Obamacare Architect Admits that ACA was...
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Classic Big Lie strategy
When you have the news media on your side, you can get away with these schemes.
How many policy objectives that the left has gotten turned into policy realities have been sold to the American people in an honest fashion? Any?
Do you think they're being honest about their immigration objectives?
When you have the news media on your side, you can get away with these schemes.
How many policy objectives that the left has gotten turned into policy realities have been sold to the American people in an honest fashion? Any?
Do you think they're being honest about their immigration objectives?
db: "they all do it"
The left has had the willing accomplices in the media, with the prime example being this Obamacare bull(crap).
It was shoved down our throats with NO bipartisan support... the very thing you leftists claim you want when it's politically expedient, but what you're willing to abandon when it suits you.
Thousands of pages of regulations UNREAD before passage, and now we have video admission of the contemptuous nature of the proponents, and you're looking for a way to excuse it.
db, if you're not willing to condemn this b-s, you're a part of the problem.
No, db, we haven't "seen plenty of that from both sides".
The left has had the willing accomplices in the media, with the prime example being this Obamacare bull(crap).
It was shoved down our throats with NO bipartisan support... the very thing you leftists claim you want when it's politically expedient, but what you're willing to abandon when it suits you.
Thousands of pages of regulations UNREAD before passage, and now we have video admission of the contemptuous nature of the proponents, and you're looking for a way to excuse it.
db, if you're not willing to condemn this b-s, you're a part of the problem.
Do you not see that the Republicans also abandon bipartisanship as it suits them? Think if they had a Republican president right now, they wouldn't repeal ACA without Democratic support? Hell, popular support? It is funny to me when supporters of either party think their party acts any differently than the other. Different ideology; similar tactics.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
you just don't get it.
Here's what you don't understand: I don't give a d@mn about the R ... OR the D. I care about right vs wrong.
db is all about preserving "his team", which is team Obumbler, the empty suit... the savior of all the leftist, statist causes.
I care about the constitution. Barack doesn't give a rip about the constitution. Does db???
If so, the position should be clear. But, alas......................
Dude, you're lost. You think it's R vs D. That's a loser's position.
Here's what you don't understand: I don't give a d@mn about the R ... OR the D. I care about right vs wrong.
db is all about preserving "his team", which is team Obumbler, the empty suit... the savior of all the leftist, statist causes.
I care about the constitution. Barack doesn't give a rip about the constitution. Does db???
If so, the position should be clear. But, alas......................
I'm telling you that if you think you simply "play the constitution" and aren't into "political teams," you're full of shit. Now, what agenda... pray tell?
there are very few politicians
who actively think "what I'm doing doesn't follow the Constitution."
It helps a lot that the Constitution, being a political document, is often vague, filled with missing pieces, and prone to multiple interpretations. Anyone who argues that the Constitution is "clear" on a whole lot of things doesn't understand it, and doesn't know what they are talking about.
who actively think "what I'm doing doesn't follow the Constitution."
It helps a lot that the Constitution, being a political document, is often vague, filled with missing pieces, and prone to multiple interpretations. Anyone who argues that the Constitution is "clear" on a whole lot of things doesn't understand it, and doesn't know what they are talking about.
Says you. You don't know me, but you're quite good at condescension.
I don't care what you think. I'll support a politician if he/she has a D or an R if they're going to uphold the constitution.
Don't like that? Don't believe it? Too damn bad. To me this isn't a sporting game, champ. I don't care what uniform a politician puts on. Clearly you do. It's telling. Not surprising, but telling.
Re: there are very few politicians
The constitution is quite clear. For generations, politicians (and lawyers, activists, etc) have tried to paint the constitution as some ridiculous "living, breathing" document for their own power/political gain.
BS.
The constitution is quite clear. For generations, politicians (and lawyers, activists, etc) have tried to paint the constitution as some ridiculous "living, breathing" document for their own power/political gain.
The difference is
If you doubt that, think about this. If Newt Gingrich had stood before Congress and said, "You have to pass this (2000+ page bill), before you find out what's in it." would there have been any outcry from the mainstream media? Newt would have been staked out on an ant hill for making such a ridiculous comment. With Pelosi, it was just a ho hum moments. Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm not saying that the Republicans wouldn't like to do it, but they are afraid of the media backlash. The Dems don't worry about that, since they can rely on the networks to sit on the ugly truth.
If FOX hadn't broken the story on Jonathan Gruber, do you think that CBS would have bothered to give it the ONE whole minute of coverage that it's had there. ABC, NBC and CNN apparently aren't concerned that the Administration and the Dems in Congress lied like hell to push the ACA down our throats. The media is supposed to have an adversarial role with politicians, in essence keeping them honest, but the mainstream media is too deeply in bed with the Dems to even pretend to be objective. A relationship like that is NOT in the best interests of our country......
that the media would be all over the Republicans if they made a partisan move like that. It would be the lead story on all the evening news channels for weeks, so I believe the Republicans would be much more hesitant to do it. They're not nearly as good at power politics as the Dems.
If you doubt that, think about this. If Newt Gingrich had stood before Congress and said, "You have to pass this (2000+ page bill), before you find out what's in it." would there have been any outcry from the mainstream media? Newt would have been staked out on an ant hill for making such a ridiculous comment. With Pelosi, it was just a ho hum moments. Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm not saying that the Republicans wouldn't like to do it, but they are afraid of the media backlash. The Dems don't worry about that, since they can rely on the networks to sit on the ugly truth.
If FOX hadn't broken the story on Jonathan Gruber, do you think that CBS would have bothered to give it the ONE whole minute of coverage that it's had there. ABC, NBC and CNN apparently aren't concerned that the Administration and the Dems in Congress lied like hell to push the ACA down our throats. The media is supposed to have an adversarial role with politicians, in essence keeping them honest, but the mainstream media is too deeply in bed with the Dems to even pretend to be objective. A relationship like that is NOT in the best interests of our country......
Re: there are very few politicians
That's why we have these things called "Amendments." Perhaps you've heard of them? Or am I just being condescending again?
The hits just keep on coming!
There's a reason why the term "condescending liberal" exists.
"Was this written by my adolescent child?"
There's a reason why the term "condescending liberal" exists.
"Was this written by my adolescent child?"
Re: there are very few politicians
Goodness. "Amendments" do not make a document living and breathing. Try to keep up.
Re: there are very few politicians
Ha ha ha, i have never lol'ed until just now, oh my. What exactly, hahaha, are amendments?
Ha ha ha, i have never lol'ed until just now, oh my. What exactly, hahaha, are amendments?
Um. What? Amending something by definition changes it, this a sane person would argue that it is living and breathing. Hell, we have a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution every day, but you somehow think you have it all figured out? I am irrational and condescending? Do tell.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
well the Supreme Court is all lawyers, so that's compelling to him. Why believe folks who actually spend time studying something, you know, experts (so-called), when Purdue95 can just tell exactly what the Constitution says on any subject because it's so "Clear"
Heck, I think Scalia is wrong about 80% of the time (except he is very good on the 4th and 6th Amendment IMO) but even I concede the guy is smart, and even he would concede the Constitution is not "clear" nor does it address "everything" even Mr. "Original Intent" would agree with that.
What is an "unreasonable search or seizure?" What is a "militia?" What does it mean to be "well-ordered?" What is "just compensation for a taking?" What is "cruel and unusual punishment?" How far does the right to self-representation extend? What is free speech and what isn't? It's taken 200+ years to get any clarity on these things at all and we still have things left to figure out.
but yeah, it's "clear" to Purdue95.
Heck, I think Scalia is wrong about 80% of the time (except he is very good on the 4th and 6th Amendment IMO) but even I concede the guy is smart, and even he would concede the Constitution is not "clear" nor does it address "everything" even Mr. "Original Intent" would agree with that.
What is an "unreasonable search or seizure?" What is a "militia?" What does it mean to be "well-ordered?" What is "just compensation for a taking?" What is "cruel and unusual punishment?" How far does the right to self-representation extend? What is free speech and what isn't? It's taken 200+ years to get any clarity on these things at all and we still have things left to figure out.
but yeah, it's "clear" to Purdue95.
Clearly, you're unaware of that argument, used to twist the constitution into whatever a lawmaker (D or R) wants it to mean.
Really? I hope this isn't news to you.
you just don't get it.
Politicians pass something, then try to justify it through twisted logic by suggesting it's in the constitution, when it really isn't.
It's clear to a lot of rational people, but not to many lawyers. Hmm.
Yes, the constitution is clear to me.
Re: there are very few politicians
LOL'd, me too.
Hahahaha.
I have no idea what you wrote, but I doubt I want to understand.
Hahahahalk;df90oew8r7auapfa;klcna09qwer.
Right?
Ha ha ha ha. Ha ha.
LOL'd, me too.
Hahahaha.
I have no idea what you wrote, but I doubt I want to understand.
Hahahahalk;df90oew8r7auapfa;klcna09qwer.
Right?
Either you're incredibly dense, or your obsession (hatred?) of me has you unhinged to the point of being unable to engage in reasonable dialogue.
Here are two links. One of a general Google search: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1JUFK_enUS504US601&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=living+breathing+constitution
...and the other of the U of Chicago law school: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss
Regardless what you choose to believe (or which form of sand you choose to bury your head), the idea of using the concept of a "living, breathing constitution" isn't new.
Tinfoil hat? What an obtuse retort.
Yeah, I hate you. I've never met you. You have literally no impact on my life, but I hate you. Mmmmmhmmmmmmm.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Okay. You're whining and mocking.
Not surprising, considering how this administration thinks you're stupid. (Not my words, theirs.)
And confused.
Not surprising, considering how this administration thinks you're stupid. (Not my words, theirs.)
Latest posts
-
-
-
Judge allowing Jury to pick between 3 "crimes"- Latest: BuilderBob6
-
-
Purdue offers 2025 four-star guard Braylon Mullins
- Latest: Heads up BOILER