Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

I think it's cut spending, cut taxes (and back to tax breaks for wealthy)=creation of jobs. And oppose the Obama agenda.

I do think it was a huge mistake for Obama and the Democrats to rush health care while we have 10 plus percent unemployment and are still in a big recession. And to go about it in a closed doors behind the scenes way when he talked so much about transparency. How could they not know that this would create anger and resentment?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

tell me, does the GOP have any plan at all to actually govern? or do they just want to watch the blood fly?

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

Non-civility and the profligate use of the filibuster is the main difference between now and then.

Perhaps it's time to use the "nuclear option" once and for all, and kill the filibuster as a tool for obstructionism. And, yes, I say this with the realization that the GOP will someday be in the majority again (as is typical in the election cycle), and that the Democrats should no longer use it either.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by melon

Non-civility and the profligate use of the filibuster is the main difference between now and then.

Perhaps it's time to use the "nuclear option" once and for all, and kill the filibuster as a tool for obstructionism. And, yes, I say this with the realization that the GOP will someday be in the majority again (as is typical in the election cycle), and that the Democrats should no longer use it either.

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Believe it or not, if even with a loss in MA, president Obama and the Democrats will have larger majorities in the House and Senate than Bush or Reagan ever enjoyed. Republicans are not the party in power.

So for now we'll just settle for the "reaching across the aisle' and "government transparency" all of us were promised.

How in the hell does that even answer his question?

His question is that once you guys get some power back, what are you going to do?

I mean, seriously, the GOP seems entirely about hating random shit and nothing else. We hate taxes! We hate "liberal progressives!" We hate terrorists/foreign people! We hate big government! We hate the recession!

Great. What the fuck are you going to do about it, then? Obviously, you think the people currently working at doing something aren't doing it right. What's your idea?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

[coolian2]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

i think the gop are giving their fans an inflated sense of worth because like their constituents, they're thick as pig shit.

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

Cute, but, as we both know, corruption is at least as much a part of the GOP as it is for the Democrats. I won't even try and start a discussion as to which one is worse--they're both bad.

Obama's election, I believe, was a vote for Obama, and not the Democratic Party. Of course, what the GOP doesn't understand, is that it wasn't a vote for the Republican Party either.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Or go back to listening to their constituents rather than trying to jam unpopular bills through with political bribes, payoffs and gimmicks.

i do agree on one point you're making: there is only one adult left in DC.

thankfully, he's in the White House.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

What if, gasp, the constituents don't know what the fuck they're talking about?

Who does, then?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Who does, then?

the elites.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Who does, then?

People who are educated, informed, and can contribute effectively to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

This country isn't about electing people who are to just do whatever you tel them to; this country is about electing people who you think are smart enough to figure shit out and make the right decisions.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

People who are educated, informed, and can contribute effectively to an intelligent discussion of the issues.

This country isn't about electing people who are to just do whatever you tel them to; this country is about electing people who you think are smart enough to figure shit out and make the right decisions.

Do you support the House approving the Senate health bill as it is, or do you support 'reconciliation'? Or neither?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Do you support the House approving the Senate health bill as it is, or do you support 'reconciliation'? Or neither?

I'm not sure what "reconciliation" is.

I mean, it's a tough spot. I have an idea of what I think should happen, but I'm too far to the left compared to most in the country for my particular vision to occur. And I recognize that. This isn't like gay marriage or the death penalty where there's simply right and wrong; in this issue, there are a lot of factors and a lot of smart, well informed people come to different conclusions.

Do I think what they've proposed is ideal? No. But I think it's definitely better than the awful system we have right now. And I say this as someone who's fortunate enough to have had parents growing up who could afford everything I needed in health care.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Who does, then?

Unfortunately too few... and then when someone does feed you an answer you often choose to ignore it because it doesn't fly with your party line.

I've told you and INDY probably about 20 times each why state to state insurance doesn't work and isn't the answer, INDY finally about the 19th time agreed it's the insturance's fault but ignored the aspects as to why the insurance doesn't want to, you've just never acknowled it...

I would say honestly it's about 96% of the right doesn't understand and about 50% of the left still have a very weak grasp on it...

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BVS

I've told you and INDY probably about 20 times each why state to state insurance doesn't work and isn't the answer, INDY finally about the 19th time agreed it's the insturance's fault but ignored the aspects as to why the insurance doesn't want to, you've just never acknowled it...

I would say honestly it's about 96% of the right doesn't understand and about 50% of the left still have a very weak grasp on it...

Explain this:
I can buy health insurance x in Indiana where I live and yet I'm covered if I break my leg in Colorado.
But a resident of Colorado can't buy the identical health insurance policy x across state lines in Indiana and be covered for a broken leg in his home state.

How does that make sense?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Explain this:
I can buy health insurance x in Indiana where I live and yet I'm covered if I break my leg in Colorado.
But a resident of Colorado can't buy the identical health insurance policy x across state lines in Indiana and be covered for a broken leg in his home state.

How does that make sense?

How many times do I have to explain this to you? First of all trauma is always treated differently(you should know that), secondly if you see a podiatrist about a broken ankle in Colorado but Indiana doesn't define podiatry as someone who can treat an ankle they would have a hard time collecting, so this is something the insurance companies lobbied for(you know, those ones you defend). Does it make sense? Yes and no, we have no federal mandates in these disciplines so of course they can't compete if they have to write ammendments for every seperate state.

How is it you and the other GOPers keep defending these collective insurance companies but you don't even know how or why they work? Especially someone who claims to be in healthcare?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BVS

How is it you and the other GOPers keep defending these collective insurance companies but you don't even know how or why they work? Especially someone who claims to be in healthcare?

because people who vote GOP aren't interested in facts.

they are interested in pure sensation and unbridled Id and getting back at overeducated "elites."

[MrsSpringsteen]

Since the other Tea Party Thread is closed I'll post this here

"The Nevada Republican earlier discussed her beliefs on the topic during an interview with Bill Manders in which she called pregnancy in cases of rape and incest, "God's plan."

Sharron Angle's Advice For Rape Victims Considering Abortion: Turn Lemons Into Lemonade

Stock: Let me bring up one other topic that I rarely talk about here, because it's one of those topics that's a lose-lose, but we've got to talk about it because it was brought up in your TV interview and that has to do with the issue of abortion, and whether or not abortion should be available in the case of rape or incest. The question to you at the time by the interviewer was that do you want the government to go and tell a 13 year-old child who has been raped by her father that she has to have that baby. And of course you responded 'I didn't say that I always say that I value life.' Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?

Angle: Well right now our law permits that. My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Fathers said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Stock: What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?

Angle: I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life.

[Benji2112]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

because people who vote GOP aren't interested in facts.

they are interested in pure sensation and unbridled Id and getting back at overeducated "elites."

Really ? That's a broad statement. How did you measure that?

overeducated "elites." What is this term? How do you measure " overeducared, and what is an elite? what is the measurement for that? Paul McCartney or will Ringo do?