QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

Really? Come on now. Are we now enslaved to the point of no return? Is Obama not going to give up power now, or abolish the Congress and Supreme Court to establish more power? Last time I check, there were still two other branches and we can still vote the guy out of office. Come on.

I can understand your disagreement, but drop the rhetoric. It doesn't serve your purpose. You are in the same class as the crazy lefties who bashed Bush and called him a dictator.

So what happens if they ram this thing through with reconciliation and the democrats take this as their cross to bear? President Obama says he'd be willing to be a one term president to get "comprehensive health care reform" passed. If the democrats get slaughtered...we'd still have two more years of BHO left and his health care bill passed. What do the Republicans do once they get Congress back?

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

He can't even get health care passed. Some dictator he is.

What do the Republicans do once they get Congress back?

They won't be able to repeal it, because the President will veto it.

I don't think Republicans really want power back. I think in a perfect world many of the Republican leadership would secretly love to get to like 48-49 Senators and maybe control of the House.

The reason being that they will then have 2 years before the Presidential election in which Democrats would be able to blame Republicans for not bringing down the deficit like they said, and all sorts of other things, as well as the fact Democrats will obstruct anything the GOP wanted to do.

This in turn would help the Democrats electoral chances in 2012 because Republicans would be playing defense for not having provided any change from the Democrats instead of continuing on the offensive as they have been the past year and a half.

Term limits - senator for 1 term, representative for 2 terms...get these lifers out and you actually would have people who dont care about elections and only care about doing what is right...

As it gets closer to election time and if it appears then that the GOP is poised to take one or both houses, they need to be prepared to come forth with an agenda. They'll need to take a page out of Newt's playbook and start sending those bills to the POTUS' desk immediately in January 2011. That will put the Dems back on their heels and force them to be the "obstructionists" for the next 2 years.

The worst thing they can possibly do is win big in November, then stand around with their thumbs up their asses for the next year. If they don't hit the ground running ala 1995, then they might find themselves the "permanent minority party" for real.

IMO, the economy is going to be enough improved by 2012 to drag Bam across the finish line for a 2nd term, so the question of the Pubs regaining complete "power" in the near term is moot.

I Wear Pants wrote: Do you complain about having to carry drivers insurance?

Big difference and anyone with a brain can see why.

1. Driver's insurance is required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, I am not required by the government to cover myself with car insurance.

2. There are many Americans who choose not to drive for whatever reason, they live in cities, they car pool, ride bicycles, etc. They are not required to have car insurance.

So no, the government does not require everyone to have car insurance, AND the car insurance is only required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, not to protect me. Its protecting someone else's rights, not mine.

The government mandate of health insurance would require it for everyone and its not protecting any rights at all, its actually nullifying my right to decide for myself.

jmog wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Do you complain about having to carry drivers insurance?

Big difference and anyone with a brain can see why.

1. Driver's insurance is required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, I am not required by the government to cover myself with car insurance.

2. There are many Americans who choose not to drive for whatever reason, they live in cities, they car pool, ride bicycles, etc. They are not required to have car insurance.

So no, the government does not require everyone to have car insurance, AND the car insurance is only required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, not to protect me. Its protecting someone else's rights, not mine.

The government mandate of health insurance would require it for everyone and its not protecting any rights at all, its actually nullifying my right to decide for myself.

to your first point...when someone without insurance gets sick, they effectively "hit you"

derek bomar wrote:

jmog wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Do you complain about having to carry drivers insurance?

Big difference and anyone with a brain can see why.

1. Driver's insurance is required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, I am not required by the government to cover myself with car insurance.

2. There are many Americans who choose not to drive for whatever reason, they live in cities, they car pool, ride bicycles, etc. They are not required to have car insurance.

So no, the government does not require everyone to have car insurance, AND the car insurance is only required to protect whoever I might hit with my car, not to protect me. Its protecting someone else's rights, not mine.

The government mandate of health insurance would require it for everyone and its not protecting any rights at all, its actually nullifying my right to decide for myself.

to your first point...when someone without insurance gets sick, they effectively "hit you"

There really is a difference jurisprudentially though that this would be a federal law whereas there are universal state laws requiring people to have auto insurance.

The question now becomes, does the Manchurian candidate proceed with sticking us with socialism, or do the people continue to revolt against him and his radical colleagues to the point that they back down.

God save the Republic.

QuakerOats wrote: The question now becomes, does the Manchurian candidate proceed with sticking us with socialism, or do the people continue to revolt against him and his radical colleagues to the point that they back down.

God save the Republic.

lol. Manchurian Candidate?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

Really? Come on now. Are we now enslaved to the point of no return? Is Obama not going to give up power now, or abolish the Congress and Supreme Court to establish more power? Last time I check, there were still two other branches and we can still vote the guy out of office. Come on.

I can understand your disagreement, but drop the rhetoric. It doesn't serve your purpose. You are in the same class as the crazy lefties who bashed Bush and called him a dictator.

He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

FWIW...I just saw on CNN that Reconciliation has been used for the Medicare Reimbursement change in 1989 and also in 1996 for welfare reform.

So, it seems as if reconciliation has been used in the past for welfare/nanny state related items and not just purely budgetory items.

derek bomar wrote: Term limits - senator for 1 term, representative for 2 terms...get these lifers out and you actually would have people who dont care about elections and only care about doing what is right...

Actually, with term limits, you may have people who know they're on their way out and can thus do any crazy thing they please. Being up for reelection has a way of keeping them honest, kind of.

jhay78 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

Really? Come on now. Are we now enslaved to the point of no return? Is Obama not going to give up power now, or abolish the Congress and Supreme Court to establish more power? Last time I check, there were still two other branches and we can still vote the guy out of office. Come on.

I can understand your disagreement, but drop the rhetoric. It doesn't serve your purpose. You are in the same class as the crazy lefties who bashed Bush and called him a dictator.

He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

Please,please show me where he has EVER said he had admiration for Hugo Chavez

jhay78 wrote: He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

Evidence that he admires either one?

jhay78 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

Really? Come on now. Are we now enslaved to the point of no return? Is Obama not going to give up power now, or abolish the Congress and Supreme Court to establish more power? Last time I check, there were still two other branches and we can still vote the guy out of office. Come on.

I can understand your disagreement, but drop the rhetoric. It doesn't serve your purpose. You are in the same class as the crazy lefties who bashed Bush and called him a dictator.

He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

Lol, where do you guys get this stuff?

I also heard he is a necrophiliac who loves to have sex with Lenin's corpse.

He isn't a dictator, or a tyrant, and if he is, he is, in the history of the world, the worst dictator that has ever lived.

jhay78 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Really Dictator? Really? Come on......
Don't just throw buzz words around like tyrant and dictator. You are no better than crazy lefties with Bush.

The buzz words are not just thrown around ............... they have been earned.

Really? Come on now. Are we now enslaved to the point of no return? Is Obama not going to give up power now, or abolish the Congress and Supreme Court to establish more power? Last time I check, there were still two other branches and we can still vote the guy out of office. Come on.

I can understand your disagreement, but drop the rhetoric. It doesn't serve your purpose. You are in the same class as the crazy lefties who bashed Bush and called him a dictator.

He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

Huh? (Scratches head)

jhay78 wrote:

derek bomar wrote: Term limits - senator for 1 term, representative for 2 terms...get these lifers out and you actually would have people who dont care about elections and only care about doing what is right...

Actually, with term limits, you may have people who know they're on their way out and can thus do any crazy thing they please. Being up for reelection has a way of keeping them honest, kind of.

No, it keeps them from actually doing work because (at least for representatives) they're constantly campaigning (due to short cycles). Nothing of substance can get done, i.e. no common ground or compromises if you worry about getting re-elected and can't vote for something that makes sense just because the R or D brought it up first ...

derek bomar wrote:

to your first point...when someone without insurance gets sick, they effectively "hit you"

Its very indirectly affects my health care costs and its just that, indirectly. It gets spread among all the people who have insurance.

If you hit me with my car and have no insurance, it is a 100% cost to me, which is why liability is required.

If you have no health insurance and go to the doctors, its such a small fraction of your bill that I effectively pay that it does not warrant a government mandate.

derek bomar wrote: No, it keeps them from actually doing work because (at least for representatives) they're constantly campaigning (due to short cycles). Nothing of substance can get done, i.e. no common ground or compromises if you worry about getting re-elected and can't vote for something that makes sense just because the R or D brought it up first ...

A lot of people may like their representatives though...I mean, suppose my senator is Jesus, how does it make me more free if I'm barred from having him represent me for more than 6 years.

The problem lies within getting people to care more and to vote people out they don't like...there needs to be some way to get objective information about a candidate at the polling places...i.e. John Boehner spends most of his time in a tanning bed as opposed to writing legislation (joking).

BoatShoes wrote:

derek bomar wrote: No, it keeps them from actually doing work because (at least for representatives) they're constantly campaigning (due to short cycles). Nothing of substance can get done, i.e. no common ground or compromises if you worry about getting re-elected and can't vote for something that makes sense just because the R or D brought it up first ...

A lot of people may like their representatives though...I mean, suppose my senator is Jesus, how does it make me more free if I'm barred from having him represent me for more than 6 years.

The problem lies within getting people to care more and to vote people out they don't like...there needs to be some way to get objective information about a candidate at the polling places...i.e. John Boehner spends most of his time in a tanning bed as opposed to writing legislation (joking).

well, if you were a Republican (the whole hanging out with hookers and vagrants thing probably wouldn't fly with the far right wing), you probably wouldn't want Jesus in office, so you wouldn't have to worry about him casting a spell on everyone and he would be gone in 6 years...

seriously though, congress has a 20% approval rating...so one out of 5 people like their representative. I'd bet more people would like their representatives if they weren't full of bs and actually cared about the country instead of re-election.

jmog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

to your first point...when someone without insurance gets sick, they effectively "hit you"

Its very indirectly affects my health care costs and its just that, indirectly. It gets spread among all the people who have insurance.

If you hit me with my car and have no insurance, it is a 100% cost to me, which is why liability is required.

If you have no health insurance and go to the doctors, its such a small fraction of your bill that I effectively pay that it does not warrant a government mandate.

in 2004, the uninsured had health care costs of $125 billion dollars

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf

in 2004, there were roughly 292m people in the US, of which roughly 45 million (I lowered the 2006 #...) were uninsured...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/uninsured-us-citizens/

so its roughly costing you $500 a year to cover the uninsured...if you look at them as a collective body instead of individuals, the "hit" becomes real and significant, even if it's indirect.

BoatShoes wrote:

jhay78 wrote: He may not be a dictator, but he certainly has a higher level of admiration for guys like Chavez of Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras than a US President should have.

Evidence that he admires either one?

Zelaya tried to make himself dictator for life and overthrow the constitution of Honduras.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070103210.html

When the government/military removed him from office, which side did Obama (and other Dems) voice support for? No, not the legitimate constitutional government of Honduras, but Zelaya.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/opinion/main5127771.shtml

No, Obama is not a dictator. And the incident above may not be "admiration", but it is terrible foreign policy at best.

Why is it terrible foreign policy? Who are we to tell Honduran people how to run their democracy? Or Venzuela for that matter? Why do we have to tell everybody else how to run their government? If the electorate wants a leftist and votes them in, then the US should shut the hell up and move on.

I give Obama kudos for throwing water on the the fires created by the last guy and all his bellicose rhetoric that backfired in losing international support.

Cry about Obama all you want, but America has regained a lot of support internationally, and he is immensely more popular than the last guy in power overseas.