Politics

Out of context: Reply #17864

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,457 Responses
  • deathboy0

    IRN

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-br…

    Democrats fully supporting the term obamacare. Perhaps in the past it was used it was used by many as a sort of derogatory party terminology. But hey to each their own on what they think it conveys. I think its mor recognizable than the affordable care act or whatever the generic terminology is.

    i mean this http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-a…

    thing about wether obamacare should be banned is just playground whining. they should grow up.

    And as far as shoved down throats...
    "But the problem with Obamacare is not that it represents the illicit wishes of a majority — it’s that it doesn’t represent majority wishes at all. According to recent polls, two-thirds of Americans want the individual mandate repealed. Indeed, the law has never enjoyed majority support. Still, the Democrat-controlled Congress shoved it down the public’s throat through wildly unorthodox methods.

    To overcome resistance within its own party, it used horse-trading so brazen that horse traders would be embarrassed. Remember the Louisiana Purchase? This deal bought Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s support by cleverly writing disaster relief rules so that only the Bayou State qualified for $100 million in aid. Then there was the Cornhusker Kickback. Public outrage forced Democrats to withdraw this deal. Otherwise, federal taxpayers would have been on the hook, forever, for the entire tab for Nebraska’s Medicaid program in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson’s “yes” vote.

    Despite all this, Democrats could not pass the law through normal parliamentary procedures. The election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the seat left vacant by Sen. Ted Kennedy’s death ensured that. Brown explicitly ran on a platform of stopping the Obamacare train wreck, and his election gave Senate Republicans the 41 votes they needed to filibuster the law.

    The only way for Democrats to avoid the filibuster was for the House to pass the Senate version exactly as written to avoid another Senate vote. However, opposition to the Senate version ran so deep in the House that Democrats had to cut an eleventh-hour deal promising pro-life Democrats that the law’s abortion-related provisions would be eliminated through a procedure called reconciliation. Under it, the House appended the pro-life revisions to an unrelated bill the Senate had already passed — one it could approve by a simple majority vote."

    I think it was justified in the writers explanation. Made decent arguments in methods used to push it through. Or shove it down our throats. Shove is more violent of an expression and id stop reading if the whole article was written in that kind of language without explanation. That kind of writing is better left the becks and think progress types.

    But i was more interested in the judicial modesty and stare decisis stuff. I was unaware of those terms. figured supreme court would look more along the lines of consitutional or not. I didnt know there was a couple other ways with terms theyd could look at it. Words are symbols used to help clarify thoughts or confuse. And If they only look along those 2 terms instead of pure constitutional oversteppin on federal powers its interesting.

    deathboy 0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • Didn't see your wrote this. Dude, all I'm saying it's a clear right wing slant and even you can't deny that.IRNlun6
    • That article makes it seem as if the Dems are notorious for doing this when both sides have been doing this shit for decades.IRNlun6
    • ... decades.IRNlun6
    • If there' anything new about these procedures to pass a bill it's labeling it as being shoved down our throats.IRNlun6
    • I'll agree to disagree. Perhaps it came more hard on left from a neutral postion. Which doesnt mean its from the right becuase it was negativedeathboy
    • it seemed opposed to lefts tactics in this particular situation. fully agree both aprties do the same shitdeathboy
    • i jsut dont see it as right wing. jsut neutral callign out the left and you feel the need to outcry its racist/bias or whatverdeathboy
    • you shoudl see the cover shot with romney recently on the home page. If theyre more right wing id ask why for thatdeathboy
    • but right wing left wing jsut generalities. I dont see a right bias. I see a logic bias and stating what is what isdeathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread