What do(n't) you like about the healthcare reform bill? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

robot_parade · 03-23-2010, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WinchesterAA

At what expense do we get the things we enjoy, my friend?

Are the things you enjoy worth the things that humble me so?

About 1/3 of your income, if you're relatively well off.

Is that worth it to have clean water, safe food, safe roads and cities, freedom from dictators, thugs, and despots?

Uh...yes?

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

. The bill states over and over again how there will be governmental intervention in all aspects of health care from preventative care to end of life, and not just hello care, we are talking affirmative action care with investigations on all matters from you to the doctors to the hospitals.

Damn....I missed this one...or just glossed over it, having seen it so many times before....and never once documented with specific provisions of the law.

Dont you have the intellectual curiosity to read the law and not just the misrepresentations of the right wing talking heads and bloggers...or are you in the Pan camp and "couldnt find it" even though it has been posted on the House website, the Senate website, the WH website, Thomas-the LoC website, c-span...?

Idyllic · 03-23-2010, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

As has been noted before, the Constitutional argument is weak....both in terms of the taxing powers and the commerce clause....even many conservative Constitutional lawyers admit as much.

But it might make an interesting case....if it ever gets to the Supreme Court.

And, it probably wont happen any time soon.

First, there is the question of legal standing. Do the Republican State AGs (most of whom probably want to run for governor in the future) even have legal standing to sue?

They (and the state) are not the potentially injured party. That would be the persons forced to buy insurance or pay the tax.

And then, can those potentially injured parties sue before they are injured? That is, before they are forced into buying insurance or paying and tax, which wont happen until 2014.

Fact;

Quote:

Cuccinelli sues federal government to stop health-care reform law

By Rosalind S. Helderman Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 24, 2010

RICHMOND -- Not five minutes after President Obama signed health-care legislation into law Tuesday, top staff members for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II made their way out of his office, court papers in hand and TV cameras in pursuit, and headed to Richmond's federal courthouse to sue to stop the measure.

Thirteen other state attorneys general also sought to stop the health-care law Tuesday, jointly suing in Florida. But Cuccinelli (R) went his own way, arguing that a Virginia law enacted this month that prohibits the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between state and federal law that gives the state unique standing on which to sue.

The move was classic Cuccinelli -- bold, defiant and in-your-face, an effort to use any means at his disposal to stop what he sees as a federal government gone wild. That approach has transformed him in just a few months from being a fairly obscure state senator into a national conservative folk hero -- a tea partier with conviction and, more importantly, power.

Since vowing last week to sue to stop health-care reform, Cuccinelli has become a fixture on national cable TV news shows. A conservative blog posted a cartoon of his head atop Superman's body, with the caption: "You don't tug on Superman's cape . . . and you don't mess around with Ken." His Facebook page is full of messages of support from across the country, some next to the yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flag, which Cuccinelli has embraced -- one sits next to the Virginia flag in his office.

To his supporters, Cuccinelli is the necessary antidote to Obama, determined to put government back where he thinks it belongs and follow the letter of the law, without regard to political consequences.

"People are tired of the middle-of-the-road, wishy-washy political talk. . . . They want people who will shoot straight and do what they say they will. And that's Ken," said Jamie Radtke, chairman of the Federation of Virginia Tea Party Patriots. "He was a tea party person before there was a tea party," she said.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:27 PM

Fact.

Cucinelli and other AGs can sue anyone they want....for whatever reason they want - legal or political. That doesnt mean any court will hear it.

The question is whether the federal district court will rule that the AGs have legal standing on the matter and take the case....since it does not adversely impact a state law or powers specificially designated to the state, but impacts individuals. State AGs dont represent individuals, they represent the state.

The "injured" parties certainly have legal standing...but the question is can they sue before they are injured?

Charlatan · 03-23-2010, 07:29 PM

Guys... the 10th Amendment is very clearly about the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It does not state that what has just been done is Unconstitutional.

It does, however, give a place where a state can challenge the federal government to exempt them from the law on a constitutional basis. In other words, this is for the courts to decide.

You have your knickers in a twist over a procedure that applies to nearly every Federal Law enacted and has only been successfully used a handful of times. Jeez. You'd think there were Federal jackboots storming your streets.

Idyllic · 03-23-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Fact.

Cucinelli and other AGs can sue anyone they want....for whatever reason they want - legal or political. That doesnt mean the court will hear it.

The question is whether the federal district court will rule that the AGs have legal standing on the matter and take the case....since it does not adversely impact a state law, but impacts individuals. State AGs dont represent individuals, they represent the state.

The "injured" parties certainly have legal standing...but the question is can they sue before they are injured?

But Cuccinelli (R) went his own way, arguing that a Virginia law enacted this month that prohibits the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between state and federal law that gives the state unique standing on which to sue.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

About 1/3 of your income, if you're relatively well off.

Is that worth it to have clean water, safe food, safe roads and cities, freedom from dictators, thugs, and despots?

Uh...yes?

I'm middle-class and 1/3 of my income already goes to a variety of state, local, and fed taxes (SSI is a tax).

Regarding your question: I like the whole clean water, safe food, roads and cities thing. I don't get the second part of your statement. We have several new regulatory dictatorships, thugs and shakedown organizations like SEIU, Acorn, The Apollo Alliance, the Center For American Progress, and the brand new IRS Healthcare Gestapo. Which leaves us with the despots... the President, Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress.

Perhaps if the question began with "Let me be clear".

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Guys... the 10th Amendment is very clearly about the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It does not state that what has just been done is Unconstitutional.

It does, however, give a place where a state can challenge the federal government to exempt them from the law on a constitutional basis. In other words, this is for the courts to decide.

You have your knickers in a twist over a procedure that applies to nearly every Federal Law enacted and has only been successfully used a handful of times. Jeez. You'd think there were Federal jackboots storming your streets.

It relates to interstate commerce. Health insurance is not sold across states. It's a reasonable test. I think it would be a healthy exercise.

Baraka_Guru · 03-23-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You have your knickers in a twist over a procedure that applies to nearly every Federal Law enacted and has only been successfully used a handful of times. Jeez. You'd think there were Federal jackboots storming your streets.

They're afraid of the gosudarstvennyi doktors.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

/// We have several new regulatory dictatorships, thugs and shakedown organizations like SEIU, Acorn, The Apollo Alliance, the Center For American Progress, and the brand new IRS Healthcare Gestapo. Which leaves us with the despots... the President, Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress.

THe SEIU, ACORN, the Apollo Alliance, Center for American Progress....are arms of the government?

Or should not have the constitutional right of freedom of expression?

IRS Gestapo powers....a new low.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

THe SEIU, ACORN, the Apollo Alliance, Center for American Progress....are arms of the government?

Or should not have the constitutional right of freedom of expression?

IRS Gestapo powers....a new low.

They are major advisers and contributors to the crafting of the stimulus and health language. The president works very closely with each of these organizations. Andy Stern is a top "insider".

Yes the new IRS Gestapo is a new low... just wait and see.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

But Cuccinelli (R) went his own way, arguing that a Virginia law enacted this month that prohibits the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between state and federal law that gives the state unique standing on which to sue.

Are you an attorney? (where is loquitor when you need him?)

Im not and dont claim to be, but from what I have read, the issue of legal standing is the first step and there is alot of skepticism that it will pass that test. A state does not have presumed legal standing simply by passing a state law that says it will ignore a federal law.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

They are major advisers and contributors to the crafting of the stimulus and health language. The president works very closely with each of these organizations. Andy Stern is a top "insider".

Ah...I get it now...a vast left wing conspiracy.

You left out medical organizations (doctors, nurses, hospitals admins), patient advocacy organizations, social service organizations, and probably the boy scouts and the pta.

rahl · 03-23-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

It relates to interstate commerce. Health insurance is not sold across states. It's a reasonable test. I think it would be a healthy exercise.

Every major health insurance company operates in virtually every state in the union. They are required to conform to each individual state's insurance laws set forth by the state's dept. of insurance.

So yea they sell across state lines.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idyllic

But Cuccinelli (R) went his own way, arguing that a Virginia law enacted this month that prohibits the government from requiring people to buy health insurance creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between state and federal law that gives the state unique standing on which to sue.

Oh...and the "Supremacy Clause":

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict.

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virginia has a very weak argument and, IMO, purely political on Cuccilleli's part.

Nope...the ones with legal standing are the "injured" persons....but can they claim they have been injured before the provisions of the law in question are imposed in 2014?

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Are you an attorney?

Im not and dont claim to be, but from what I have read, the issue of legal standing is the first step and there is alot of skepticism that it will pass that test. A state does not have presumed legal standing simply by passing a state law that says it will ignore a federal law.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------

Ah...I get it now...a vast left wing conspiracy.

You left out medical organizations (doctors, nurses, hospitals admins), patient advocacy organizations, social service organizations, and probably the boy scouts and the pta.

The PTA maybe, but never the Boy Scouts! Nice diversion, kind of combines using Rule 5 or 11 (RfR)

BTW - Doesn't SEIU's Andy Stern sit on the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform? I believe he's number 1 on the White House visitors log.

Quote:

The Apollo Weekly Update, 2/20/09: Clean Energy Breakthrough in Stimulus, Next Steps
By: Keith Schneider
From: Apollo News Service
Date: 2/20/2009

While the clean energy focus of the stimulus was inspired by the Apollo’s vision, the specific content of many of the bill’s provisions was influenced by policy proposals that the Apollo Alliance made last year in The New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act. “The recovery bill represents the focused work of labor, business, environmental and social justice organizations who developed a clear strategy about where the nation needed to go, and worked together to achieve it,” said Phil Angelides, former California treasurer and chairman of the Apollo Alliance.

Per Harry Reid

Quote:

“We’ve talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades. The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them.”

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

BTW - Doesn't SEIU's Andy Stern sit on the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform?.....

Yep..and the Republicans have six seats on the Commission as well.

So what?

robot_parade · 03-23-2010, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I'm middle-class and 1/3 of my income already goes to a variety of state, local, and fed taxes (SSI is a tax).

So - relatively well off. I'm also in the middle class, and have about the same tax rate. If I were richer or poorer, a smaller percentage of my income would go to taxes (at least, if you include investment income). If I were very poor, and had kids I would get money from the government (net, counting for all social programs, food stamps, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Regarding your question: I like the whole clean water, safe food, roads and cities thing. I don't get the second part of your statement. We have several new regulatory dictatorships, thugs and shakedown organizations like SEIU, Acorn, The Apollo Alliance, the Center For American Progress, and the brand new IRS Healthcare Gestapo. Which leaves us with the despots... the President, Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress.

I believe the first four organizations you quote are in no way government entities, have little or no relationship to the healthcare debate, so I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion. The IRS, like death, will always be with us. You are now taxed if you are foolish enough to go without health insurance. If you can't afford health insurance, the government will provide a subsidy to you to help pay for it. Hyperbole aside, none of the members of government you mention are anything like despots. Please use words in the ways they are consistent with their actual definitions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Perhaps if the question began with "Let me be clear".

Let me be clear: hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies degrade all parties and make intelligent discourse impossible.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Every major health insurance company operates in virtually every state in the union. They are required to conform to each individual state's insurance laws set forth by the state's dept. of insurance.

So yea they sell across state lines.

While companies may have an interstate/national presence, they can only sell state-exclusive products to those citizens. The freedom to conduct interstate sales was one of the many proposals to the legislation which was summarily dismissed without debate. If the language was put in to law, the states would not have a leg to stand on in their constitutional challenge.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

...The freedom to conduct interstate sales was one of the many proposals to the legislation which was summarily dismissed without debate....

In fact, it was discussed and debated.

The proposal offered by the Republicans would have allowed insurance companies to domicile in the state with the least regulation (including American Samoa and Guam, if I recall) and sell across state lines under those weakest regulations, offering little, if any, consumer protections.

The proposed amendment was wisely defeated.

rahl · 03-23-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

While companies may have an interstate/national presence, they can only sell state-exclusive products to those citizens. The freedom to conduct interstate sales was one of the many proposals to the legislation which was summarily dismissed without debate. If the language was put in to law, the states would not have a leg to stand on in their constitutional challenge.

It was dismissed because that was one of the proposals republicans wanted to put forth. It already exists, insurance companies sell across state lines.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just telling you that they already operate in multiple states. Whether that gives congress the right to regulate it is a matter for the courts to decide, but in my opinion selling a product in multiple states means interstate commerce.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

So - relatively well off. I'm also in the middle class, and have about the same tax rate. If I were richer or poorer, a smaller percentage of my income would go to taxes (at least, if you include investment income). If I were very poor, and had kids I would get money from the government (net, counting for all social programs, food stamps, etc).

And your point is...?

Quote:

I believe the first four organizations you quote are in no way government entities, have little or no relationship to the healthcare debate, so I don't see how they are relevant to the discussion. The IRS, like death, will always be with us. You are now taxed if you are foolish enough to go without health insurance. If you can't afford health insurance, the government will provide a subsidy to you to help pay for it. Hyperbole aside, none of the members of government you mention are anything like despots. Please use words in the ways they are consistent with their actual definitions.

These organizations are tightly entwined in the executive and legislative power structure. While not official government entities, they are all documented as players in the crafting of these measures. The perception of hyperbole is in the eye of the beholder. Unsavory facts mixed with sarcasm may sound like hyperbole if you are unaware of the documented connections mentioned. They don't hide it, it's just not what some want to hear.

Quote:

Let me be clear: hyperbole, exaggeration, and lies degrade all parties and make intelligent discourse impossible.

Amen. That's what I'm talking about brother! See how the use of LMBC makes everything sound authoritative.

dippin · 03-23-2010, 08:36 PM

People who claim that the United States is some sort of actual dictatorship should live under one before embarking on a "woe is me, I live in a dictatorship because I have to pay taxes and there are some regulations" rant.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

It was dismissed because that was one of the proposals republicans wanted to put forth. It already exists, insurance companies sell across state lines.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just telling you that they already operate in multiple states. Whether that gives congress the right to regulate it is a matter for the courts to decide, but in my opinion selling a product in multiple states means interstate commerce.

Again, they operate in multiple states as an umbrella, but the products are state-exclusive. I used to work for Anthem Blue Cross of KY. Guess what, there's one for Indiana, and so on.... They are regulated as such.

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

People who claim that the United States is some sort of actual dictatorship should live under one before embarking on a "woe is me, I live in a dictatorship because I have to pay taxes and there are some regulations" rant.

Who here claims that the US is a dictatorship?

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

]Who here claims that the US is a dictatorship?

Um....you?

Dictators, thugs, gestapo and despots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

We have several new regulatory dictatorships, thugs and shakedown organizations like SEIU, Acorn, The Apollo Alliance, the Center For American Progress, and the brand new IRS Healthcare Gestapo. Which leaves us with the despots... the President, Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress.

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Yep..and the Republicans have six seats on the Commission as well.

So what?

And they also had a circus... I mean a PR stunt... I mean a bipartisan health care summit.

So you are saying that SEIU has no influence with the president?

---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Um....you?

Dictators, thugs, gestapo and despots.

The statement said "REGULATORY DICTATORS" (like the EPA). Reading is fun-da-mental.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

And they also had a circus... I mean a PR stunt... I mean a bipartisan health care summit.

So you are saying that SEIU has no influence with the president?

---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

The statement said "REGULATORY DICTATORS" (like the EPA). Reading is fun-da-mental.

Is this really the best you can offer in the way of opposing the legislation? What did I misread about "despots"

As to the influence of the SEIU....hell, farmers had more influence with Thomas Jefferson than bankers and businessman.

So what's new.

ASU2003 · 03-23-2010, 08:58 PM

All they would have to change is that they would tax people without health insurance, then use the military government contracting method to fund the private health insurance companies.

--------------

I am still unclear on how selling insurance across state lines would change the system. I can think of some good things if there are fewer 'national' plans, but I worry about having to go through 250 plans from 3 or 4 different carriers to find the best one. I also am concerned that people living in expensive areas (NY, NJ, CA...) where incomes are high, would flood the poorer states, as well as the insurance companies. They would be able to get tax breaks and control state laws like credit card companies do. The only real benefit would be for HR departments of large multi-state companies only needing a single plan.

-----------------

Does this bill require companies that hire people for 39 'part-time' hours to provide insurance or some assistance for them?

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Is this really the best you can offer in the way of opposing the legislation?

As to the influence of the SEIU....hell, farmers had more influence with Thomas Jefferson than bankers and businessman.

So what's new.

Didn't say anything was new. In fact, the associations and influence from these groups is well documented. I find their organizational structure and affiliations with the highest reaches of government to be unseemly. If you honestly believe SEIU is just a union representing the working man, then you've got some reading to do. However, I believe you are more astute regarding the strategies and interrelationships of the organizations that operate under the Tides Foundation and the Democracy Alliance. That should cover the majority of the entities I have mentioned (and many more) regarding influence and power sharing. And from your responses, there is familiarity in the language used to deflect attention from them. That's really all I need to know regarding our conversation.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Didn't say anything was new. In fact, the associations and influence from these groups is well documented.....

Please...then document how they influenced the legislation? How did they influence the "despots" in the WH and Congress?

Or offer any facts that addresses your concern with the legislation and not the same old rhetoric.

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Please...then document how they influenced the legislation? How did they influence the "despots" in the WH and Congress?

Or offer any facts that addresses your concern with the legislation and not the same old rhetoric.

I'd suggest instead that you head on over to youtube and watch back to back footage of Obama giving speeches to not only the nation, but also to news reporters, SEIU conventions, AIPAC conventions, etc etc. You'll get all the info you need. I'd also happily post links to all the videos I'd recommend, but I don't have 15 posts yet, and don't feel like subverting rules.

Not videos about these people, but videos of these people saying quite plainly how they believe, in public, on camera, just as a drunk woman would talk dirty to her boss at a party and not even realize it(or realize that her video is on youtube)

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 09:40 PM

For the most part, he enacted what he campaigned on:

* providing accessible, affordable insurance to those uninsured...through an insurance exchange of private insurance providers.
* eliminating exclusions of pre-existing conditions and establishing limits on out of pocket expenses
* providing tax credits to small businesses and to working class families
* promoting preventive care by eliminating co-pays and deductibles
* investing significantly in health care technologies

ottopilot · 03-23-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Please...then document how they influenced the legislation? How did they influence the "despots" in the WH and Congress?

Or offer any facts that addresses your concern with the legislation and not the same old rhetoric.

Since you said please...

We'll start with some pictures linking organizations and names. Feel free to challenge any of these connections... and we can go from there. And BTW - the connection is to the White House. But I'm sure you're already aware of this. I'm curious to see what new responses are being crafted and circulated.

Perhaps something from "Tactics" (Rules for Radicals)
Rule #3.

Quote:

"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This is a favorite and used all the time. Inundate and attack to blind-side with seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Or Rule #13

Quote:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target... "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

Democracy Alliance,Tides Foundation and SEIU

Map of Apollo Alliance and Alliance for Climate Protection (global warming legislation should be coming up right behind health care)

Obama’s Media support mechanism "They Work For Us" Organizational Map

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 09:44 PM

Damn...a Democratic president who listens to workers and unions, health care professionals, social service organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, women and minority groups, etc. and enacted, for the most part, what he campaigned on and was elected to accomplish....despite the blatant lies and fear mongering that was the well-funded strategy of the opposition.

A despot!

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Damn...a Democratic president who listens to workers and unions, health care professionals, social service organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, women and minority groups, etc. and enacted, for the most part, what he campaigned on and was elected to accomplish....despite the blatant lies and fear mongering that was the well-funded strategy of the opposition.

A despot!

Dood, this isn't coincidence. This is war, this is real life, this is everything that is of value. Don't you know, then, that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it?

They are the opposition!

There is one force for the first half of the masses of the USA.
There is another force for the second half of the masses of the USA.

These forces act in unison to avoid having the power of their drivers usurped by the entirety of the non-masses of the USA.

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 10:04 PM

IMO, your war is based on ignorance fueled by fear-mongering.

Sweet dreams!

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, your war is based on ignorance fueled by fear-mongering.

Sweet dreams!

I don't have a war, I'm just stuck in the middle of a bunch of extremely unhappy people. I'm not unhappy myself, though.

There's half of the masses of the country that are more comfortable with being perceived as wimpy and altruistic.

There's another half of the masses of the country that are more comfortable with being perceived as tough and reasonable.

Then there are the people who are who they are, and don't really worry about how people perceive them so much, but these people typically don't bother anybody, because they're too focused on staying the hell alive, healthy, and productive.

.gov as a whole uses both halves of the masses to shut out the voices of the rest of the country, and then throws in the faces of all of us that "The majority won.. so STFU ALREADY!"

dc_dux · 03-23-2010, 10:22 PM

Cool! I'm glad you are not at war.

Here is an example of the ignorance fueled by fear-mongering -from a new Harris pol - and characterized by the author of the article as the Obama Derangement Syndrome:

Quote:

Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.

The belief that Obama is a “domestic enemy” is widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come.

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim.

45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president".

38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did".

Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist.

Opinion: Scary new GOP poll - Yahoo! News

Scary shit, indeed....and ignorant!

Charlatan · 03-23-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

There's half of the masses of the country that are more comfortable with being perceived as wimpy and altruistic.

There's another half of the masses of the country that are more comfortable with being perceived as tough and reasonable.

Wow. Loaded language much?

What makes you think that being altruistic is some how equated with being wimpy. Or that being reasonable is somehow to be equated with being tough? Or for that matter how being altruistic and reasonable are somehow at odds with each other?

You say you aren't at war but your choice of language suggests otherwise.

WinchesterAA · 03-23-2010, 10:30 PM

So, when you see that the simplest individuals in the country are either democrat or republican...

When do you start to wonder why the simple are so powerful, and the not-so-simple are so irrelevant?

*facepalm*

"OH, I know! Because some douchebag did ./reverse_the_power_for_individual_gain in /USA, and now a group of men control enough other, sheepish, ignorant men, despite the fact that half these men hate them, to usurp the power of ALL men. Dang, I wish I'd thought of that.."

@charlatan -

Quote:

Wow. Loaded language much?

What makes you think that being altruistic is some how equated with being wimpy. Or that being reasonable is somehow to be equated with being tough? Or for that matter how being altruistic and reasonable are somehow at odds with each other?

You say you aren't at war but your choice of language suggests otherwise.

I'm practicing brevity.

For starters, I'm not bashing democrats or republicans, I am only enumerating their vulnerabilities which are being exploited by social engineers all over the country.

altruism has nothing to do with being wimpy, hence "wimpy AND altruistic" not "wimpy == altruistic"
Similarly, "tough AND reasonable" is not the same as "tough == reasonable"

Tough is tough -- physically tough, mentally tough, resilient, adaptable, able to cope with things that are damaging.
wimpy is the opposite of tough in this exactly. Physically inept, mentally fragile, unable to adapt effectively, and unable to cope with things that are damaging.

generally speaking -

The democrats advocate that people should have compassion for one another, and that government should provide for the people, and that kind of thing. These people are ideal subjects for the use of the teachings of Karl Marx, because they are perfectly vulnerable to this sort of attack. They have an inbuilt desire to put in place the most urgent and necessary sounding "save the <insert stuff here>" propositions. As long as your message comes off sincere, sappy, and with enough "McMansion's For Everybody" dreamyness, these braindead retards will die for you.

The republicans, on the other hand, are less about the compassion for one another, and more about the compassion for themselves.
They possess a radically different vulnerability than the democrats, and that is their inbuilt ability to trust what sounds good to them.
As long as your message comes off sincere, honest sounding, and with enough fluff to make it interesting, these braindead retards will buy into and clap for whatever you say.

filtherton · 03-24-2010, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Since you said please...

We'll start with some pictures linking organizations and names. Feel free to challenge any of these connections... and we can go from there. And BTW - the connection is to the White House. But I'm sure you're already aware of this. I'm curious to see what new responses are being crafted and circulated.

Are you really shocked that there's a vast progressive conspiracy to bring about progressive political goals? Why do these diagrams mean anything?

I guess the answer to the question posed by the op is that there is damning evidence in the form of diagrams from the internet which provide proof that health care reform is part of some vast conspiracy whereby ostensibly progressive people and organizations work with ostensibly progressive politicians to subvert The American Way under the guise of enacting ostensibly progressive goals.

roachboy · 03-24-2010, 03:43 AM

geez, so much for talking about the actual bill. now we're off in some surreal paranoid alternate reality complete with good old fashioned john birch society-style BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS OVERRUN WITH COMM-U-NISTS idiocy, metaphysical statements about the "lost freedom in america" which presumably had something to do with keeping 30 million people without access to health care....by what logic 30 million people not having insurance meant that the right could imagine itself living in a land of freedom, i have no idea. i see alot of handwaving in the direction of crackpot interpretations of the constitution which i assume are to function as figleafs over this basic matter--two days ago the right was free, now they live in some imaginary despotism. all thats really changed is the enactment of a modest-to-weak version of health care reform.
so it has to follow that the ultra-right defined freedom itself around the fact that 30 million people did not have access to health insurance.
this must be what qualified as this delusion of ""tough but reasonable"....

as if this wasn't enough, there's a spate of limbaugh-specific red-baiting concerning the seiu, which presumably has replaced acorn at the center of reactionary grouphate for the time being.

it's pretty amazing stuff, this phase of collective dissociation.

03-23-2010, 07:27 PM	#124 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Fact. Cucinelli and other AGs can sue anyone they want....for whatever reason they want - legal or political. That doesnt mean any court will hear it. The question is whether the federal district court will rule that the AGs have legal standing on the matter and take the case....since it does not adversely impact a state law or powers specificially designated to the state, but impacts individuals. State AGs dont represent individuals, they represent the state. The "injured" parties certainly have legal standing...but the question is can they sue before they are injured? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-23-2010 at 07:35 PM..

03-23-2010, 07:29 PM	#125 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Guys... the 10th Amendment is very clearly about the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It does not state that what has just been done is Unconstitutional. It does, however, give a place where a state can challenge the federal government to exempt them from the law on a constitutional basis. In other words, this is for the courts to decide. You have your knickers in a twist over a procedure that applies to nearly every Federal Law enacted and has only been successfully used a handful of times. Jeez. You'd think there were Federal jackboots storming your streets. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-23-2010, 09:40 PM	#150 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	For the most part, he enacted what he campaigned on: * providing accessible, affordable insurance to those uninsured...through an insurance exchange of private insurance providers. * eliminating exclusions of pre-existing conditions and establishing limits on out of pocket expenses * providing tax credits to small businesses and to working class families * promoting preventive care by eliminating co-pays and deductibles * investing significantly in health care technologies __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-23-2010, 09:44 PM	#152 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Damn...a Democratic president who listens to workers and unions, health care professionals, social service organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, women and minority groups, etc. and enacted, for the most part, what he campaigned on and was elected to accomplish....despite the blatant lies and fear mongering that was the well-funded strategy of the opposition. A despot! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-23-2010 at 09:53 PM..

03-23-2010, 10:04 PM	#154 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	IMO, your war is based on ignorance fueled by fear-mongering. Sweet dreams! __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-23-2010, 08:36 PM	#141 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	People who claim that the United States is some sort of actual dictatorship should live under one before embarking on a "woe is me, I live in a dictatorship because I have to pay taxes and there are some regulations" rant.

03-23-2010, 08:58 PM	#146 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	All they would have to change is that they would tax people without health insurance, then use the military government contracting method to fund the private health insurance companies. -------------- I am still unclear on how selling insurance across state lines would change the system. I can think of some good things if there are fewer 'national' plans, but I worry about having to go through 250 plans from 3 or 4 different carriers to find the best one. I also am concerned that people living in expensive areas (NY, NJ, CA...) where incomes are high, would flood the poorer states, as well as the insurance companies. They would be able to get tax breaks and control state laws like credit card companies do. The only real benefit would be for HR departments of large multi-state companies only needing a single plan. ----------------- Does this bill require companies that hire people for 39 'part-time' hours to provide insurance or some assistance for them?

03-24-2010, 03:43 AM	#160 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	geez, so much for talking about the actual bill. now we're off in some surreal paranoid alternate reality complete with good old fashioned john birch society-style BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS OVERRUN WITH COMM-U-NISTS idiocy, metaphysical statements about the "lost freedom in america" which presumably had something to do with keeping 30 million people without access to health care....by what logic 30 million people not having insurance meant that the right could imagine itself living in a land of freedom, i have no idea. i see alot of handwaving in the direction of crackpot interpretations of the constitution which i assume are to function as figleafs over this basic matter--two days ago the right was free, now they live in some imaginary despotism. all thats really changed is the enactment of a modest-to-weak version of health care reform. so it has to follow that the ultra-right defined freedom itself around the fact that 30 million people did not have access to health insurance. this must be what qualified as this delusion of ""tough but reasonable".... as if this wasn't enough, there's a spate of limbaugh-specific red-baiting concerning the seiu, which presumably has replaced acorn at the center of reactionary grouphate for the time being. it's pretty amazing stuff, this phase of collective dissociation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite