That was a big part of why I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain in 2008. During the election he seemed very conservative, but I remembered who spearheaded that law.
Sorry, my mistake. I'm really not trying to play whack-a-mole. I thought the topic was simply whether the Democrats had the votes to push through any legislation they wanted, because they did indeed have the 60 person super-majority in the Senate, and of course a commanding lead in the House.
I used Obamacare a few levels back to emphasize the fact that they could and did make a party-line vote, despite your insistence that such an event was impossible.
You based your argument on the Democrats not being able to force their opinion on their entire Congressional body, and I based my argument on their being able to do so if they actually wanted to. In the case of national health-care, they wanted to. In the case of closing Gitmo, IMHO apparently they didn't want to.
In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy...
I don't see much difference when I look at liberal/Democrat voters. If a person holds a belief that isn't "correct", they can't stand it. Especially if that person is a Democrat voter, but still has some conservative beliefs.
The same thing is true of all groups of people on every continent. Everyone lives in either an area their ancestors moved to, or an area they themselves moved to. Trying to send people back to their ancestral homes can't work, because we all came from one region of the planet.
Also, I'm half English and half Dutch/German. I would drown if you split the difference between my family's ancestral homeland.
Coincidentally, I just read a Paul Krugman piece this morning while waiting for the doctor. He completely misportrayed what happened and what it means.
My previous post may have sounded too snide. I actually tried to explain my position with three different explanations, but deleted each in turn. I have offered my beliefs on this subject several times before, and have had the person I'm responding too either wholly dismiss it because it is too far from their accepted beliefs, or call me sub-human slime.
Now I'll give you the chance to make your own judgement on my beliefs about people and their lifestyle choices.
I don't care if people die due to their own stupidity or recklessness. This is because I don't hold human life sacred, any more than I do any other animal. We evolved from other lifeforms, so are no more worthy of life than they are. And since I support killing animals for food or pest control, it would be hypocritical to insist human life is sacred and must be saved at all costs. This is also why I am not opposed to abortion. It is the most logical reason to support it.
If someone wants to take drugs, I don't have a problem with that. I think the government should decriminalize all drugs. But if someone overdoses on coke or heroin, unless they actually have insurance that covers paying for OD treatment, let them die. If someone eats junk food every day, and their heart gives out, again, let them die.
This attitude already exists in the medical establishment, just for a more contained set of lifestyle choices. If you are dying of lung cancer because you smoke, they won't transplant a healthy lung into you unless you agree to quit smoking. Same with livers for alcoholics. And, even if you agree to change your lifestyle, there's no guarantee they will choose you for the healthy organ, if it could benefit someone else on the list who didn't willingly destroy their own body.
So, why should society pay for expensive treatments for everyone's bad choices, except for the limited area of organ transplants?
I've also said that I wouldn't oppose government assistance for those who are truly un-insurable. Which you were not, as you had insurance through your wife's work. I know a woman who joined the military so her husband could get cancer treatment. People make decisions every day that relate to their health. I want them to accept their own responsibility for that.
I see. You are pretending that was a real chance that the Democrats (with the two liberal former-Democrat Independents) would not vote for some sort of universal health care.
Let me be clear: No Democrat voted against the bill.
First, Franken was seated on July 7, and Arlen Specter had changed parties by then as well. From then until Kennedy passed in August, the Democrats, who voted in lock step on December 23, 2010, could have voted in lock step for the bill. They chose to bargain for pet causes and kickbacks. After Kennedy's replacement was sworn in on September 24, they could have voted in lock step at any time, which they finally did.
Why do you keep pretending that they ever were not going to pass some version of a national health care?
As to your delusion about "All Republicans vote in lock step all the time!", if that were true the term RINO wouldn't exist. Have you never heard of the Republicans Senators that Republican voters love to hate? This bill was one of the few that the large RINO population avoided.
No Republican voted for Obamacare. Not even Olympia Snow. Obamacare was passed by the Senate after Sen Kennedy died and was replaced with an appointed Democrat. It passed with 58 Democrats and 2 Independent former Democrats voting for it, and 39 Republicans voting against it (the last one didn't vote).
Right, like my friend with the "thyroid condition".. she tried everything to lose weight except she wouldn't put down the Milk Duds or McDonald's or Cheetos. For every real thyroid condition there are 10k* fatties who do it to themselves.
I loved the part where he's on the scale, and needs another few ounces. He's holding a doughnut in his hand, but the dial doesn't move until he takes a bite. As if that alone changes the total weight on the scale.
If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.
Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
I don't agree with your view on voting third party, put that's funny.:^)
If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.
He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.
Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.
I have a question about how you phrase this. Specifically "ride sharing".
I own a car, and don't fly very often, so don't need taxis very often. But did these services start out an an actual "ride sharing" service? In other words, were they for people who were going to the airport for their own flight, agreeing to help someone else get to the airport? And the same coming back home, sharing your return trip from the parking garage with a stranger that you dropped off on your way home?
Or did they just start as non-licensed taxi services? Did some start as ride sharing, and later ones start just as taxis?
Well, we have food stamps and welfare here too. But for the GP claiming seeing a doctor is a human right, it was just too much.
I would have no problem with a national health care system that was about treating accident victims or those with major congenital problems (the un-insurable). But when many issues are completely the fault of a lifestyle choice (sex, drugs, food, fast cars, skydiving, criminal activity, etc), I can't accept responsibility for those who can't accept it for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a big part of why I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain in 2008. During the election he seemed very conservative, but I remembered who spearheaded that law.
I think that's the only paragraph I've ever read that only had three commas and one set of quotes for its punctuation.
Nice job.
I'm the one holding the sword. ;^)
Sorry, my mistake. I'm really not trying to play whack-a-mole. I thought the topic was simply whether the Democrats had the votes to push through any legislation they wanted, because they did indeed have the 60 person super-majority in the Senate, and of course a commanding lead in the House.
I used Obamacare a few levels back to emphasize the fact that they could and did make a party-line vote, despite your insistence that such an event was impossible.
You based your argument on the Democrats not being able to force their opinion on their entire Congressional body, and I based my argument on their being able to do so if they actually wanted to. In the case of national health-care, they wanted to. In the case of closing Gitmo, IMHO apparently they didn't want to.
It wasn't a Republican president who told people to stop patronizing businesses.
It wasn't a Republican Congress that passed a law that canceled millions of affordable insurance policies.
But you know this already, and it makes no difference to you. Or, possibly, you don't accept reality.
In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy ...
I don't see much difference when I look at liberal/Democrat voters. If a person holds a belief that isn't "correct", they can't stand it. Especially if that person is a Democrat voter, but still has some conservative beliefs.
So, you work for a poor man?
The same thing is true of all groups of people on every continent. Everyone lives in either an area their ancestors moved to, or an area they themselves moved to. Trying to send people back to their ancestral homes can't work, because we all came from one region of the planet.
Also, I'm half English and half Dutch/German. I would drown if you split the difference between my family's ancestral homeland.
Congratulations on your efforts and success.
Coincidentally, I just read a Paul Krugman piece this morning while waiting for the doctor. He completely misportrayed what happened and what it means.
As a bi-racial, bisexual, agnostic, transgender, Alaskan basketball player, I thought it was hilarious.
My previous post may have sounded too snide. I actually tried to explain my position with three different explanations, but deleted each in turn. I have offered my beliefs on this subject several times before, and have had the person I'm responding too either wholly dismiss it because it is too far from their accepted beliefs, or call me sub-human slime.
Now I'll give you the chance to make your own judgement on my beliefs about people and their lifestyle choices.
I don't care if people die due to their own stupidity or recklessness. This is because I don't hold human life sacred, any more than I do any other animal. We evolved from other lifeforms, so are no more worthy of life than they are. And since I support killing animals for food or pest control, it would be hypocritical to insist human life is sacred and must be saved at all costs. This is also why I am not opposed to abortion. It is the most logical reason to support it.
If someone wants to take drugs, I don't have a problem with that. I think the government should decriminalize all drugs. But if someone overdoses on coke or heroin, unless they actually have insurance that covers paying for OD treatment, let them die. If someone eats junk food every day, and their heart gives out, again, let them die.
This attitude already exists in the medical establishment, just for a more contained set of lifestyle choices. If you are dying of lung cancer because you smoke, they won't transplant a healthy lung into you unless you agree to quit smoking. Same with livers for alcoholics. And, even if you agree to change your lifestyle, there's no guarantee they will choose you for the healthy organ, if it could benefit someone else on the list who didn't willingly destroy their own body.
So, why should society pay for expensive treatments for everyone's bad choices, except for the limited area of organ transplants?
I've also said that I wouldn't oppose government assistance for those who are truly un-insurable. Which you were not, as you had insurance through your wife's work. I know a woman who joined the military so her husband could get cancer treatment. People make decisions every day that relate to their health. I want them to accept their own responsibility for that.
I see. You are pretending that was a real chance that the Democrats (with the two liberal former-Democrat Independents) would not vote for some sort of universal health care.
Let me be clear: No Democrat voted against the bill.
First, Franken was seated on July 7, and Arlen Specter had changed parties by then as well. From then until Kennedy passed in August, the Democrats, who voted in lock step on December 23, 2010, could have voted in lock step for the bill. They chose to bargain for pet causes and kickbacks. After Kennedy's replacement was sworn in on September 24, they could have voted in lock step at any time, which they finally did.
Why do you keep pretending that they ever were not going to pass some version of a national health care?
As to your delusion about "All Republicans vote in lock step all the time!", if that were true the term RINO wouldn't exist. Have you never heard of the Republicans Senators that Republican voters love to hate? This bill was one of the few that the large RINO population avoided.
No Republican voted for Obamacare. Not even Olympia Snow. Obamacare was passed by the Senate after Sen Kennedy died and was replaced with an appointed Democrat. It passed with 58 Democrats and 2 Independent former Democrats voting for it, and 39 Republicans voting against it (the last one didn't vote).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Sorry you wasted mod points. I hope this clears things up a bit. And thanks for the response.
I could, but you wouldn't understand my position. You seem to be a bit narrow minded.
Other than that, I loved your answers about HP and OSS.
Right, like my friend with the "thyroid condition".. she tried everything to lose weight except she wouldn't put down the Milk Duds or McDonald's or Cheetos. For every real thyroid condition there are 10k* fatties who do it to themselves.
*In America multiply by 60
Is that the conversion from metric?
I loved the part where he's on the scale, and needs another few ounces. He's holding a doughnut in his hand, but the dial doesn't move until he takes a bite. As if that alone changes the total weight on the scale.
Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.
Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.
PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.
I don't agree with your view on voting third party, put that's funny. :^)
If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.
He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.
Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.
I simply assumed the current iPhones have whatever system Starbucks is using.
I don't own one myself, so don't know what they have, or what common accessories people buy.
Please, find the mistake in your post.
Surely you mean:
Only on opposite day, it's not opposite day.
I have a question about how you phrase this. Specifically "ride sharing".
I own a car, and don't fly very often, so don't need taxis very often. But did these services start out an an actual "ride sharing" service? In other words, were they for people who were going to the airport for their own flight, agreeing to help someone else get to the airport? And the same coming back home, sharing your return trip from the parking garage with a stranger that you dropped off on your way home?
Or did they just start as non-licensed taxi services? Did some start as ride sharing, and later ones start just as taxis?
Well, we have food stamps and welfare here too. But for the GP claiming seeing a doctor is a human right, it was just too much.
I would have no problem with a national health care system that was about treating accident victims or those with major congenital problems (the un-insurable). But when many issues are completely the fault of a lifestyle choice (sex, drugs, food, fast cars, skydiving, criminal activity, etc), I can't accept responsibility for those who can't accept it for themselves.
If one book twenty years ago count as "too much", then you may be right.
I do like his movies, though.