunded tax cuts and an enormous unfunded prescription drugs bill, and started an expensive war in a foreign country for no good reason?

[Ugmo]

Holy fuck the Juggernaut is annoying.

[Ugmo]

Ever wonder if I give a flying fuck how other people on the internet see me, least of all someone like you ?

Considering how much effort you put into your tough guy routine, I'm pretty sure you do give a flying fuck how other people on the Internet see you.

[thejuggernaut]

Ever wonder if I give a flying fuck how other people on the internet see me, least of all someone like you ?

Considering how much effort you put into your tough guy routine, I'm pretty sure you do give a flying fuck how other people on the Internet see you.

Internet tough guy ?

LOL

That's rich, coming from the dunce who just admitted to being annoyed by text on a message board.

Nothing screams "internet tough guy" quite like violet font.

Come on mattie, unleash another of your astute observations on us.

[Ugmo]

So do you have anything to contribute to this thread or not?