Republicans shut 'er down, boys!

[Not2BSubjugated]

Umm ... Obama never even got a vote.

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

So you're essentially justifying the president stonewalling the negotiation for (HOLY SHIT) egotistical reasons while out the other side of your mouth blaming the republicans for the shutdown? How dare they threaten the legacy of our exalted leader!?

Glad to see you've got your priorities on straight. I hope, for the sake of the country, that President Obama's motives are more altruistic and less vain than you make them out to be. If he's looking at it as what the republicans are wanting to take from -him-, and based on that he's willing to let things go this far, then, ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in the hands of a despot.

And if that's the case, Faun's still down! Lol!

 

[RKMBrown]

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Compromise on what?

A settled law?

Name another time in American history where the house refused to raise the debt limit over a settled law.

Name another time in history where a government shut down caused the National Parks to be closed. That was Obama's decision...to deliberately increase the pain to the American people.

Previous shutdowns have all lasted longer than this one...and no parks were closed.

Obama is a petulant child...posing as a grown man.

That is an insult to all petulant children. Shame on you.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Umm ... Obama never even got a vote.

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Compromise on what?

A settled law?

Name another time in American history where the house refused to raise the debt limit over a settled law.

Debt limit battle's not for a couple weeks, yet.

This shutdown thing is a battle over a continuing resolution for the nation's budget. Not the same as the debt ceiling, which we don't hit 'til mid October.

How many fucking pages are we into your own post and you don't even know what it is that you're bitching about yet? Good lord, sorry for all the profanity, but WHAT THE FUCK!? You really are that simple.

Anyway, in such budgetary debates, when a budgetary cut is proposed, that budgetary cut will inevitably alter the implementation of a settled law. Why is that, you ask? Because everything that the government spends money on is settled law. Based on the legitimacy of the law in question, proposing to cut Obamacare is no different than any other budget cut that's ever been proposed in the history of ever.

 

[asaratis]

Umm ... Obama never even got a vote.

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Compromise on what?

A settled law?

Name another time in American history where the house refused to raise the debt limit over a settled law.

Name another time in history when such a financially devastating law was forced on the American public. Refusing to raise the debt limit is reasonable regardless of Obamacare. Obama's claim that raising the debt limit does not raise the debt...while being technically true...is asinine. It merely OPENS THE DOOR to raising the debt,,,which is exactly what that overspending bastard wants...raise the debt until we are flat broke!

 

[Faun]

After the plan was reported, Reid said the Senate wouldn't "go to conference until we get a clean CR,” and accused Republicans of “playing games” at the eleventh hour.

After missing the midnight deadline to reach a deal to avoid a government shutdown, Speaker of the House John Boehner says that he hopes that the Senate would go to conference and "discuss this so that we can resolve this for the American people."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., told reporters the conference plan was simply "a recipe for shutting down the government."

Earlier Monday, the Senate twice rejected House-passed measures that would have delayed key provisions of Obamacare while funding the government for an additional few weeks.

Reid said on the Senate floor Monday that Republicans "have lost their minds" by repeatedly voting for "ridiculous policy riders" destined for failure in the Democratically-controlled Senate.

Shutdown begins as Congress remains deadlocked - NBC Politics

Crazy Republicans...

So when the congress sends bills with cuts in them that they know the senate is going to turn down, it's crazy because they're destined for failure.

When the senate sends back the clean cr proposal twice after the house has -already- rejected it, what does that make them?

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Crazy Republicans...

So when the congress sends bills with cuts in them that they know the senate is going to turn down, it's crazy because they're destined for failure.

When the senate sends back the clean cr proposal twice after the house has -already- rejected it, what does that make them?

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

On top of that, you're missing the point of the response. Why is it that every time the house votes on something that's obviously going to get shot down, they're wasting the American peoples' time and money on useless theatrics, but when the senate repeatedly fires off the same bill that they know is going to get shot down, they're just doing the right thing?

Probably for the same reason that democrat Wendy Davis's filibuster on the Texas state senate floor, which was ultimately doomed to fail at its inception, was "The filibuster heard round the world", and she's a hero, while Ted Cruz's filibuster was a waste of tax dollars on pointless theatrics that held the senate hostage for most of a day but was ultimately destined to fail.

That reason is that I'm talking to Democrats on these shutdown posts, and both of the noble parties in these double standards are Democrats. Sheep in politics generally base their ideas of right and wrong not on the action in question, but on the political affiliation of the person committing said action. Make sure your exalted leaders are only holding shears and not skinning knives

 

[Faun]

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

 

[asaratis]

Crazy Republicans...

So when the congress sends bills with cuts in them that they know the senate is going to turn down, it's crazy because they're destined for failure.

When the senate sends back the clean cr proposal twice after the house has -already- rejected it, what does that make them?

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

That's a laughable argument. Harry Reid has sent hundreds of House bills to committee to die!

Jesus! You are lame!

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/06/senate_inaction/

 

[asaratis]

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

Even your own Nancy Pelosi said that we'd have to pass the bill to see what's in it. Well, we passed it, we are not yet finished discovering what's in it and we don't like it. It needs to be repealed! Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the news as it happens.

 

[Faun]

So when the congress sends bills with cuts in them that they know the senate is going to turn down, it's crazy because they're destined for failure.

When the senate sends back the clean cr proposal twice after the house has -already- rejected it, what does that make them?

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

 

[Faun]

So when the congress sends bills with cuts in them that they know the senate is going to turn down, it's crazy because they're destined for failure.

When the senate sends back the clean cr proposal twice after the house has -already- rejected it, what does that make them?

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

That's a laughable argument. Harry Reid has sent hundreds of House bills to committee to die!

Jesus! You are lame!

Senate sitting on 420 bills passed by House - Salon.com

Which has nothing to do with this. Democrat leadership considered the House bill in the form of letting their chamber vote on the House bill.

Republican leaders wouldn't even consider the Senate bill.

 

[Faun]

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

Even your own Nancy Pelosi said that we'd have to pass the bill to see what's in it. Well, we passed it, we are not yet finished discovering what's in it and we don't like it. It needs to be repealed! Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the news as it happens.

That's a nice talking point just to avoid answering the question, so I'll ask it again. Perhaps I'll have better luck this time ...

Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

 

[Faun]

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Compromise on what?

A settled law?

Name another time in American history where the house refused to raise the debt limit over a settled law.

Name another time in history where a government shut down caused the National Parks to be closed. That was Obama's decision...to deliberately increase the pain to the American people.

Previous shutdowns have all lasted longer than this one...and no parks were closed.

Obama is a petulant child...posing as a grown man.

The GOP wanted to shut the government down. They got what they wanted.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I demand that every dime of federal money that is going to Texas for any reason whatsoever, be defunded. Otherwise shut down all government security checks for passengers who fly on Southwest Airlines.

 

[asaratis]

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

Even your own Nancy Pelosi said that we'd have to pass the bill to see what's in it. Well, we passed it, we are not yet finished discovering what's in it and we don't like it. It needs to be repealed! Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the news as it happens.

That's a nice talking point just to avoid answering the question, so I'll ask it again. Perhaps I'll have better luck this time ...

Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

The fact that they may have offered amendments to parts of the bill does not mean they were able to read the entire bill. You may recall that Republicans were LOCKED OUT of some of the writing sessions...by dear old Nancy Pelosi. She knew that they could be successful in hiding some of the bill's contents prior to voting.

..and I do recall Obama once saying that every bill would be posted for the American public to read ...for five days I think...before being voted upon. That didn't happen either.

 

[Faun]

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

So you're essentially justifying the president stonewalling the negotiation for (HOLY SHIT) egotistical reasons while out the other side of your mouth blaming the republicans for the shutdown? How dare they threaten the legacy of our exalted leader!?

Glad to see you've got your priorities on straight. I hope, for the sake of the country, that President Obama's motives are more altruistic and less vain than you make them out to be. If he's looking at it as what the republicans are wanting to take from -him-, and based on that he's willing to let things go this far, then, ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in the hands of a despot.

And if that's the case, Faun's still down! Lol!

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

 

[Faun]

Even your own Nancy Pelosi said that we'd have to pass the bill to see what's in it. Well, we passed it, we are not yet finished discovering what's in it and we don't like it. It needs to be repealed! Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the news as it happens.

That's a nice talking point just to avoid answering the question, so I'll ask it again. Perhaps I'll have better luck this time ...

Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

The fact that they may have offered amendments to parts of the bill does not mean they were able to read the entire bill. You may recall that Republicans were LOCKED OUT of some of the writing sessions...by dear old Nancy Pelosi. She knew that they could be successful in hiding some of the bill's contents prior to voting.

..and I do recall Obama once saying that every bill would be posted for the American public to read ...for five days I think...before being voted upon. That didn't happen either.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they had access to the entire bill. The majority party cannot hide portions of a bill that is being voted on in committee.

 

[asaratis]

That's a nice talking point just to avoid answering the question, so I'll ask it again. Perhaps I'll have better luck this time ...

Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

The fact that they may have offered amendments to parts of the bill does not mean they were able to read the entire bill. You may recall that Republicans were LOCKED OUT of some of the writing sessions...by dear old Nancy Pelosi. She knew that they could be successful in hiding some of the bill's contents prior to voting.

..and I do recall Obama once saying that every bill would be posted for the American public to read ...for five days I think...before being voted upon. That didn't happen either.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they had access to the entire bill. The majority party cannot hide portions of a bill that is being voted on in committee.

Even the prime writers of the bill admitted not reading the whole thing. I imagine the locked out Republicans had even less time to read it before the vote was taken.

Key Senate Democrat suggests that he didn't read entire healthcare reform bill - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the chief authors of the healthcare law, suggested Tuesday he did not read the entire piece of legislation.


Here's the text of it. Read it all and get back to me on Monday...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text


...and make sure you understand all the impacts of the amendments...such as follows:

SEC. 10909. EXPANSION OF ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) Increase in Dollar Limitation-

(1) ADOPTION CREDIT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 23(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’.

(B) CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS- Paragraph (3) of section 23(a) of such Code (relating to $10,000 credit for adoption of child with special needs regardless of expenses) is amended--

(i) in the text by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’, and

(ii) in the heading by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’.

(C) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO INFLATION ADJUSTMENT- Subsection (h) of section 23 of such Code (relating to adjustments for inflation) is amended to read as follows:

‘(h) Adjustments for Inflation-

‘(1) DOLLAR LIMITATIONS- In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2010, each of the dollar amounts in subsections (a)(3) and (b)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2009’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.

‘(2) INCOME LIMITATION- In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2002, the dollar amount in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2001’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.’.

(2) ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 137(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’.

(B) CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS- Paragraph (2) of section 137(a) of such Code (relating to $10,000 exclusion for adoption of child with special needs regardless of expenses) is amended--

(i) in the text by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’, and

(ii) in the heading by striking ‘$10,000’ and inserting ‘$13,170’.

(C) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO INFLATION ADJUSTMENT- Subsection (f) of section 137 of such Code (relating to adjustments for inflation) is amended to read as follows:

‘(f) Adjustments for Inflation-

‘(1) DOLLAR LIMITATIONS- In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2010, each of the dollar amounts in subsections (a)(2) and (b)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2009’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.

‘(2) INCOME LIMITATION- In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2002, the dollar amount in subsection (b)(2)(A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2001’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph thereof.

If any amount as increased under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.’.

(b) Credit Made Refundable-

(1) CREDIT MOVED TO SUBPART RELATING TO REFUNDABLE CREDITS- The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(A) by redesignating section 23, as amended by subsection (a), as section 36C, and

(B) by moving section 36C (as so redesignated) from subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 to the location immediately before section 37 in subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(A) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(B) Section 25(e)(1)(C) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’ both places it appears.

(C) Section 25A(i)(5)(B) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23, 25D,’ and inserting ‘25D’.

(D) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(E) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(F) Section 30(c)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23, 25D,’ and inserting ‘25D’.

(G) Section 30B(g)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(H) Section 30D(c)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking ‘sections 23 and’ and inserting ‘section’.

(I) Section 36C of such Code, as so redesignated, is amended--

(i) by striking paragraph (4) of subsection (b), and

(ii) by striking subsection (c).

(J) Section 137 of such Code is amended--

(i) by striking ‘section 23(d)’ in subsection (d) and inserting ‘section 36C(d)’, and

(ii) by striking ‘section 23’ in subsection (e) and inserting ‘section 36C’.

(K) Section 904(i) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(L) Section 1016(a)(26) is amended by striking ‘23(g)’ and inserting ‘36C(g)’.

(M) Section 1400C(d) of such Code is amended by striking ‘23,’.

(N) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘36C,’ before ‘53(e)’.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

Health Policy​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

Scratch that lol. Conceded on the overwhelming part.

Next up, I agree with you on the last bits. I may disagree with their actions, but I'll never condemn as evil any politician acting on his or her conscience regardless of what popular opinion would dictate. Bush might've done what he did in spite of what was popular with the people because he felt it was what was best for the country. At any rate, it was certainly legal.

Obama and the democrats, on the Obamacare thing, might've done what they felt was best for the country regardless of what was popular. At any rate, it was legal.

And now congressional leadership, by striking down the repeated clean CR proposals without taking them to the floor for a vote, might've done what they felt was best for the country despite what might've been popular with the rest of congress. At any rate, it was legal.

 

[edthecynic]

I did not say the current CHIP program is Nixon's CHIP program, did I? If you think I did, I invite you to quote me.

After I posted a comment about Nixon's CHIP national health care program you posted this below. Rather than admit your error you then tried to pass off a children's program off as Nixon's national program.

Originally Posted by RKMBrown

Correct. We already have Medicaid and CHIPs.

You ASSUMED I meant Nixon's CHIP because you said "Nixon's CHIP." I did not say we already have Nixon's CHIP. I said we already have Medicaid and CHIPs. Then you proceeded to call my intelligence in question. Are you retarded? You quote me out of context and still are incapable of backing up your stupid comments. When you ASSUME you make and ASS out of yourself. My point, previously made, is that we already have Medicaid and CHIPs why do we need ACA. The evidence shows that Obama's plan for the expansion of CHIPs and ACA to cover the legal and illegal immigrants to swamp our economy with new dependent democrats and thus hasten the end of our economy. His stated goal is to destroy every single thing about this country.

People like you are accessories to his crimes.

The context WAS Nixon's CHIP!