U.S. Politics, 16

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The thing is, I'm a California-style (former) Republican. And I'm now purple. I'm pro: gay marriage, strong defense, UHC, States right's (non-racist division), better public education, lowered as much as possible Federal power, and possibly, all police abolished except for the FBI if community policing could be enforced.

Okay. I don't think federal UHC is remotely consistent with the idea of a limited federal government, but I'd agree that UHC at the state level would be. Oh, and I'm also very opposed to significant governmental subsidization of higher education, partly because it amounts to a subsidy for the wealthier within society, and partly for the some of the same cost-related reasons I oppose UHC.

Rear Admiral (lower half): "It looks like states with higher per capita incomes subsidizing states with poorer people. Which makes sense given our progressive tax structure. If it upsets you, join me in advocating for the abolition of the income tax."

I'm sure he appreciates the promotion. ;)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Because Arsenic is frequently used as seasoning and a fad for Roadkill cafes is sweeping the Western world?

Using the same logic Alcohol was banned for a number of years in the US, that turned out very well, didn't it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So we're done with the dietary restriction analogy now?

No, because it remains an equally argument on a constitutional level as long as you change it to requiring purchases of certain foods rather than consumption. But rather than having a side-argument over the propriety of an analogy rather than the underlying principle, I figured I'd eliminate the side-argument by modifying the analogy.

[Swordfish]

So we're done with the dietary restriction analogy now?

I know, right?

It's frustrating and annoying when discussion evolve and change.

I feel your pain, man.

[Lord O' Bones]

But, presumably you're OK with telling them they can't add, say, arsenic, or roadkill? No matter how good it tastes or how much money they can save by doing so?

I would be. As long as it wasn't in secret. And I don't mean tiny fine print saying arsenic may be bad for your health. I mean like Canadian cigarettes SMOKING WILL KILL YOU, HOSER! or Japanese fugu.

Okay. I don't think federal UHC is remotely consistent with the idea of a limited federal government, but I'd agree that UHC at the state level would be. Oh, and I'm also very opposed to significant governmental subsidization of higher education, partly because it amounts to a subsidy for the wealthier within society, and partly for the some of the same cost-related reasons I oppose UHC.

It's not. But one seems to be un-reclaimable while the other is something every other first world nation except for the greatest nation on earth rollseyes has accomplished. If, in my dreamworld, it was left to each state, and federal taxes were minimal, I'd live in the state that had UHC. And gay marriage. And liberal gun laws with exceedingly strong penalties for gun crimes. Like death penalty severe. If I agreed with the death penalty.

I'm sure he appreciates the promotion. ;)

heh, not sure if he even got that one. Army...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Any advance of any liberal cause (even if it was something that was partly a conservative cause a decade before) is the end of the Republic, the end of freedom, and the end of America.

Why should the fact that some Republicans or conservatives argued for a mandate nearly two decades ago bar conservatives nowadays from opposing it? I don't get the relevance. Clearly, whatever Republican support existed for a mandate wasn't enough to get it enacted into law at any point during the past two decades.

[alguien]

Why should the fact that some Republicans or conservatives argued for a mandate nearly two decades ago bar conservatives nowadays from opposing it? I don't get the relevance. Clearly, whatever Republican support existed for a mandate wasn't enough to get it enacted into law at any point during the past two decades.

I think a pretty smart lawyer like you does get the relevance, which is that it could be argued both that the conservative stance on the issue is A. inconsistent and/or B. has shifted more to the right across the political spectrum since two decades ago.

You may disagree with those conclusions, but its a perfectly valid point to bring up.

ETA: personally, I think the inconsistency originated from the desire to score political points, ie. the Obama's Waterloo comment and all that.

[The Progressive]

Did you miss that there are big subsidies for many of the people who will be mandated to "buy" insurance?

ThinkerX is a hit-and-run troll; I've called him out about it on the last thread but he wussed out, lol.

TP,

So, you're cool with laws telling you what you must eat? You want the Government to have that much control over your person?

Scot, we already went over why certain foods are banned or severely restricted by governmental entities ....... why didn't you response to my point raised in the previous thread but instead just continue to ask the same inane question which were already addressed?

Like I said, this is just weird. Now the government is going to imprison everyone for not eating their veggies, if we don't resist? Which universe have I stepped into? :stunned:

Indeed. I note that Trisky has posed an open-question to all the rightwingers opposed to healthcare reform to name a country with UHC that also has mandate on what people must eat ........... that went unanswered but it sure didn't shut them from yapping on and on, lol.

No, because it remains an equally argument on a constitutional level as long as you change it to requiring purchases of certain foods rather than consumption. But rather than having a side-argument over the propriety of an analogy rather than the underlying principle, I figured I'd eliminate the side-argument by modifying the analogy.

You know, just because you keeping harping about your "constitutional" festish issue doesn't really make it so ......... that's probably why nobody else have responded to you after my last rebuttal to this bizzare "constitutional" argument on the previous thread.

[The Progressive]

I know, right?

It's frustrating and annoying when discussion evolve and change.

I feel your pain, man.

Surely you mean "moving the goalpost" when the original point was thoroughly debunked. ;)

[Lord O' Bones]

Wow.

Not that it ought to be too surprising, but check out those findings from a U. of Maryland study on how uninformed the US electorate was on big issues in 2010 and how great a role Fox News played in fostering that ignorance. It's bad enough that they have all of these commentators posturing as news people (something you could surely accuse MSNBC of as well), but the lengths they go to to misinform their audience about what ought to be easily verifiable facts is astounding. What I've never understood about the average Fox News viewer is how obvious it is that the channel has contempt (or at least an utter lack of respect) for its own viewership. You would have to be pretty ignorant to watch a channel that insults you every day and think that they're on your side.

Is it trolling to post "duh?"

[The Progressive]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/17/132132064/lie-of-the-year-democrats-want-a-government-takeover-of-health-care?ps=rs

In the same vein as the above post by trisky, PolitiFact have decided that the claim from conservatives that President Obama and his supporters are pushing for a "government takeover of health care" was the biggest lie of the year for 2010.

ETA: in other news, the House caved on extending the tax cut for another 2 yrs. I can't wait for all those wealthy people and estates start creating jobs again!

[alguien]

Is it trolling to post "duh?"

I despise Roger Ailes.

[TrackerNeil]

Why should the fact that some Republicans or conservatives argued for a mandate nearly two decades ago bar conservatives nowadays from opposing it? I don't get the relevance. Clearly, whatever Republican support existed for a mandate wasn't enough to get it enacted into law at any point during the past two decades.

Because four of those same damned Republicans, all of whom opposed the ACA, are in the Senate today. Today. Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond are all sitting senators. One wonders what happened to them in 17 years that a measure they once found palatable became anathema.

[The Progressive]

Listen Trackerneil,

Clearly your problem is to expect consistency from Republicans.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think a pretty smart lawyer like you does get the relevance, which is that it could be argued both that the conservative stance on the issue is A. inconsistent and/or B. has shifted more to the right across the political spectrum since two decades ago.

That would be true if there was a single, universally held "conservative" stance, but there isn't, any more than there is a single "liberal" or Democratic stance. And I pointed to the lack of such an enactment as evidence that the "stance" wasn't nearly as common as is being made out here and by liberals in the press.

If you want to criticise the Heritage Foundation specifically, fine. They've tried to rebut that claim by saying "well, we looked at it again and changed our mind even before the election." Well, whatever. That's their argument, not mine.

ETA: personally, I think the inconsistency originated from the desire to score political points, ie. the Obama's Waterloo comment and all that.

Fair enough. My opinion on that is that they really didn't like mandates even back then, but they were scared to death of the HillaryCare proposals, and were trying to offer any other alternatives that would sink it. If you followed the debate back then, which I did, the mandate support that did exist among a small group of Republican senators mysteriously evaporated as soon as HillaryCare was killed. The mandates didn't get a lot of press among citizens back then because the whole discussion revolved around HillaryCare. It was, in my opinion, simply a legislative tactic to kill HillaryCare. Alhtough I do know that a lot of conservatives even back them were bitching about the "RINO" Republicans who were offering alternatives that we didn't want any more than we wanted HillaryCare.

So I think the more valid observation would be that the support for mandates back then was partly disingenuous, but the opposition to them now is genuine. You'd have had a hard time finding any real grass roots supports for mandates among conservatives then, but no problem finding widespread, strong opposition to them now.

[Smashing Young Man]

I would be. As long as it wasn't in secret. And I don't mean tiny fine print saying arsenic may be bad for your health. I mean like Canadian cigarettes SMOKING WILL KILL YOU, HOSER! or Japanese fugu.

It's not. But one seems to be un-reclaimable while the other is something every other first world nation except for the greatest nation on earth rollseyes has accomplished. If, in my dreamworld, it was left to each state, and federal taxes were minimal, I'd live in the state that had UHC. And gay marriage. And liberal gun laws with exceedingly strong penalties for gun crimes. Like death penalty severe. If I agreed with the death penalty.

heh, not sure if he even got that one. Army...

It's all about getting the proper state politicians elected. I believe everything hinges right now not on the politicians in D.C., but the governors and their attorney generals. They're the ones who can really force meaningful change.

[TrackerNeil]

So I think the more valid observation would be that the support for mandates back then was partly disingenuous, but the opposition to them now is genuine. You'd have had a hard time finding any real grass roots supports for mandates among conservatives then, but no problem finding widespread, strong opposition to them now.

Is this like concern among Republicans about increasing government debt, which in 2006 was partly disingenuous but is now genuine? (This is what you told me in another thread.) My, but it sure is difficult to know exactly which Republican concerns are real and which adopted for the sake of expedience! Perhaps in 2027 Senator Rand Paul will argue that deficit spending is the path of true conservatism.

[alguien]

So I think the more valid observation would be that the support for mandates back then was partly disingenuous.

I didn't follow it as much back then (being in high school) but I think that you could be correct. Still makes it a bit dodgy IMO.

Hell, from what I understand, Bob Dole switched from being a supporter (and practically a drafter) of the '94 health bill to its biggest opponent because it would help his presidential election chances.

ETA: or the link you just posted.

[Lord O' Bones]

It's all about getting the proper state politicians elected. I believe everything hinges right now not on the politicians in D.C., but the governors and their attorney generals. They're the ones who can really force meaningful change.

How would 50 Governors and 50 AG's do this in the face of 100 Senators, let alone 435 Reps. Granted, I think the Senate should be abolished,* but even then 435 Reps.

*Remember FLOW, I've given up on states rights. The states are fucking useless now, and so is the Senate.

ETA: Btw, if you didn't punch yourself in the face, I expect a rebate. ;)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because four of those same damned Republicans, all of whom opposed the ACA, are in the Senate today. Today. Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond are all sitting senators. One wonders what happened to them in 17 years that a measure they once found palatable became anathema.

As I said, I think they found it "palatable" as a legislative device to kill HillaryCare, which they thought would be much worse than a plan that included mandates. There were a few GOP people who really did support it, but they were basically buried by more conservative colleagues and a very angry GOP grassroots who wanted neither HillaryCare not mandates of any kind..

I found this pretty fascinating timeline of the whole HillaryCare debate. Really fun reading, because the folks who put it toegether clearly were not thrilled with the GOP tactics. :) Anyway, here's the link, and one excerpt.

Mid May 1994 - With opposition to mandates of any form growing stronger, Bob Dole goes on Meet the Press to say "individual mandates aren't going to pass." Mitchell, appearing on the same program, still holds out hope for a blend of individual and employer mandates, but even his optimism is fading. Observers say Dole, with his eye on the '96 Presidential election, will protect his right flank and move away from advocating health reform. Dole, however, continues to send private signals to Chafee and others that he wants some kind of deal. He slips Moynihan a handwritten note asking "Is it time yet for the Moynihan-Dole bill?" Moynihan is convinced he and Dole will quietly get together, make a deal, and that the bill will pass.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

Personally, I think Dole's wishy-washiness on the this whole thing was part of what killed his support with much of the GOP base.