I've posted evidence that shows as recently as a few years ago Republicans favored an individual mandate. You have seen this evidence MANY TIMES. Yet, you still refuse to admit Republicans recently favored an individual mandate. This is what makes you a bad citizen--you don't make decisions based on evidence.
Dude, I just said they did. Can you read?
You said that at one time as a response to Hillary's plan. That's from 1994. You won't admit that as recently as a few years ago they supported it. In fact, they supported it right up until Obama agreed to one.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
You said that at one time as a response to Hillary's plan. That's from 1994. You won't admit that as recently as a few years ago they supported it. In fact, they supported it right up until Obama agreed to one.
Of course none of that makes it a good idea. It's a terrible idea no matter who came up with it, supports/supported or opposes/opposed it.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that Republicans (and their sheep like SDW) keep rewriting history. They won't admit they supported individual mandates vehemently as part of the "personal responsibility" kick (that Northgate brought up, thanks) until Obama decided to compromise significantly and go largely with the Republican plan.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
My thoughts exactly. It was a terrible idea when the Republocrats supported it, and it's a terrible idea now that the Demoblicans support it.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Again, NOT THE POINT.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
But that wasn't my point. My point was that Republicans (and their sheep like SDW) keep rewriting history. They won't admit they supported individual mandates vehemently as part of the "personal responsibility" kick (that Northgate brought up, thanks) until Obama decided to compromise significantly and go largely with the Republican plan.
I know it wasn't your point.
But who cares. You've discovered that politicians are sometimes hypocritical, flip-flopping, conveniently forgetting partisan opportunists.
What do you want, and award for this brilliant insight?
Let's get past this bullshit about who supported/opposed what, when and where. It's noise. It;s a distraction.
Let's talk about the things that will make things better. Hint: Government control of the health care and health insurance markets is not one of those ideas.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Move along. Move along. Please ignore the blatant hypocrisy point being made. Move along.
Move along. Move along. Please ignore the blatant hypocrisy point being made. Move along.
But it is noise.
If you wish to continue being distracted by it (and distracting others with it) rather than discuss the things that will make things better, that's fine I suppose.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
You said that at one time as a response to Hillary's plan. That's from 1994. You won't admit that as recently as a few years ago they supported it. In fact, they supported it right up until Obama agreed to one.
I didn't realize that's what you were referring to. It's dubious to suggest that Republicans "supported a mandate as recently as a few years ago." Granted, there may have been some (like Gingrich) that did until whatever date, but there certainly wasn't a concerted GOP effort to push such a policy. What you're referring to is pieced together from interviews with Romney, who leftiies claim "supported an individual mandate at the national level" (he never, ever stated he did). Nevertheless, I don't deny that some Republicans supported this until a few years ago. However....see MJ's point below:
Of course none of that makes it a good idea. It's a terrible idea no matter who came up with it, supports/supported or opposes/opposed it.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. I never supported it.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that Republicans (and their sheep like SDW) keep rewriting history. They won't admit they supported individual mandates vehemently as part of the "personal responsibility" kick (that Northgate brought up, thanks) until Obama decided to compromise significantly and go largely with the Republican plan.
Again, I did not. And in actuality, there is an argument for mandates *in general*. I don't know that I like them, but there as an argument for them....just not at the national level, where it is clearly unconstitutional.
"I never supported it." AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Typical Republican response.
Just like they were always "uncomfortable" with George W. Bush's "drunken sailor" spending during their full reign control of everything. Yeah, I love that one too. Or how they think Bill Frist using cloture is perfectly fine when funding their programs but it's "cramming it down our throats" when Harry Reid uses it.
Wow. Just wow.
*facepalm*
Political trolling really does come naturally to some folks.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
"I never supported it." AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Typical Republican response.
Just like they were always "uncomfortable" with George W. Bush's "drunken sailor" spending during their full reign control of everything. Yeah, I love that one too. Or how they think Bill Frist using cloture is perfectly fine when funding their programs but it's "cramming it down our throats" when Harry Reid uses it.
Wow. Just wow.
He said Republicans, and I'm saying I never supported it as a Republican. Why is that a problem?
As for being "uncomfortable" with Bush's spending, well, uh..yeah. I know I was. Putting it in perspective though, it's nothing compared to Obama's spending. Bush's deficits were nothing compared to the Obama deficits. Bush's expansion of government was nothing like Obama's. That is the point.
As for Harry Reid, he's gone much further than Frist in shutting Republicans out of the debate. I don't support parliamentary tricks for either side, but to claim with leaders were equal is simply inaccurate.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that Republicans (and their sheep like SDW) keep rewriting history. They won't admit they supported individual mandates vehemently as part of the "personal responsibility" kick (that Northgate brought up, thanks) until Obama decided to compromise significantly and go largely with the Republican plan.
Your point is to ignore history and those measures were being put out to fend off the Democratic attempt to nationalize and socialize the entire health care industry.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Your point is to ignore history and those measures were being put out to fend off the Democratic attemption to nationalize and socialize the entire health care industry.
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".
~ William Hazlitt
He said Republicans, and I'm saying I never supported it as a Republican. Why is that a problem?
As for being "uncomfortable" with Bush's spending, well, uh..yeah. I know I was. Putting it in perspective though, it's nothing compared to Obama's spending. Bush's deficits were nothing compared to the Obama deficits. Bush's expansion of government was nothing like Obama's. That is the point.
As for Harry Reid, he's gone much further than Frist in shutting Republicans out of the debate. I don't support parliamentary tricks for either side, but to claim with leaders were equal is simply inaccurate.
Yeah, I remember when all those Republicans got so riled up about spending that they showed up at town halls meetings with automatic weapons and savage signs asking for Bush's head on a spike? Oh.... wait... sorry, that never happened.
He said Republicans, and I'm saying I never supported it as a Republican. Why is that a problem?
As for being "uncomfortable" with Bush's spending, well, uh..yeah. I know I was. Putting it in perspective though, it's nothing compared to Obama's spending. Bush's deficits were nothing compared to the Obama deficits. Bush's expansion of government was nothing like Obama's. That is the point.
As for Harry Reid, he's gone much further than Frist in shutting Republicans out of the debate. I don't support parliamentary tricks for either side, but to claim with leaders were equal is simply inaccurate.
Yeah, I remember when all those Republicans got so riled up about spending that they showed up at town halls meetings with automatic weapons and savage signs asking for Bush's head on a spike? Oh.... wait... sorry, that never happened.
The Republicans were riled up. The Republicans gave back both the Senate and the House. Democrats ran on PAYGO, ending the expensive wars and on getting spending under control. They flat out lied and as such the alleged "cycles" or "generational change" claimed by Jimmac and also guys like James Carville were gone a scant four years later and likely gone this year in the Senate. As for whether it will prove true with Obama, I believe he is gone but there are still an awful lot of people out there to declare to be racists so who knows.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Please. History is history. Republicans didn't willingly just sit down and hand back the congress. What a crock notion. Scandal after scandal did that for them.
Please. History is history. Republicans didn't willingly just sit down and hand back the congress. What a crock notion. Scandal after scandal did that for them.
Sorry but history shows quite well that Republicans will sit down or split the party. Buchanan ran against Bush in 1992 and so weakened him that it helped Clinton to victory. In addition, Perot created his party which as all about...fiscal responsibility and that was well before we had a black president and his minions who declared that having a budget or not spending an extra trillion a year were really dog whistles for "string him up." Buchanan and Perot both ran again in 1996 and Dole had to take Kemp as his VP and pledge a a 15% tax cut to try to bring and hold the party together. It didn't work. Bush managed to bring the party together in 2000 to get past Gore but right afterwards a Republican, Jeffords, switched parties and gave control of the Senate back to Democrats. In 2002 and 2004 Republicans managed to grow their majorities but the debts were growing as well and in 2006 Pelosi and Democrats ran on PAYGO, and balancing the budget. In 2008 Obama ran on the same themes and in addition promised to end expensive wars abroad and spend the savings on domestic initiatives. Obama was the first Democrat to get above 50%. That isn't possible with just Democratic support.
Remember to keep blaming those big, bad Republicans for the Democratic fall off in November.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Yeah, I remember when all those Republicans got so riled up about spending that they showed up at town halls meetings with automatic weapons and savage signs asking for Bush's head on a spike? Oh.... wait... sorry, that never happened.
Of course not, and they are not doing that now, either. They are protesting deficits that are 4 times as much with no end in sight. They are protesting a $2.1 Trillion healthcare bill that was rammed through Congress with no bipartisan support. They are protesting the administration's anti-business and punish success attitude. They are protesting the failed, bloated porkulus bill. They are protesting Obama giving out "stimulus" money to companies that took it to Finland, or simply tanked on an unsustainable (oh, the irony!) business plan. They are protesting a myriad of new regulations that directly cost $46 billion a year. They are protesting federal oil leasing declining by 50%. They are not using automatic weapons and calling for people's heads. They are simply sick of their money being wasted again and again and again. And, they are pissed a Republicans too. See: Dick Lugar.
But hey, we'll just add that to the Democratic narrative. This section is called "They Didn't Care When Bush Did X!" Keep on rollin'.
Oh, the pearl clutching over the deficits! The feigned, head-shaking disappointment over cloture procedures. Fucking madness arguing with you guys. You take both sides of the issue whenever it suits you.
As I have been saying, arguing over which major party/politician is less corrupt is an exercise in futility. Admit they're both corrupt and then we can do something about it.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Stop promoting this false idea there's a false equivalence and that there is any significant difference in degree. It only reveals your partisan bias.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
It reveals my bias toward reality to say that Republicans have done less compromise and more obstructionism than the Democrats EVER have. It reveals your bias against both facts and government to equate the two parties as equally responsible for the mess we are in.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
It reveals my bias toward reality to say that Republicans have done less compromise and more obstructionism than the Democrats EVER have. It reveals your bias against both facts and government to equate the two parties as equally responsible for the mess we are in.
Again, you are quite wrong. But, hey...you should keep going with what you're best at.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm not wrong. It is factual that the Republicans have used the filibuster more than any other congress. You have no evidence for this accusation against me (which again meshes with your larger worldview).
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Kinda like a serial rapist saying "I like sex, so sue me."
It reveals my bias toward reality to say that Republicans have done less compromise and more obstructionism than the Democrats EVER have. It reveals your bias against both facts and government to equate the two parties as equally responsible for the mess we are in.
You seem to forget that FDR threatened the Supreme Court and concocted a way to stack it in his favor which he conveniently was able to call off after they cowtowed and several of them magically retired.
Democrats are extremists and how can one compromise or avoid obstructing extremism? Obama's budget just went down 99-0 in the Senate. His other budgets have had similar outcomes. The only thing bipartisan about Obama's agenda has been opposition as he relied on the one time Democratic supermajorities and a combination of Republicans and Democrats that could not support his agenda offered bipartisan opposition instead of support.
Stop lying.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Pointing out the corruption in the Republican Party while ignoring or justifying it in the Democratic Party accomplishes nothing.
The corruption is pervasive in both parties and is obvious to anyone who isn't caught up in the contrived, never-ending bickering between them.
The sooner we admit government - in general - is the problem, the sooner we can fix it.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying there's WAY WAY WAY more of it with the Republicans.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I agree. You make excuses for it, dismiss it, or engage in ad-hominem attacks to avoid discussing it more than you ignore it.
I eagerly await your next Democrat attack thread.
Those not blinded by the contrived partisan paradigm can clearly see the pervasive corruption and criminal activity throughout government and that we are merely being presented with a false dilemma every 4 years to make us think we have control over what government does. The State is only interested in one thing: power. Power to control, manipulate, and plunder the individual. And it will do whatever it takes to keep what power it has and gain more of it.
Until we admit that both major political parties only differ (on the surface) on which ways they want to increase government power, our individual liberties will continue to deteriorate.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
But yet you'll still pull the lever for Romney, won't you?
I'll pretend your erroneous assumption is due to the fact that you haven't been lurking or participating here in PO regularly over the past year and not due to willful ignorance or a desire to troll.
I have made it very clear in several other threads that I will not vote for Romney, as I believe there is no substantial difference between him and Obama on most of the major issues that matter to me. I will vote for a third party candidate (unless Ron Paul somehow pulls a stunning upset and wins the GOP nomination in Tampa).
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Oh, the pearl clutching over the deficits! The feigned, head-shaking disappointment over cloture procedures. Fucking madness arguing with you guys. You take both sides of the issue whenever it suits you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. You're doing the same thing BR is doing...using whatever you can to bash Republicans as obstructionist, hypocritical, partisan, etc. If you want to debate which party plays worst with others, that's fine...but I'm not participating. I'll focus on what we should be doing policy wise and who is more likely to enact those policies.
But yet you'll still pull the lever for Romney, won't you?
As Jazz said, you've clearly not been following. Jazz won't. I will.
The crazy thing is that North and BR have been shown to be wrong repeatedly when the make assumptions and lash out related to them. Yet it never makes them change what they do and never causes them to be less credible in their own minds.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
The crazy thing is that North and BR have been shown to be wrong repeatedly when the make assumptions and lash out related to them. Yet it never makes them change what they do and never causes them to be less credible in their own minds.
I think it's more about the lack of ability to accept others' opinions. For example, I disagree with Jazz and MJ on some things. Sometimes it even gets heated. But in the end, I still accept that they have a different position. It doesn't stop me from arguing my own points, but I understand they have concluded differently than I in some areas. But with BR in particular, this notion is mind blowing, particularly on social issues. If one supports anything other than immediate and full gay marriage nationally, that person is a bigot, an idiot, an a-hole, a hater, etc. If one supports anything less than full abortion on demand, one is a misogynist. It doesn't matter if you support equal legal rights for gays with civil unions, or suggest getting government out of marriage entirely. It doesn't matter if one thinks abortion should be regulated and legal, but thinks Roe was a bad decision. No disagreement is tolerated. None. Welcome to the Fascism of the Left.
Yeah, you accept other's opinions by calling them Fascists. If only you would live in an evidence-based reality in which facts are immutable, your opinions might be respected. You don't get to ignore the facts, substitute your own falsehoods, and then cry victim that no one wants to take you seriously.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
