(10-02-2013 12:32 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  So you feel it is OK for one party to "fundamentally change" the relationship between the people and their doctors by inserting a bureaucrat in between AND fundamentally alter 1/6th of the economy?

If the GOP were to gain control of the Senate, House and Presidency and decided to un-do all the "great works" of our dem overlords by, say, eliminating SS, Medicare and Medicaid and Obamacare, you'd be fine with it? Obamacare is a fundamental change that takes away a person's right to dictate their own healthcare choices and you are OK with that?

Extreme example, for sure and it would never happen but this is what you are saying here. You ARE truly mixedup.

I wouldn't be fine with it, but I would be powerless to stop them and they would be within their rights to do so.

Just because you have some objection to the law, whatever it is, doesn't mean you get to usurp the way the system works.

The point is, that the "system" didn't work at all. If you are going to make such a substantial change in the way things are done in this country and move us toward a much bigger, more powerful government in such a sweeping way, shouldn't it have buy-in from both parties? Shouldn't it have the backing of the people? If you say NO then you have a statist mentality. All powerful government.

Remember, too, that the deciding vote came from Al Franken, elected from Minnesota among massive voting fraud, in a typical dem "we found more votes in a box in the trunk of a car" fashion. Funny that almost all those votes were votes for the democrat candidate that pushed him over the top. Then, voila!! The dems now had the votes.

We have witnessed a flawed process, where one democrat, actually made this statement about the way they just ignored procedural rules in Congress. He thinks that his statements are smart, intelligent points. What they show is disregard for the process that is supposed to be followed. Pretty much the way this administration has done everything.





Before Tom comes around to complain about context, he was quoting Thomas Edison. That just makes it worse that he sees a parallel between ignoring rules of order for Congress with procedures for an inventor. He thinks that because they were trying to "accomplish something" that the Congressional rules should not apply to them. Idiocy. Evil and underhanded. Slimy weasels.

Here's the clip with more context.

(10-02-2013 10:37 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Obama begs to differ....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/02/go...-dictator/

If Obama was a dictator, Congress wouldn't have the power to shut the government down.

When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

Put the clean CR up to a vote... Before all you guys get up into a tizzy just try functioning the House without the Hastert rule. Let's see where that goes first .... Kay'

(10-02-2013 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

You miss the point completely again - both Obama and Reid want the shutdown so they can continue to play blame games, all while refusing to either budge or bring GOP House bills to the floor of the Senate. But you know that and are being intellectually dishonest or just ignorant.

I think both sides are itching for a fight. You need one every now and then to establish order.

(10-02-2013 12:24 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I don't accept the premise that this somehow had to have GOP votes in the first place to be legitimate. Did it get passed with less than a majority of Representatives or Senators? No. A majority of democratically elected representatives voted yes, it passed, the President signed it. That's how it works in this republic.

Want to repeal it? Introduce a bill to do so, put it up to a vote, and let it ride on it's own merits. Since the Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and the White House, it probably won't pass. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also deal with every other thing that comes up. I don't withhold my mortgage payment because I'm arguing with DirecTV over the cost of my cable bill.

Want something passed in the House, then elect enough Congressmen in the House to get your vote.
As you keep saying, that is how it works in this Republic.

Dirty Reid is holding the nation hostage, not allowing votes on the floor, and refusing to pass a budget in the first place. How about obey the law and pass a f'ucking budget, then there would be no reason for a CR in the first place.

Several disingenuous statements in this thread. These statements are more accurate as to what happened:

1. GOP only retained the house due to the gerrymandering done by the state gov'ts. That is patently false. Dems controlled the majority of the state gov'ts back in 2000 when these congressional districts were last drawn up - prior to the GOP take over of the house and a majority of the states. The GOP did not have a chance to redraw the electoral maps until after the 2010 census and well after the 2010 elections, when the Dems still held sway in the majority of the states.
2. The 2010 elections were an indictment against Democrat congressmen who made a series of unpopular votes on policy - most notably the lack of real action on the economy AND for ramming home an unpopular Obamacare.
3. Obama won the 2012 election and Democrats did win back a small number of seats in the House and Senate. But it had nothing to do with people's love of Obamacare. It had everything to do with their view on Obama "saving" the auto industry plus the majority of the people's view that Obama was doing positive things to get the economy back on track (laughably no real prograss there). Obamacare was buried throughout the election by Democrat campaigners. The GOP was actually running adds about Obamacare. However, they were not enough to offset the perception that Obama saved GM. This is what got Obama reelected - GM.
   

What I specifically want to point out, although not germane to this thread is that Obama saved an auto company and not the actual auto industry. Ford never took gov't money and they are clearly the #1 perceived brand in the U.S. today. You could argue that saving GM saved the other auto OEM's from losing out. However, if GM were allowed to go thru the bankruptcy process, it would have been bought by another going concern who would want to see GM become a roaring success. Hell, going thru bankruptcy would have allowed GM to redefine itself and fix its current problems. Sadly, that was not allowed to happen...

(10-02-2013 12:30 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 12:26 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 12:07 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 12:04 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Have to when the other party knows nothing of it.

Don't think you get it. Put everything up for a vote and see if it wins or loses. If people were so upset about Obamacare, they shouldn't have elected a Senate and a President who promised to keep it in place.

We're not a direct democracy. We don't rule by polls, and we don't put national laws up for a referendum. Don't like the law? Vote out the people who passed it. Did that already? Well, more of your fellow citizens like it so it stays. That's why it's a Democracy. The voters of Texas don't get to decide via Ted Cruz the laws of the rest of the country by themselves.

That's not how a Republic works.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

That's EXACTLY how a republic works. You vote for representatives, they vote for laws, a majority of the current representatives are not in favor of repealing the law, so we MOVE THE F ON.

A majority in the house....which controls spending. Remember?

So sorry

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(10-02-2013 11:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh there was a vote on Obamacare. And the GOP lost it. 40 times.

We have the minority party, who has lost 9 of the last 10 national elections and only holds the House due to gerrymandering, now attempting to damage the nation in order to stop what it can't get stopped by any other means.

I think this stoppage is going to be long term. Obama isn't going to give up anything on Obamacare.

What's next? The GOP demanding that they get to rule the entire government so long as they have 41 Senators?

How about letting the people vote. It's not just GOP who hate obamacare.

(10-02-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

(10-02-2013 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

An injunction could be issued, to prevent Obama from acting unconstitutionally, if he tries this really stupidshit.

(10-02-2013 02:10 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

An injunction could be issued, to prevent Obama from acting unconstitutionally, if he tries this really stupidshit.

It's not really that stupid. We racked up the bills, we need to pay them.

(10-02-2013 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:10 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When is Obama going to dictate that the government remain open?

Hell, he doesn't even have the stones to say "the hell with you I'm using my authority to raise the debt ceiling regardless of what you do."

He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

An injunction could be issued, to prevent Obama from acting unconstitutionally, if he tries this really stupidshit.

It's not really that stupid. We racked up the bills, we need to pay them.

We can only pay them if Liberals are not allowed to bankrupt the country. That's the point 17trillion in debt, 8 trillion on Obama's watch. Headed to 20 trillion before we get rid of the spender in chief. You do understand bankruptcy, don't you clown?

(10-02-2013 03:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:10 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  He doesn't have the authority to do so (although it hasn't stopped him so far from doing similar things). The purse strings belong to Congress. Period. That DOES include the debt ceiling.

Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

An injunction could be issued, to prevent Obama from acting unconstitutionally, if he tries this really stupidshit.

It's not really that stupid. We racked up the bills, we need to pay them.

We can only pay them if Liberals are not allowed to bankrupt the country. That's the point 17trillion in debt, 8 trillion on Obama's watch. Headed to 20 trillion before we get rid of the spender in chief. You do understand bankruptcy, don't you clown?

Clown, were you alive during the bush reign when we exploded the debt?

Would you stop lying that this is a democrat/liberal problem only. It defies fact and logic.

(10-02-2013 04:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 03:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:10 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 02:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Many believe he can do this under the 14th amendment. He can certainly do it and then let the supreme court hash it out later. He just chooses not to...as you know...he's not really a dictator.

An injunction could be issued, to prevent Obama from acting unconstitutionally, if he tries this really stupidshit.

It's not really that stupid. We racked up the bills, we need to pay them.

We can only pay them if Liberals are not allowed to bankrupt the country. That's the point 17trillion in debt, 8 trillion on Obama's watch. Headed to 20 trillion before we get rid of the spender in chief. You do understand bankruptcy, don't you clown?

Clown, were you alive during the bush reign when we exploded the debt?

Would you stop lying that this is a democrat/liberal problem only. It defies fact and logic.

During the Bush Administration, total outlays increased every year from $1.8 trillion in 2001 to $2.9 trillion in 2008. The average deficit during the Bush years was $250 billion. As a percentage of GDP, the average deficit was two percent. President Bush’s largest deficit was $458 billion in 2008 when the financial crisis led to the creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and several corporate bailouts.

During President Obama’s first term, federal outlays increased from $3.5 trillion in 2009 to $3.6 trillion in 2011. The estimated total outlays for 2012 are estimated to be $3.8 trillion. In Obama’s first year, the deficit increased by almost a trillion dollars from 2008. Obama has not had a single year in which the deficit was less than a trillion dollars. Obama’s average deficit was $1.3 trillion during his first three years. This translates into an average deficit that is 9.2 percent of GDP.

and

During President Obama’s first term the debt increased to $16.4 trillion on January 20, 2013. This means that under Obama, the debt had increased by $5.8 trillion in four years as opposed to President Bush’s increase of $4.9 trillion over eight years.

In the final analysis, both presidents grew government and spent and borrowed far too much. President Obama’s spending and borrowing is in a league by itself, however. Obama is the only president in U.S. history to preside over trillion dollar deficits and one has occurred each year of his presidency.

The only other period in American history in which spending levels matched those under Obama was when the country mobilized to fight the Axis during World War II. In the 1940s, government spending decreased at the end of the war. So far President Obama has shown no signs of ever slowing his spending.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-v-...government

(10-02-2013 01:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Several disingenuous statements in this thread. These statements are more accurate as to what happened:

1. GOP only retained the house due to the gerrymandering done by the state gov'ts. That is patently false. Dems controlled the majority of the state gov'ts back in 2000 when these congressional districts were last drawn up - prior to the GOP take over of the house and a majority of the states. The GOP did not have a chance to redraw the electoral maps until after the 2010 census and well after the 2010 elections, when the Dems still held sway in the majority of the states.
2. The 2010 elections were an indictment against Democrat congressmen who made a series of unpopular votes on policy - most notably the lack of real action on the economy AND for ramming home an unpopular Obamacare.
3. Obama won the 2012 election and Democrats did win back a small number of seats in the House and Senate. But it had nothing to do with people's love of Obamacare. It had everything to do with their view on Obama "saving" the auto industry plus the majority of the people's view that Obama was doing positive things to get the economy back on track (laughably no real prograss there). Obamacare was buried throughout the election by Democrat campaigners. The GOP was actually running adds about Obamacare. However, they were not enough to offset the perception that Obama saved GM. This is what got Obama reelected - GM.
   

What I specifically want to point out, although not germane to this thread is that Obama saved an auto company and not the actual auto industry. Ford never took gov't money and they are clearly the #1 perceived brand in the U.S. today. You could argue that saving GM saved the other auto OEM's from losing out. However, if GM were allowed to go thru the bankruptcy process, it would have been bought by another going concern who would want to see GM become a roaring success. Hell, going thru bankruptcy would have allowed GM to redefine itself and fix its current problems. Sadly, that was not allowed to happen...

Who won the raw vote for US House in 2012? The Democrats. Those maps were drawn using 2010's leadership. There was an election in 2012. The Dems won more votes than the GOP for President, HOUSE, and Senate.

Next move by the GOP....demanding a veto power over all policy because they have 41 votes in the US Senate.

Obama is standing his ground, as he should. We can't have a party, who doesn't even bother to compete for a majority of votes anymore, blocking the majority and damaging the country in a scorched earth policy to prevent affordable health care to behave like this and prosper.