Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The US Government Shut-Down - Whom to Blame

Page 16 of 23 [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 23  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

10 Oct 2013, 12:33 am

auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
It wasn't without fault and I won't argue that but I'll stand by what I said. My brother would of died if he were born literally anywhere else in the world, he had open heart surgery shortly after he was born because of a defect to his heart. I don't know if this surprises you but I don't come from wealth either. Obamacare will destroy healthcare in America, it only benefits the pocket books of insurance executives and the far left ideologues who believe that from the ashes they can erect a single payer system.

ok, if you are middle-class instead of upper class, don't you still want the security that comes from having affordable health care? why should the upper-middle and above be the only ones to get such? why should American citizens uniquely in the western world, be left to the elements? what makes americans chopped liver, that Canadians are not? you are opposed to single payer, you are opposed to subsidized private insurance, why can't you support any expansion of care to the working class? you really think comforting the already comfortable [rich folks' tax cuts] is a good use of public resources? how can America be competitive when 10s of millions of its citizens are hamstrung by poor health from not being able to afford exorbitant medical treatment costs which are a uniquely American phenomenon? how can this be a good thing by any stretch of the imagination?


Yeah, this whole ordeal seems quite ridiculous and shouldn't have occurred in the first place. I'm no American, but even I agree that all have rights to health care access.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Oct 2013, 12:35 am

MCalavera wrote:
Yeah, this whole ordeal seems quite ridiculous and shouldn't have occurred in the first place. I'm no American, but even I agree that all have rights to health care access.

yes- paraphrasing Winston Churchill, americans are usually dead last in doing the right thing, only after they have done every single wrong thing first.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Oct 2013, 2:08 am

eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The House controls the purse strings, they represent the American people, they have the power to enact change if they want to. They shouldn't pass an increase to the debt ceiling, the buck has the stop somewhere.

horsepuckey, the TP are representing only their wealthy districts. the TP are calling the shots and the rest of the house are cowardly falling in line. they don't represent me and mine one iota. they don't represent the needs of 10s of millions of people in need of affordable healthcare, the likes which you scorn. the house cannot be allowed to extort the nation and act as a de facto oligarchy in defiance of the plurality of voters who elected Obama and by extension approved obamacare.


Like it or not, Obama is NOT the dictator. He is the President. That means that he presides over ONE AND ONLY ONE branch of Government - the Executive Branch. While he has a great deal of influence with Congress and he gets to nominate judges, he does not control them.

And the Democrats control the Senate, and the Judiciary has backed this law too. So saying that 'Obama is not dictator' doesn't really hold any water, here.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Oct 2013, 12:25 pm

LKL wrote:
eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
The House controls the purse strings, they represent the American people, they have the power to enact change if they want to. They shouldn't pass an increase to the debt ceiling, the buck has the stop somewhere.

horsepuckey, the TP are representing only their wealthy districts. the TP are calling the shots and the rest of the house are cowardly falling in line. they don't represent me and mine one iota. they don't represent the needs of 10s of millions of people in need of affordable healthcare, the likes which you scorn. the house cannot be allowed to extort the nation and act as a de facto oligarchy in defiance of the plurality of voters who elected Obama and by extension approved obamacare.


Like it or not, Obama is NOT the dictator. He is the President. That means that he presides over ONE AND ONLY ONE branch of Government - the Executive Branch. While he has a great deal of influence with Congress and he gets to nominate judges, he does not control them.

And the Democrats control the Senate, and the Judiciary has backed this law too. So saying that 'Obama is not dictator' doesn't really hold any water, here.


It has everything to do with it considering the view I was responding to that since Obama is President, we have to obey his wishes.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Oct 2013, 1:32 pm

it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Oct 2013, 1:44 pm

auntblabby wrote:
it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.


The President is only one part of the government. He may be the head of the department, but that does not give him control of the legislature.

Ever hear of checks and balances?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Oct 2013, 1:45 pm

eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.


The President is only one part of the government. He may be the head of the department, but that does not give him control of the legislature.

Ever hear of checks and balances?

to deny that what is happening now goes well beyond "checks and balances" is to deny reality.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,660
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm

auntblabby wrote:
it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.


Makes me wonder about their real understanding and commitment to democracy.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Oct 2013, 1:52 pm

When George Bush was President, the Democrats in Congress consistently opposed his actions and did whatever they could to derail many of his plans.

For example, in 2007 President Bush wanted to deploy additional troops in Iraq and the Senate, controlled by the Democrats opposed along with a handful of Republicans. Would you say that it was wrong of the Democrats to oppose those troops?

Or is it permissible for the Democrats to oppose a Republican President but not the Republicans to oppose a Democrat President?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,660
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Oct 2013, 1:55 pm

eric76 wrote:
When George Bush was President, the Democrats in Congress consistently opposed his actions and did whatever they could to derail many of his plans.

For example, in 2007 President Bush wanted to deploy additional troops in Iraq and the Senate, controlled by the Democrats opposed along with a handful of Republicans. Would you say that it was wrong of the Democrats to oppose those troops?

Or is it permissible for the Democrats to oppose a Republican President but not the Republicans to oppose a Democrat President?


The Democrats had never tried to shutdown the government as a threat to destroy the economy under Bush. We know now that Harry Reid had considered it in order to stop the war in Iraq, but realized just how irresponsible that notion was.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Oct 2013, 1:55 pm

From http://godfatherpolitics.com/8963/democrats-who-opposed-raising-debt-limit-for-pres-bush-urging-obama-to-raise-debt-limit-by-lawful-means/:

Quote:
In 2006, President George W. Bush asked Congress to raise the debt limit by a smaller amount than President Obama is currently requesting. Four top Democrats were outraged with Bush’s request and called the action to be irresponsible. Instead of raising the debt limit, they insisted on spending cuts. Those Democrats were Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray and Chuck Schumer.

...

Isn’t it a little hypocritical for the Senators who once demanded spending cuts over raising the debt ceiling for a Republican president to insisting that our current Democratic president raise the debt ceiling by more than double without spending cuts. There are only 2 differences between 2006 and now; the political party of the president and the amount of the debt ceiling increase sought after.

...

I also found it ironic that these Democrats are accusing the Republicans of holding the economy hostage, while in fact they are doing the very same thing. Over the last several years Harry Reid has told Republicans that it’s his way or no way. When it came to jobs bills, House Republicans put forth 12 different jobs bills. Harry Reid refused to even look at or consider 11 of those 12, and then automatically rejected the twelfth.

In the last fiscal cliff negotiations it was the Republicans who compromised the most and Democrats who compromised little. So who is it that’s really holding the nation’s economy hostage? Seems to me that it’s these wishy-washy, change our mind and policies Democratic leaders that are the ones guilty of what they are accusing the Republicans of.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Oct 2013, 2:07 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.


Makes me wonder about their real understanding and commitment to democracy.

they have no commitment to democracy but instead are akin to a fifth column determined to wreck our nation and remake it into a fiduciary/religious oligarchy along fascist lines.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2013, 2:36 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is not the wishes of the present POTUS but the results of what a plurality of voters said in the presidential election of 2012. just because you disagree with that result doesn't mean that forming a fifth column of congressional extortionists in a de facto oligarchy is a legitimate exercise of power to cancel-out your much-hated regime and disenfranchise those 2012 democratic voters.


Makes me wonder about their real understanding and commitment to democracy.

they have no commitment to democracy but instead are akin to a fifth column determined to wreck our nation and remake it into a fiduciary/religious oligarchy along fascist lines.


As opposed to the Socialist Welfare State the Obama and his fellow students of Saul Alinsky propose.

ruveyn



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,591
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Oct 2013, 2:52 pm

you pick your heaven [fascist oligarghy] and i'll pick MY heaven [socialism], let's leave it at that.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Oct 2013, 3:20 pm

auntblabby wrote:
you pick your heaven [fascist oligarghy] and i'll pick MY heaven [socialism], let's leave it at that.


Are you under the misunderstanding that I'm a Republican?

I do vote in the Republican primaries in my county, but that's because there are no there other primaries. The Democrats haven't held them here since the mid 1990s. As a result, the local elections are entirely decided in the primaries unless there is a write-in candidate because without Democratic Primaries, there are no Democratic challengers in the local elections. So if you don't vote in the Republican primaries, you have no vote in the local elections.

That said, any Republicans I vote for in the Republican primaries tend to be the more Libertarian minded.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

10 Oct 2013, 4:06 pm

The Democrats never shut down the government nor failed to raise the debt ceiling under Bush. As McCain said, trying to stop Obamacare this way was a "fool's errand". Win 67 Senate seats in 2014 and maybe you can. Good luck. The Republican establishment knows this is crybaby stuff.