# Why are we so divided?



## DGS49 (May 1, 2017)

It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.

One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.

But in a real way, the  Court shoved the "Liberal" position down America's throat.  The majority of Americans, then and now, believe that abortion is morally evil, perhaps the taking of a human life, but "we" have never actually been heard on the subject.

Consider the death penalty.  A strong majority of the American population would support a REAL death penalty - one by which our most egregious criminals could be convicted and promptly dispatched.  But the Left has, by manipulation of the courts and the entire criminal justice system, made the DP so difficult, time consuming, and futile, that most people have given up on the issue.

Gay "marriage"?  Strong majorities in virtually every state wanted no part of this new institution.  But the courts (Leftist jurists) snatched the issue out of the hands of the Peoples' representatives, finding a preposterous right to marry someone of the same gender in the Constitution!

Public benefits and "Constitutional" rights for illegals?  Done by Leftist courts with zero support from either the People or the legislatures.  U.S  Courts have for years been thwarting every effort to take our own immigration laws seriously, in the name of protecting their so-called "Constitutional" rights!

Are you picking up the pattern here?  The Left in this country has for many decades been implementing it's broad agenda through anti-Constitutional means, perpetually lacking majority support, or sufficient strength in the legislatures to implement their desired agenda.

Look at how the "global warming agenda" has been thrust down our collective throat.  The EPA, with no congressional authorization whatever, declares that CO2 is a "harmful pollutant."  Thus an agency GIVES ITSELF the power to impose crippling regulations on industry, transportation, and power generation.  When did the American people or their representatives have a chance to vote on this monumental development?

The list goes on and on.  The Left feels positively ENTITLED to continue implementing it's agenda through extra - Constitutional means, and those of us who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law are supposed to accept it without complaint.

Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,


----------



## Disir (May 1, 2017)




----------



## shockedcanadian (May 1, 2017)

This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).

Education that pushes agendas that are anti-American and sympathetic to communism that are no longer interested in the means, but rather the ends.  All actions are justified, even if clearly unAmerican and undemocratic.

Add all of this with a contentious election and a person who promised to do the heavy lifting and difficult work of putting America back on track and you have entitled vs realists.  It is very difficult to deal with entitlements once people get comfortable with them.  They are often self defeating and soul sapping, not to mention violate the opportunities for the next generation due to debt, but this is a tough concept to sell.  Far worse in Canada I assure you.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 1, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


So we could end partisan division if only we would:
Make abortion illegal and dangerous again.
Denied civil rights to immigrants.

Forbade same sex marriage and continued to oppress homosexuals as demented Fermin.

And polluted all we could to maximize profit at the expense of our ecology.

Great!  In order to end partisan division all we have to do is acquiesce to all the lunatic demands of the RWNJs.

You forgot to mention that every citizen no matter if they are sane of convicted criminals should be armed to the teeth at all times.


----------



## task0778 (May 1, 2017)

shockedcanadian said:


> This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).
> 
> Education that pushes agendas that are anti-American and sympathetic to communism that are no longer interested in the means, but rather the ends.  All actions are justified, even if clearly unAmerican and undemocratic.
> 
> Add all of this with a contentious election and a person who promised to do the heavy lifting and difficult work of putting America back on track and you have entitled vs realists.  It is very difficult to deal with entitlements once people get comfortable with them.  They are often self defeating and soul sapping, not to mention violate the opportunities for the next generation due to debt, but this is a tough concept to sell.  Far worse in Canada I assure you.



Worse in Canada?   No offense, but I find that hard to believe.


----------



## ClosedCaption (May 1, 2017)

This guy seems to believe that "the left" is radical while believing too that they are so popular that they run everything.

How he believes two different things at the same time is part of the reason America is so fucked now.


----------



## DarkFury (May 1, 2017)

*We have two political groups in America. Republicans and Retards.
Inside the retard group you have two sub groups.. Moderate and full blown.
And on top of that the moderate and full blown fight/cheat and steal from each other. 
*


----------



## task0778 (May 1, 2017)

First of all, this country has always been divided on many fronts and issues.   From the getgo there was quite a fight over states rights vs the federal gov't, who gets to vote, and of course the slavery problem among a host of other contentious issues.   We did fight a civil war some 150 years ago, so there was a lot of divisiveness back then too.   So it ain't exactly a new phenomenon.

Another thing is the effect that primaries have on our politics.   Which to a significant degree is controlled more by the extremists of both parties;  if you ain't extreme enough in office you're going to face a tough competitive challenge in your next bid for re-election from within your own party, let alone the next general election.   So, more extremists are getting elected than it past decades, and the extremist influence is stronger than it's ever been.   And too often the rest of us are forced to choose between two extremist candidates, which is usually the lesser of two evils rather than somebody you actually like.   So, an extremist gets elected that the losing party cannot abide, and any cooperation goes out the window.


----------



## DGS49 (May 2, 2017)

Yins are missing the point.

We have CONSTITUTIONAL WAYS of implementing a policy agenda.  If you want to legalize abortion, go to your congressperson and if you have sufficient popular support, a law can be passed (or a Constitutional Amendment), and you will get your way.  You do NOT get it done by anti-constitutional justices on the Supreme Court.

If you want to eliminate the death penalty, you will have to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to do so.  The Constitution SPECIFICALLY CONDONES THE DEATH PENALTY, so it is a big deal.  You do NOT have Leftist judges effectively eliminate the DP by making it horrifically difficult to implement.

If you want to sanction gay marriage, YOU GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND GET THEM TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.  You do NOT go to some Leftist judge and have him "decree" that gay marriage is a "right," as the Massachusetts SC did several years ago when Mitt Romney was governor.

If you want to implement major policy changes to FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING, you elect like-minded congresspersons and pass an appropriate law.  You do NOT have bureaucrats do it on their own.

Now do you understand?

THE LEFT HAS NOT HAD SUFFICIENT POPULAR SUPPORT ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES TO HAVE THEIR AGENDA IMPLEMENTED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER!  So they do it through outlaw judges on the courts or outlaw bureaucrats.

and on issue after issue, they continue the pattern of using extra-constitutional means of getting their agenda forward.  ONLY LAST WEEK a federal appeals court, in effect, passed a law that classifies sexual preference in the same category as RACE - something that the Left has NEVER HAD THE VOTES TO DO in Congress or any state legislature.

Whether you like this or not, it is illegal and unconstitutional.


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

We have been divided longer than Row vs Wade lol 
It is just worse now. Instead of it being major policy or something, it is something like bathrooms.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Nosmo King said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...



If you progressives didn't have hyperbole and argumentum ad absurdum, you probably wouldn't ever have an actual argument....


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


I think Roe v Wade has little to do with our separation. That's because the majority of americans understand it is a woman's right to her body and it is their right to mind their own business. 
In my mind our separation issues have to do with an identity crisis. Who are we? What are our values? Welcome to America's mid-life crisis.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Aries said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...



It has tons to do with Roe, which is why we are still fighting over it 4 decades later. Most Americans can tolerate some abortion rights, but most of them don't want to hear about it past the 1st trimester or so, maybe the 2nd. Most also don't want public funds paying for it, and most certainly do not want minors to be able to get one without the parents even being notified about it. Right now Abortion Rights people have gone so far off the deep end with regards to zero restrictions ever, on anything, that a lot of people on the fence are starting to get tired of it.


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


like 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. So much for your zero restrictions.
GOP try to impose brutal laws that are so extreme, the left pushes towards the opposite extreme.
Federal judge blocks Texas law requiring funeral rites for aborted or miscarried fetuses


 If the GOP was able to accept the fact decades ago, that they do not own rights to women's bodies- there would be no more fighting. Seems the repubs just can't let that one go. Having total control of the female body is an important part of their master plan.


----------



## danielpalos (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I think this is why we are so divisive.

Moral indignation, simply and merely requires, morals; it really is that simple.

The abortion position for Persons of morals has Always been; "abstain and just say no".


----------



## Nosmo King (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


Consider the premise of the original argument.  All that's needed for political unity is acquiescence to the Right.  Absurdist at its face.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Aries said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Aries said:
> ...



Then why do groups like NARAL fight for zero restrictions, up to the point of birth? Why do they continue to press for public funding of elective abortions?  Why do they fight parental notification laws?

And your debasement into "control women's bodies, fuh fuh fuh" shows you have no actual debating skills, and resort to tired talking points to attempt to make your "point".

The fact that there are also many pro-life WOMEN gives lie to your implied "its the men doing" it mantra. 

The simple issue is abortion rights are not found in the Constitution, which makes it a State legislature issue. Roe is in the top 5 of worst SC decisions ever, up there with Dredd Scott, Plessey, Kelo, and Obergfell.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



All that is needed is a respect for federalism. If Alabama wants to restrict abortion, or not issue SSM licenses, why should New York care if New York can protect abortion, and issue SSM licenses?


----------



## Nosmo King (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Is this a defense of state's rights or a refusal of the full faith and credit clause?  If you're legally married in Nevada by an Elvis impersonator, aren't you also legally married in Utah, or Delaware?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...



I concur with your sentiment, and think most of the issues you brought up should be left to the states to decide for themselves. 

However you are a blind and stupid if you think the majority of people agree with you on these issues, and that if the majority does agree, then that is cause to invoke into law. One thing the constitution does is protect minorities from the tyranny of majority.


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Anti Abortion is about control of the womb. Period. Most anti-choicers insist their stance is religious in motivation and morally superior than the path science assures us of. But as soon as the babies are born the same anti-choices turn around and cut off lunches to poor kids, upward bound programs, and food stamps. Immediately discrediting your "we care for children" stance.  They complain about all the mouths to feed, but want poor women to be reproducing uncontrollably. They call single women with kids irresponsible, yet want to strip her of all of her contraception choices. The GOP wants masses of children born, with no net programs in place to help stabilize families. It's almost like they want the population of the poor workers to keep multiplying for cheap labor.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!


----------



## danielpalos (May 2, 2017)

shockedcanadian said:


> This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).
> 
> Education that pushes agendas that are anti-American and sympathetic to communism that are no longer interested in the means, but rather the ends.  All actions are justified, even if clearly unAmerican and undemocratic.
> 
> Add all of this with a contentious election and a person who promised to do the heavy lifting and difficult work of putting America back on track and you have entitled vs realists.  It is very difficult to deal with entitlements once people get comfortable with them.  They are often self defeating and soul sapping, not to mention violate the opportunities for the next generation due to debt, but this is a tough concept to sell.  Far worse in Canada I assure you.


Why do you believe it is soul sapping?  In the US, we merely need to simplify our social safety net to make it more efficient.  

Means tested welfare should be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money, may not be enough.

Unemployment compensation that actually conforms to our federal Doctrine of employment at will, could cover the rest, presumably, potential labor market participants.

Solving simple poverty and improving the efficiency of our economy, should enable us to lower our taxes.  It should not be, soul sapping.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Its a defense of the separation of powers in general, but not a refusal of full faith and credit. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe you cannot force States to issue SSM licenses if they do not want to, however you can force them to recognize out of State SSM's under full faith and credit, much like they have to now if the license doesn't meet in state age requirements, or first/second cousin marriage restrictions.


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Aries said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Aries said:
> ...



More standard talking points. have you ever had an original thought? There is not a connection between wanting to protect unborn life and wanting to use government to fix all the ills of society. How do you know the same people who are pro-life are not working with charities to help the people you are talking about? 

And considering birth control has been available for a long time, and the fight to eliminate is IS one of those fights that is pretty much over, that talking point is losing its merit. 

One can have people helped without having to turn it over to the government, more importantly turning it over to the federal government.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


What is the rationale behind recognizing same sex marriages from other states but refusing to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples within that state?  If the marriage is valid, why deny a license?


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



because the State's voters don't want to issue them, and there is nothing in the federal constitution forcing them to do so. There is however, language in the constitution that forces them to give full faith and credit to ones issued from another State.

This is what we used to call a compromise, something both sides have forgotten, along with the whole concept of federalism.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 2, 2017)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


The effect of this compromise is to force same sex couples to marry out of state in order to enjoy the same rights and benefits of married couples who were issued a license within that state.  Are there any other circumstances where such restrictions are valid and legal?  Should one citizen be forced to comply with such regulations while other citizens aren't?  Do American citizens enjoy equal protection under the law or is that a privilege restricted by others on a personal whim?


----------



## martybegan (May 2, 2017)

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



if you want to marry your first cousin in some States, you have to go to another State.  If you want to marry someone below a certain age in some States, without parental consent, you have to go to another State. 

It all hinges on your definition of "equal". You think SSM is equal to OSM, and in a way I do to. however I don't see it being equal enough to trigger equal protection under the law, and allowing federal force to make a State issue a license that hasn't been modified by legislative action.


----------



## Iceweasel (May 2, 2017)

At the present time we have a mass of people that think blocking traffic is a constitutional right as free speech. It took a while but leftist propaganda has set in and the modern generation acts out of what they been trained to think. They even believe gender is a state of mind now. The mission has been successful, they are ripe for anything that comes from headquarters.


----------



## DGS49 (May 2, 2017)

AGAIN, LET'S GET BACK ON POINT:

This thread is not about abortion or gay rights or the death penalty.  It is about WHY WE ARE SO DIVIDED.

We have always had disagreements, but today's level of anger and vituperation are - let's say - unusual.

And the reason for MUCH of the anger is not the issues themselves, but rather the method that the Left has chosen to have its program implemented.  They have eschewed the Constitution and the normal historical methods, to wit, electing congresspersons who will introduce laws (or in extreme cases Constitutional Amendments) that will crystallize those policies in law, in favor of having the Federal Courts infected with Leftist jurists who are willing to ignore and subvert the Constitution and laws in order to get their program implemented.

So on the Right, we win the arguments, win the elections, and elect our like-minded representatives, only to have the laws that they pass thwarted in the judiciary.

On issue after issue, the Left has lost the "arguments."  They have conspicuously failed to elect majorities in most of the states or in the Congress - majorities that would have implemented "single-payer," provided for "free college," guaranteed various rights for various non-mainstream, picked-on constituencies (including illegal immigrants).  But in spite of this, they are "winning" in real life because they have taken over the courts, and stuffed them with like-minded anti-Constitutionalists who say, in effect, "fuck the laws and the Constitution, I'm going to do what I WANT!"

This is why "we" are pissed.  Which is the point of my thread.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


The Right's sacred cow, the Constitution, set all that up.  So quit preaching that it has been misused by your Preppy Progressive fraternity brothers.  For one thing, if it could so easily be abused it was a defectively weak Constitution anyway. Just like a coward making himself a victim for bullies, that's his own fault.  

But it was designed to suppress the will of the people anyway.


----------



## task0778 (May 2, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...



To the contrary, the Constitution was designed to ensure the will of the people against an oppressive gov't.   But any gov't is still controlled and managed by human beings, who as we all know are somewhat imperfect.   Sage, you wanta offer a workable alternative for governance and the rule of law?   Far as I can tell, what we have is as good as it gets;  our problems stem not from the Constitution but how we have interpreted and applied it.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> Yins are missing the point.
> 
> We have CONSTITUTIONAL WAYS of implementing a policy agenda.  If you want to legalize abortion, go to your congressperson and if you have sufficient popular support, a law can be passed (or a Constitutional Amendment), and you will get your way.  You do NOT get it done by anti-constitutional justices on the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


*The Pulpit Is for Bullies*

The enemies of democracy are on the Right (who preach that we live in a "republic," which means supremacy of the 1% minority and their mooching heirs) and on the Left (the rest of the Birth-Class Supremacists, their twin brothers who preach that the majority owes reparations to unfit minorities). 

 Under self-determination, the Constitution would have been only a temporary start-up document, to be superseded by all subsequent legislation and national referendums.  All the anti-majority decisions you state were purposely imposed in order to trick us into voting for the Right's economic elitism instead of taking over the voting ourselves.


----------



## task0778 (May 2, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> AGAIN, LET'S GET BACK ON POINT:
> 
> This thread is not about abortion or gay rights or the death penalty.  It is about WHY WE ARE SO DIVIDED.
> 
> ...





The Sage of Main Street said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Yins are missing the point.
> ...



First of all most of us on the Right have no interest in supporting the supremacy of the 1%, that is unadulterated nonsense.   Nor do I believe most people on the Left are birth class supremacists/elitists, whatever that really means.   The 2 groups have different approaches to the problems we face as a society today, and probably there's a little bit right and wrong in the positions that each side is taking.   True, as a conservative I don't like the methods that some on the Left are employing, but I also suspect that there are many on the Left who don't support the violence and limiting of free speech either.   Unfortunately we don't seem to have the will to cut the crap and talk about the mounting problems that we face today that will only grow worse in time.   How terrible will it be to pass the burdens of debt and so many other unresolved issues onto future generations.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 2, 2017)

task0778 said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).
> ...



  Oh it's worse alright.
 I visit Canada pretty regularly in Kamloops and on the Okanagan in Summerland.
   My relatives are constantly complaining about the leftist.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 2, 2017)

This nation is divided as it is because one side wants to live in a modern European style country while the other wants to play cowboy.


----------



## DGS49 (May 3, 2017)

Matthew you are close to being right.  But MY point is that, if the Left really wants to live in a Leftist country like, say, France, they have some hurdles to overcome.  They have to modify the Constitution to permit a national health care program, to allow cradle-to-grave welfare, "free" universities, and so on.  But the American Left knows that it can not accomplish those things by constitutional means, despite a couple generations now of Leftist indoctrination of our children in government schools.

Which is why defeating Hillary Clinton was the greatest political accomplishment of the past 40 years.  There is nothing DJT can do that would be as destructive to our country as another Clinton presidency.  We dodged a giant fucking bullet in November, despite the biggest conspiracy in history to destroy the American system of government.


----------



## task0778 (May 3, 2017)

Matthew ain't that close to being right, he left out the part where everybody who lives in those modern European style countries has to pay a heavy tax burden, to include a VAT that mostly ranges between 20 - 25%, and in addition to that EVERYBODY pays taxes on every dollar.   None of this stuff where almost half do not pay federal income tax like here in the USA;  tell you what, how about the democrats float that idea around and see what most people think.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 3, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...



we are divided for 2 reason:

1) the Constitution was not clear enough that liberalism was to be illegal in America

2) not enough Americans understand the cancer of liberalism enough to oppose it


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 3, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> We have been divided longer than Row vs Wade lol
> .



Yes Plato and Aristotle were divided about freedom versus govt, so were Republicans and Federalists in 1792, and so are Republicans and Democrats now. Indeed, all of human history has been nothing more than the battle between freedom and govt.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (May 16, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


*I goes back almost after it was signed people did not like certain section of it and tried to have them over turned but the courts have usurped the powers of law making from the States and Congress by inventing law by nitpicking and adding words like "intent of the lawmakers" who wrote the law.   The Democrats who controls the gov, just set by because this was the way that they could get laws pass or put on to the books without being involved.*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...


 It goes back forever. Some people will always try to leech off of other people and some people will want to feel wonderful by orchestrating the leaching.


----------



## anotherlife (May 16, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...



How about this.  America is divided because of the implosion of the middle class. 

But to go on your list one by one. 
1. Abortion is a non issue and conservatives play into the hands of leftists with it. 
2. Death penalty should be brought back, but America has only the prison services industry which is not yet outsourced. 
3. Gay marriage is a huge benefit bonanza, both employer sponsored healthcare and taxation and retirement. 
4. Benefits for illegals is the price of locking onto power. 
5. Global warming is to be a brand new security / bond market.  

You are witnessing the birth of an array of new American industries, and the birth of a new America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> America is divided because of the implosion of the middle class.


yes its imploded  thanks to liberal regulation, taxes, and unions that drove 20 million jobs off shore, 30 million liberal illegals invited in to take our jobs and bid down wages did not help.
Plus thanks must go to the liberal war on our schools, families, religion, that has rendered many unfit for middle class jobs.


----------



## anotherlife (May 16, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > America is divided because of the implosion of the middle class.
> ...



I would like to add the US and international currency manipulation, which is the strongest factor in this problem.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


We're so divided because we're cursed with two groups whose influence continues to increase:

First, the division pimps on both ends of the spectrum who have a vested professional interest in keeping their flocks angry and pointing the finger at the other.

Second, their flocks, who allow themselves to be swallowed by the political ideology of their particular tribe, which makes them blind, dishonest and incurious.

These groups represent a minority of the country -- most prefer to think more for themselves -- but their anger and energy control the conversation, sadly.
.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

Mac1958 said:


> We're so divided because we're cursed with two groups whose influence continues to increase:
> .



First, the libsocialist leeches

Second, the conservative/libertarian workers.

Thomas Jefferson:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> I would like to add the US and international currency manipulation, which is the strongest factor in this problem.


you've brought up economics a subject for which a liberal lacks the IQ. 
In short, a store or country can set its price or manipulate its currency how ever it wants but you don't  buy unless it improves your standard of living more than any other purchase you might make anywhere in the world. Thus currency manipulation offers buyer or seller no advantage.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 17, 2017)

Dan Stubbs said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...


*A Sacred Cow for Their Golden Calf*

Free men don't need a Constitutional overlord on their laws.  Constitutionarians treat that anti-democratic manifesto like fundamentalists treat the Bible.  Their claim that the Constitution is not being followed is very weak; they keep making excuses in order to enslave us to a political theocracy, in which their Masters are the infallible Politburo.

.  Their "wise stewards" need to be skewered.  The main tyranny of that document is that we, the people, are not allowed to vote on the issues.  We need a tribune to challenge special-interest legislation, not on meaningless Constitutional grounds, but because he believes it will be overridden by a national referendum.  The Constitution excluded us from direct political power, so it's time we exclude it and overthrow the ruling class's "republic."


----------



## anotherlife (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to add the US and international currency manipulation, which is the strongest factor in this problem.
> ...


Currency valuation determines the value of your work and the size of your national labor market. That way you don't have the decision power to buy or not to buy. And it also determines the national political spectrum, in this fashion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



so???? every nation values its currency. This does not make a nation richer or poorer.


----------



## anotherlife (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Yes it does.


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

We are divided along ideological lines only because one half of that divide accepts facts and the other half does not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> so???? every nation values its currency. This does not make a nation richer or poorer.


Yes it does.[/QUOTE]

who knew so why don't all nations manipulate their currencies and get rich?? It seems 10000% easier than actually developing industries that have the best products in the world!! Who needs a silicon valley or auto industry when you can just manipulate your currency??[/QUOTE]


----------



## task0778 (May 18, 2017)

We are divided in large part because we have 2 major political parties and both of them have put their power ahead of our well-being.   Too many politicians have put their own careers before their ethics and integrity and the media are bought and paid for.   Used to be (or so I thought) that journalism was an honorable profession;  no more.   And so here we are, the American public trying to make sense of all this and getting conflicting reports and analysis.   Who do you trust?   Nobody.   We're not divided about that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> We are divided in large part because we have 2 major political parties and both of them have put their power ahead of our well-being.   t.



wrong, when Republicans have power our well being is served. Democrats attacked and destroyed our families schools religion health care and workers. Do you understand?


----------



## IsaacNewton (May 18, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...




The entire court system is in the Constitution and it is an equal branch of government to the Executive and the Congress. Nothing is 'anti-Constitutional' about their decisions. Your entire premise is debunked. A Republic isn't mob rule, it doesn't function as a system to enforce the will of the majority. 

Most of the country would like to keep abortion legal and most think gay marriage is fine. Global Warming is only political to conservatives. To everyone else it is science that was settled 15 years ago and debate in the scientific community ended. 

What we do see is Republicans are constantly looking at ways to take away the rights of human beings and groups they don't 'approve' of. They believe their feelings or their religion should be the guiding force in the society. 

The 'divide' you see is the one talk radio and Faux News has drilled into your head. Conservative media couches everything they don't like as 'evil'. Not just as another opinion, but as evil. And you people hear this over and over until you believe it. You don't think for yourselves anymore.


----------



## task0778 (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > We are divided in large part because we have 2 major political parties and both of them have put their power ahead of our well-being.   t.
> ...



If that were true about the GOP then why haven't they repealed and replaced ObamaCare yet?   And we should have had the tax reform bill done by summer IMHO.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> If that were true about the GOP then why haven't they repealed and replaced ObamaCare yet?



right now country seems to be  for Obamacare so repeal would be political suicide. 1+1=2. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

task0778 said:


> And we should have had the tax reform bill done by summer IMHO.



100% it will be done if there is enough support to do it. Do you understand??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> The entire court system is in the Constitution and it is an equal branch of government to the Executive and the Congress. Nothing is 'anti-Constitutional' about their decisions..


Courts are in Constitution but liberals violate Constitution when they  serve on courts. Constitution requires taking oath of office wherein they swear to preserve and protect Constitution. Liberals oppose Constitution and say they can read it to say anything they want! This is treason. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> The 'divide' you see is the one talk radio and Faux News has drilled into your head.



actually our Founders existed long before Fox News. 1+1=2. See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance


----------



## anotherlife (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > so???? every nation values its currency. This does not make a nation richer or poorer.
> ...



who knew so why don't all nations manipulate their currencies and get rich?? It seems 10000% easier than actually developing industries that have the best products in the world!! Who needs a silicon valley or auto industry when you can just manipulate your currency??[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Currency manipulation is an export tool and a loan tool.  If you use it as an export tool, then you devalue your currency to the level of your industrial production.  Obviously, the USA doesn't have the industry production to do that.


----------



## anotherlife (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> We are divided along ideological lines only because one half of that divide accepts facts and the other half does not.


No because farm facts are different from ghetto facts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 18, 2017)

ClosedCaption said:


> This guy seems to believe that "the left" is radical while believing too that they are so popular that they run everything.
> 
> How he believes two different things at the same time is part of the reason America is so fucked now.



You Stalinists are violent thugs. You riot, you assault those who hold views contrary to your fascist party. You form violent mobs to stop expression that you don't agree with.

You are jackbooted thugs, Brown Shirts no different than the scum that followed Hitler.


----------



## anotherlife (May 18, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > This guy seems to believe that "the left" is radical while believing too that they are so popular that they run everything.
> ...


Yes but you don't have as good buzz words.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...



Actually the US has always been divided. Back in the day there were arguments about tariffs on goods. The South exported cotton, the North imported cotton based products. 

The Civil War, again, North v. South.

Even now, the differences between the people are often between those who mistrust the government (that they elect) and those who would like the government to improve society. 

The whole "shoving Liberal down our throats" is just another way that people who control you make it easy to tell you what to think.


----------



## task0778 (May 18, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Currency manipulation is an export tool and a loan tool.  If you use it as an export tool, then you devalue your currency to the level of your industrial production.  Obviously, the USA doesn't have the industry production to do that.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that if you devalue your currency to improve your exports and trade balance, then you also have diminished the standard of living for your citizenry cuz their money doesn't go as far


----------



## anotherlife (May 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Currency manipulation is an export tool and a loan tool.  If you use it as an export tool, then you devalue your currency to the level of your industrial production.  Obviously, the USA doesn't have the industry production to do that.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that if you devalue your currency to improve your exports and trade balance, then you also have diminished the standard of living for your citizenry cuz their money doesn't go as far[/QUOTE]

Relative to import products, yes.  But the living standard is bound to nosedive anyways if your export is hindered. A strong banking sector is known to be both good and bad,  good because it can independently value the local currency, and bad because it destroys the living standard.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



My understanding is that if you devalue your currency to improve your exports and trade balance, then you also have diminished the standard of living for your citizenry cuz their money doesn't go as far[/QUOTE]

Relative to import products, yes.  But the living standard is bound to nosedive anyways if your export is hindered. A strong banking sector is known to be both good and bad,  good because it can independently value the local currency, and bad because it destroys the living standard.[/QUOTE]
 It seems you are meandering all over creation. You started out saying that Currensy manipulation was extremely important to a nations wealth now you're saying it's merely a tool of some kind what does that mean exactly do you now understand that is not important that every country can manipulate his current sea and none can come out I ahead from doing it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

task0778 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Currency manipulation is an export tool and a loan tool.  If you use it as an export tool, then you devalue your currency to the level of your industrial production.  Obviously, the USA doesn't have the industry production to do that.[/QUOTE]

My understanding is that if you devalue your currency to improve your exports and trade balance, then you also have diminished the standard of living for your citizenry cuz their money doesn't go as far[/QUOTE]
Actually the USA has about 20% of the worlds manufacturing output which is just a little less than a had in the 60s 70s and 80s.


----------



## anotherlife (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > task0778 said:
> ...



Relative to import products, yes.  But the living standard is bound to nosedive anyways if your export is hindered. A strong banking sector is known to be both good and bad,  good because it can independently value the local currency, and bad because it destroys the living standard.[/QUOTE]
 It seems you are meandering all over creation. You started out saying that Currensy manipulation was extremely important to a nations wealth now you're saying it's merely a tool of some kind what does that mean exactly do you now understand that is not important that every country can manipulate his current sea and none can come out I ahead from doing it?[/QUOTE]

The industrial capacity and lending volume define the parameters of the manipulation of local currencies.  Relatively between nations, you do get an advantage by devaluing your currency if you are less import dependent and more export dependent.  Many Asian countries are in this category.  The opposite is true for the US and Europe.  This is very important I think because this is what determines the cross country migration of non automated jobs.


----------



## anotherlife (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



My understanding is that if you devalue your currency to improve your exports and trade balance, then you also have diminished the standard of living for your citizenry cuz their money doesn't go as far[/QUOTE]
Actually the USA has about 20% of the worlds manufacturing output which is just a little less than a had in the 60s 70s and 80s.[/QUOTE]

That is debatable, and I think it is a bundled figure, represents probably only cash flow, not actual sales volume to man hour.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> you do get an advantage by devaluing your currency if you are less import dependent and more export dependent.



why is there an advantage???  If you export at low prices your wages then are low too. Low wages and poverty is an advantage?


----------



## anotherlife (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > you do get an advantage by devaluing your currency if you are less import dependent and more export dependent.
> ...



Yes but like mentioned above, this results in poverty only in the absence of domestic production.  This is why Asian living standards rise during Asian currency devaluation and in the same time western living standards fall with it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...


wrong!!! low export prices cause low wages and poverty.  how domestic production is regulated and to what end is a different subject. Liberal  govt might engineer low wages there too so everyone lives in poverty.


----------



## anotherlife (May 20, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No because domestic production is what determines your dependence on import.  The more independent of import you are, the more freedom you have about the currency valuation and living standard.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 20, 2017)

task0778 said:


> shockedcanadian said:
> 
> 
> > This is a very simplified answer, and I've only really followed U.S politics over the last two years (though followed is extensively).
> ...



Shocked Canadian is an idiot who is being oppressed by the Canadian government, harassed by CSIS, and prevented from leaving the country because of his political stances.


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Should, ShockedCanadian smoke pot and be more euphoric about being a Canadian, when about his chores?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...


 That's totally stupid you can get very rich by a lot of exporting or by little exporting or by exporting and importing from different areas around your country you living standard depends on how great your industries are on the international and domestic market. You can't manipulate currency and get rich that were possible everybody would do it


----------



## anotherlife (May 20, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Everybody does it.  The bounds of it are country specific, and as explained above, export and import dependent.  Some get rich on it, and some get poor on it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> Some get rich on it, and some get poor on it.


who gets rich, exactly, by manipulating their currency?????????


----------



## anotherlife (May 20, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Some get rich on it, and some get poor on it.
> ...



It depends which type of country you are.  If you are a producer type of country, then the exporters get rich, and if you are a consumer/lender type of country, then the lenders get rich.


----------



## dfens (May 20, 2017)

The Jews and the rich divide up the little people to prevent them from asking questions about the financial system.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



name a country the gets rich on currency manipulation???


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

dfens said:


> The Jews and the rich divide up the little people to prevent them from asking questions about the financial system.


Why "make excuses and blame others"?


----------



## anotherlife (May 21, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



It depends which country you pick.  In China, the communist party that controls the export production is what gets rich,  in France, the banks that are members of the national banking system and the European Central Bank are the ones that get rich.


----------



## anotherlife (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> dfens said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews and the rich divide up the little people to prevent them from asking questions about the financial system.
> ...


Can you prove that your question is not a lie?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > dfens said:
> ...


Do You have any better solutions at potentially lower cost?


----------



## anotherlife (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It is a hard fact, that the number of country borders tripled after ww1, then tripled again after ww2.  So the dividing of the little people is a hard fact.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

anotherlife said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...


In other words, nothing but repeal; I got it , right winger.


----------



## SeaGal (Jun 3, 2017)

task0778 said:


> We are divided in large part because we have 2 major political parties and both of them have put their power ahead of our well-being.   Too many politicians have put their own careers before their ethics and integrity and the media are bought and paid for.   Used to be (or so I thought) that journalism was an honorable profession;  no more.   And so here we are, the American public trying to make sense of all this and getting conflicting reports and analysis.   Who do you trust?   Nobody.   We're not divided about that.



I have to agree.

True also, as some have said, we've had divisions from the beginning.  The 60's were pretty rough and I think we are reaping some of what was sown then. 

We were pretty dedicated to tearing down walls and barriers, even imaginary ones.  We tore through life like a boat on half plane through a no-wake zone, without ever looking back to acknowledge the damage inflicted by our wake.  Some politicians found division to be profitable - keeps them relevant.  Putting people in carefully labeled boxes makes them easier to control - look at the hate toward those who climb out of those ideological boxes.

But primarily - the fault is ours.  We don't want politicians who tell the truth - the truth of what we need to do to correct our course is painful.  Victimhood gets votes, fiscal pain does not. Interestingly enough, Donald Trump is as close to a 3rd party president as we have had in a good long while - and the left is apoplectic over it.  Both establishments and the press are rattled - that's a good thing, imo.  'Cuz long ago the 'free' press sold it's soul to an ideology - leaving too many of us dreaming of bread and circuses.

Through the fluff above - politics has become a contact sport...and mob rule the norm.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 3, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


I really would like to know when all people in the US did all get along, every single one of them....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 3, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,


Here is what I from the Left say;  Fuck you whiny little Appomattox Surrender Monkeys ...you ain't gonna make a come back


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 3, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, we are pissed at the Left, and that is not going to change anytime soon,
> ...


Elections have consequences and so does losing a war...It's silly to think the status quo would be the same forever in the future when those oppressed gained power to change the social structure of a society.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 3, 2017)




----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

The Derp said:


> We are divided along ideological lines only because one half of that divide accepts facts and the other half does not.



/close thread

We have a winner!

How ironic, it was posted by a libtard.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 14, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > We are divided along ideological lines only because one half of that divide accepts facts and the other half does not.
> ...


LOL
*Donnie Two scoops Fucks the GOP who voted for his TrumpCare*...calls it a* "Too Mean "..*.I love it...the GOP congress folks are going to be brutally attacked for voting for a Bill that even an Orange Monster thinks its mean.. Yes its sweet 




* House GOP Angry with Trump Over Comment *
June 14, 2017


Playbook: “Imagine if you’re a House Republican, and voted for the leadership’s health-care bill in May after being told that you were doing the newly elected president a solid. You listened to the White House’s pleading — perhaps you got a phone call from Vice President Mike Pence, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus or even the president himself. The administration was on the Hill nonstop to push their legislation. You explained to your constituents that the late-in-the-game changes made to the bill helped cover more people. You celebrated with him in the Rose Garden after passage.”

“Now you hear the president has gone behind closed doors and told senators the House bill is ‘mean’ and says it doesn’t do enough to cover people. Wouldn’t that anger you? Well, it’s angering a lot of House Republicans, who believe their president put them at political risk with that comment.”


“If you’re a House Republican, are you going to help the White House next time after the president privately just dumped all over you after you cast a vote for him? A lot of GOP lawmakers are buzzing about it, and many are none too pleased with the president right now*.*“


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 14, 2017)

looking for my kryptonite or wonderwall?


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 22, 2017)

DGS49 said:


> It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> 
> One could say that it started with Roe v. Wade.  In basic terms, the acceptability of abortion was at stake, and resolution required action by the Peoples' representatives in Congress and/or the state legislatures.  And some of them were working on the issue.  Congress, of course, avoided the subject like Kryptonite.  So the USSC foolishly took the issue on, and "legislated" an ambiguous and intellectually interesting framework, based on one justice's medical readings.  And 44 years later we are still fighting about it.
> 
> ...


*Had a friend explain that to me many years ago.  He said" If you put 10 people into a room you will find at least 3 azzholes.   Simple .*


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 22, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very serious question that puzzles many serious people.  The answer is simple, but painful.
> ...


*I am kind of surprised that the Progressive have not wanted to make it a Government control issue.*


----------

