Reasons Obama is a shoe-in for re-election

[jerryskids 5,208]

I seem to remember Obama trying to unify, but the Republicans were completely against it. During the healthcare debate, Obama brought together both parties in a room and sat down with them to try and get it moving (Rush, Hannity, etc said it was just for show, and that may be true, I don't think we'll ever truly know, because the Republicans completely shut down any compromise). I think that's the point where Obama figured "What's the use?" I have never seen (and it could be because I pay attention more than before) a party so against a President. Obama could come out tomorrow and say "The sky is blue" and there will be some Republicans who will argue "No, it's gray". IMO, it's the republicans that need to learn to compromise.

 

Interesting... I watched those healthcare discussions and walked away with an entirely different impression. Obama brought the parties into a room, and reasonable people like Paul Ryan and John Kyl tried to voice their concerns. Obama's response, and I paraphrase: "I won and you lost, so whether you like it or don't like it, learn to love it." Nothing about those discussions was a "debate." Those discussions were a show that a king put on for his subjects. They very much showed that Obama was NOT about compromise.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And again I'll redirect you to our little discussion of Santorum and the Griswold case. He's been specific in stating that he thought the rights established in that case....marital privacy rights....were created from nothing. He doesn't believe in marital privacy rights. Tell me how that can't be construed as invasive?

 

Go to Santorum's website....and the first issue he addresses is.....wait for it.....pornography. Yep...pornography...the thing that is rooning America. Again, quit propping up beliefs as issues and you'd gain broader support. This isn't some liberal media bias...it's straight from the candidate himself. Issue #1....pornography.

 

Just focus on the economy, domestic policy, foreign policy, etc....and leave the social issues out of it. Hey wait...isn't that what a certain Republican Congressman is all about? Yet he's unelectable.....because of the base. Travesty.

 

Also, I won't vote for Obama...unless your Party is crazy enough to nominate Santorum. So not sure how anyone is riling me up....braindead redneck.

 

There was an entire thread on the Griswald case. Santorum thinks it's a state's rights issue. I think his quote I linked said states have the right to pass bills even if they are "dumb". He has voted for bills that included contraception, and said while he personally opposes it, he wouldn't base his vote on those personal opinions. Nice diversion though......it's the hot topic on the libtard talking points memo, so I see why you keep bringing it up.

 

I have not gone to his website. Is he proposing a bill to ban pornography? Or does he say he personally opposes it?

 

Still waiting for you to show where the right isn't allowing people the "freedom to choose their own values in life". I'm sure you will continue to ignore this and go back to "Santorum wants to ban contraception".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I just went to his website to see what his position on pornography is.

 

He says he will appoint an attorney general who will enforce laws against illegal pornography. Imagine that, wanting to put an AG in office that will enforce laws.

 

I guess he is just trying to distinguish himself from Obama and the current AG.

 

Mebbe you are into child porn, and this is why you are all butthurt over him not allowing you to choose your own values in life.

[NewbieJr 540]

And again I'll redirect you to our little discussion of Santorum and the Griswold case. He's been specific in stating that he thought the rights established in that case....marital privacy rights....were created from nothing. He doesn't believe in marital privacy rights. Tell me how that can't be construed as invasive?

 

Go to Santorum's website....and the first issue he addresses is.....wait for it.....pornography. Yep...pornography...the thing that is rooning America. Again, quit propping up beliefs as issues and you'd gain broader support. This isn't some liberal media bias...it's straight from the candidate himself. Issue #1....pornography.

 

 

Ugh. This guy thinks he's Jesus. Actually, Jesus probably whacked off, so he thinks he's more pure than even Jesus. What a focking toolbag. The GOP better get this guy as far away from being the poster child of the party as they can.

[Gepetto 988]

Making contraception illegal. Abortions illegal. Wasting time on BS like gay marriage. The guy is an intrucive idiot. He'd probably like to have a federal agent in everyone's bedroom to make sure the sex was only missionary position and not too enjoyable.

 

I hope he becomes President and gets a law passed to lock away weirdos who pee on a girl or a let a girl pee on them.

[NewbieJr 540]

I hope he becomes President and gets a law passed to lock away weirdos who pee on a girl or a let a girl pee on them.

Holy crap. That act would make his head explode!!!

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I was thinking yesterday about what makes a great (or very good) president. The two I've seen are Reagan and Clinton. One similarity is that they each had a foil in Congress who would work with him (Tip and Newt). The other, though, is that they were great unifiers and compromisers. Obama is the antithesis of these qualities. He isn't about solving problems; he is about division and blame. I heard him on TV yesterday talking to a crowd about a law he just signed; he basically said "it's about time Congress got off their ass and sent me a good bill." Nice. He wonders out loud how nothing gets done, yet he acts like Veronica from Willy Wonka, stomping his feet when he doesn't get his way. I for one am scared to death of what he'll be like in a second term with no concern for re-election.

 

It's funny you say that, because I think he is actually quite pragmatic. Take the near-universal health care law, for example. It is hardly a liberal ideal. Liberals generally want a government run program or, failing that, at least a public option (this cuts out the needless middleman, the insurance companies, thereby keeping costs down). But that's not what Obama passed. Obama passed a health care law that was strikingly similar to laws proposed by the likes of Newt Gingrich on the Republican side of the aisle in the 1990s. In fact I have read that it is to the right of Richard Nixon's proposed universal health care law back in the day.

 

Why did Obama pass such a moderate version of health care reform? Probably a couple of reasons. I don't think he wanted to alienate industry and hoped to keep the insurance companies in his back pocket. But also I think it is because he believed that the version of health care he passed would be much more palatable for Republican congressmen and for the moderate/center-right sector of the general public. That's called compromise.

 

Now lately he has taken an adversarial stance, but you have to admit that the Republicans in Congress have basically spent the last two years trying to foil his every move. They have outright stated that their number one goal is to ensure that Obama is not re-elected, and they backed up that statement by dragging their feet at every turn and throwing every conceivable wrench in to Obama's plans.

 

This isn't like the Republican House under Newt Gingrich, which admittedly hated Bill Clinton yet would still work with him in areas of mutual goals. At this point President Obama could introduce a bill slashing the tax rate to zero, abolishing every department except the Department of Defense, and immediately deporting any suspected illegal immigrant and the Republican Congress would STILL oppose it because it was Obama's bill.

 

You can hardly blame him for calling Congress to task on that. A Republican president would do the same with a Democratic congress that was actively trying to sabotage him.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

But also I think it is because he believed that the version of health care he passed would be much more palatable for Republican congressmen and for the moderate/center-right sector of the general public. That's called compromise.

 

Not a single Rep voted for Obamacare. So where was the "compromise"? If you call bribing Demwit congressmen/women at the last minute to get their votes, then yes, he compromised.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Not a single Rep voted for Obamacare. So where was the "compromise"? If you call bribing Demwit congressmen/women at the last minute to get their votes, then yes, he compromised.

 

That's on them that they didn't vote for it, not President Obama. He gave them a bill that was strikingly similar to what their party was proposing only a decade ago but suddenly none of them liked that idea anymore. I wonder why that would be?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's on them that they didn't vote for it, not President Obama. He gave them a bill that was strikingly similar to what their party was proposing only a decade ago but suddenly none of them liked that idea anymore. I wonder why that would be?

 

What bill did they propose a decade ago that was strikingly similar to Obamacare?

[jerryskids 5,208]

It's funny you say that, because I think he is actually quite pragmatic. Take the near-universal health care law, for example. It is hardly a liberal ideal. Liberals generally want a government run program or, failing that, at least a public option (this cuts out the needless middleman, the insurance companies, thereby keeping costs down). But that's not what Obama passed. Obama passed a health care law that was strikingly similar to laws proposed by the likes of Newt Gingrich on the Republican side of the aisle in the 1990s. In fact I have read that it is to the right of Richard Nixon's proposed universal health care law back in the day.

 

Why did Obama pass such a moderate version of health care reform? Probably a couple of reasons. I don't think he wanted to alienate industry and hoped to keep the insurance companies in his back pocket. But also I think it is because he believed that the version of health care he passed would be much more palatable for Republican congressmen and for the moderate/center-right sector of the general public. That's called compromise.

 

Now lately he has taken an adversarial stance, but you have to admit that the Republicans in Congress have basically spent the last two years trying to foil his every move. They have outright stated that their number one goal is to ensure that Obama is not re-elected, and they backed up that statement by dragging their feet at every turn and throwing every conceivable wrench in to Obama's plans.

 

This isn't like the Republican House under Newt Gingrich, which admittedly hated Bill Clinton yet would still work with him in areas of mutual goals. At this point President Obama could introduce a bill slashing the tax rate to zero, abolishing every department except the Department of Defense, and immediately deporting any suspected illegal immigrant and the Republican Congress would STILL oppose it because it was Obama's bill.

 

You can hardly blame him for calling Congress to task on that. A Republican president would do the same with a Democratic congress that was actively trying to sabotage him.

 

I don't know the details of Nixon's ideas on health care; I'll concede your point. However, much of Paul Ryan's concerns were over the sheer size of the legislation and the push to pass it without review. Obama would have none of that.

 

I'm not going to pretend that the republicans in congress like Obama, or that they are currently working with him. You and I have different memories of how that came to pass. I can't think of a single thing that came out of those health care discussions that you could call a compromise. If I'm forgetting something, please let me know. Nevertheless, the president, to be effective, has to rise above that and work with the other side.

[MedStudent 56]

I don't know the details of Nixon's ideas on health care; I'll concede your point. However, much of Paul Ryan's concerns were over the sheer size of the legislation and the push to pass it without review. Obama would have none of that.

 

I'm not going to pretend that the republicans in congress like Obama, or that they are currently working with him. You and I have different memories of how that came to pass. I can't think of a single thing that came out of those health care discussions that you could call a compromise. If I'm forgetting something, please let me know. Nevertheless, the president, to be effective, has to rise above that and work with the other side.

Obama dropped the public option out of his healthcare plan which was a huuge concession. Republicans offered no bend and In fact were going further to the right with their proposals. Originally they talked about eliminating pre conditions but the republicans even wanted to scrap that in the end. The republicans offered nothing for the uninsured. The republicans didn't want any healthcare law to pass. Obama's plan was no more liberal than the Nixon plan or the republican plan when the clinton's plan was being fought over. As a matter of fact the unconstitutional mandate was a republican idea created by guys like Gingrich and Hatch. The teaparty drove the debate from the right and it's pretty obvious they wanted no reform.

[eaglesalltheway 0]

Obama dropped the public option out of his healthcare plan which was a huuge concession. Republicans offered no bend and In fact were going further to the right with their proposals. Originally they talked about eliminating pre conditions but the republicans even wanted to scrap that in the end. The republicans offered nothing for the uninsured. The republicans didn't want any healthcare law to pass. Obama's plan was no more liberal than the Nixon plan or the republican plan when the clinton's plan was being fought over. As a matter of fact the unconstitutional mandate was a republican idea created by guys like Gingrich and Hatch. The teaparty drove the debate from the right and it's pretty obvious they wanted no reform.

This. When Obama had the meeting, I felt it was the Republicans that were disingenuous because they wanted to start completely over. Then, when the President made concessions such as eliminating the public option which a lot of Republicans were against, they still voted against it. It didn't matter what was in the healthcare bill, the Republicans weren't voting for it. Forget the good of the country, the right was just concentrating on making sure he would not be reelected.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

This. When Obama had the meeting, I felt it was the Republicans that were disingenuous because they wanted to start completely over. Then, when the President made concessions such as eliminating the public option which a lot of Republicans were against, they still voted against it. It didn't matter what was in the healthcare bill, the Republicans weren't voting for it. Forget the good of the country, the right was just concentrating on making sure he would not be reelected.

 

Some of them openly said so.

[FeelingMN 273]

I just went to his website to see what his position on pornography is.

 

He says he will appoint an attorney general who will enforce laws against illegal pornography. Imagine that, wanting to put an AG in office that will enforce laws.

 

I guess he is just trying to distinguish himself from Obama and the current AG.

 

Mebbe you are into child porn, and this is why you are all butthurt over him not allowing you to choose your own values in life.

 

You have a problem with reading and with just knowing sh!t in general. Here is what his site says:

 

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

 

Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture.

 

For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

 

Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

 

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

 

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail.

.

 

Here are the Federal Obscenity Laws he references:

 

 

Federal Obscenity Law

 

Federal law does not ban obscenity outright; it leaves this to state law. Federal statutes prohibit, among other things, the transmission of obscene matter as defined by state law, in interstate commerce (e.g. the Internet) and on federal land. 18 U.S.C. §§1460-1470. A website that may be legally permissible in California may be illegal in another state such as Tennessee. Note that websites that have pornographic content generally have a warning that asks the user to verify not only that they are over 18, but also that they are following the laws of their state. Note that the landmark decision Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 824 (1997), struck down only the indecency provision of the Communications Decency Act. The provision that prohibits transmission of obscene material across the Internet was not challenged and is still valid law. 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(.

 

http://www.llrx.com/features/obscenitylaws.htm

 

 

A recent study commissioned by Morality in Media and conducted by Harris Interactive found three out of four adult Americans would support a future President who ensured federal obscenity laws would be vigorously enforced.

 

“It is unfortunate that during the past 15 years so little has been done at the federal level to curb the distribution of obscene materials,” said Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media. “During President Clinton’s terms in office, enforcement of federal obscenity laws was not a Justice Department priority. During President Bush’s terms, his Attorney Generals have talked big but haven’t implemented needed policies to get the job done.”

 

The study, conducted by telephone in early April, surveyed 1,018 adults (aged 18 and over) within the United States.

 

“From this data, it is clear the majority of Americans support the strict prosecution of those producing and distributing obscene materials,” said Rick Schatz, president and CEO of the National Coalition. “It is now our job to take this information to those at the highest level of government.”

 

The National Coalition has been communicating with current presidential candidates to discuss the very issue of federal obscenity laws.

 

“Our goal is to get a strong commitment from presidential hopefuls that they will make obscenity prosecution a top priority. Unfortunately, we have yet to get such a promise,” added Schatz.

 

The National Coalition will be sure to keep its constituents abreast of the latest news regarding federal obscenity prosecution as it relates to the next presidential campaign.

 

“Hopefully, the next President will take whatever steps are necessary to fight obscenity effectively, knowing that the large majority of adult Americans will support such action,” concluded Peters.

 

http://www.purehope.net/obscenitylawenforcement.asp

 

Read some of the articles on this site....it's what Santorum's all about......issue #1.

[Uncle Leo 16]

The guy is an intrucive idiot. He'd probably like to have a federal agent in everyone's bedroom to make sure the sex was only missionary position and not too enjoyable.

 

Hilarious.

[FeelingMN 273]

There was an entire thread on the Griswald case. Santorum thinks it's a state's rights issue. I think his quote I linked said states have the right to pass bills even if they are "dumb". He has voted for bills that included contraception, and said while he personally opposes it, he wouldn't base his vote on those personal opinions. Nice diversion though......it's the hot topic on the libtard talking points memo, so I see why you keep bringing it up.

 

I have not gone to his website. Is he proposing a bill to ban pornography? Or does he say he personally opposes it?

 

Still waiting for you to show where the right isn't allowing people the "freedom to choose their own values in life". I'm sure you will continue to ignore this and go back to "Santorum wants to ban contraception".

 

Are you really braindead? You making sh!t up? UGOTWORMS?

 

Santorum is against Griswold....which established marital privacy rights. This is from the contraception thread:

 

Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum reaffirmed on Monday that he believes the Supreme Court decided wrongly in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut.

 

And during the debate....where Snuffy was given a heads-up from Obama

 

SANTORUM: Well, Congressman Paul is talking about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, which I agree with him in, I don't necessarily agree that the Patriot Act violates that. But I do agree with -- obviously we have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. But that's not what the Griswold decision nor the Roe v. Wade decision were about.

 

They created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution. And what I've -- and that's, again, I sort of agree with Governor Romney's assessment -- legal assessment, it created a right through boot-strapping, through creating something that wasn't there. I believe it should be overturned.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=399646&st=240

 

The only diversion is that of the Right. These are non-issues that your base continues to make into issues...and it's why Santorum is gaining momentum. Romney appears disingenuous because he has to pander to these fockers who prop their belief system as a political platform.

 

I also think it's funny that Dank says the Dems tend to be stronger on social freedoms....and you don't say d!ck. I bring it up, and it's suddenly a diversion and a lib talking point. Maybe that's just how braindead rednecks think?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You have a problem with reading and with just knowing sh!t in general. Here is what his site says:

 

.

 

Here are the Federal Obscenity Laws he references:

 

 

 

 

http://www.llrx.com/features/obscenitylaws.htm

 

 

 

 

http://www.purehope.net/obscenitylawenforcement.asp

 

Read some of the articles on this site....it's what Santorum's all about......issue #1.

 

Once again, he said he would appoint an AG that goes after 'illegal pornography'. If you have a problem with what is illegal you should take it up with those who passed the laws.

 

Seems to me you are taking this personally, which leads me to believe I was onto something with my crack about you being into kiddie porn.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This is from the contraception thread:

 

 

 

Cool.

 

Now go back and read my link where he said it was a state's rights issue to him. Read where he said states have the right to pass laws he considers "dumb". Read where he pointed out he has voted for legislation that included contraception.

 

Read all about it, cuz I'm done rehashing that thread in this one.

[MDC 5,895]

Once again, he said he would appoint an AG that goes after 'illegal pornography'. If you have a problem with what is illegal you should take it up with those who passed the laws.

 

Seems to me you are taking this personally, which leads me to believe I was onto something with my crack about you being into kiddie porn.

 

I get the impression from Santorum's statement on pron that he'd like to make some currently legal forms of it illegal.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It didn't matter what was in the healthcare bill, the Republicans weren't voting for it. Forget the good of the country, the right was just concentrating on making sure he would not be reelected.

Well then, seeing as how Obama got his Obamacare bill passed without a single Rep vote, he should be touting that accomplishment in every ad, speech, etc....

 

"Re-elect me cuz I got you Obamacare without a single Republican vote". He would be a lock, according to you clowns.

 

Only one problem. He rarely mentions Obamacare, unless he is in front of an uber-lib audience. Why is that? Maybe cuz and overwhelming majority of Americans know the bill is a turd and want it thrown out.

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

What bill did they propose a decade ago that was strikingly similar to Obamacare?

 

Here is a comparison between Obama's health care law and a plan proposed by Republican Cogressmen in 1993. You'll note that they are strikingly similar.

 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I don't know the details of Nixon's ideas on health care; I'll concede your point. However, much of Paul Ryan's concerns were over the sheer size of the legislation and the push to pass it without review. Obama would have none of that.

 

I'm not going to pretend that the republicans in congress like Obama, or that they are currently working with him. You and I have different memories of how that came to pass. I can't think of a single thing that came out of those health care discussions that you could call a compromise. If I'm forgetting something, please let me know. Nevertheless, the president, to be effective, has to rise above that and work with the other side.

 

Obama's compromise was to pitch a plan that originally came from the Republican braintrust in the 1990s. It isn't his fault that Republicans suddenly decided they were against that very same plan once it was proposed by a Democratic president.

 

My link

 

So I'd propose that the ideological character of the plan can only be determined by referring to its policy content. If Obama's claim about his plan's moderation were correct, would would we see? We'd see that Obama had modeled his plan after other proposals that had gained the support of Republicans. The lack of Republican support in Congress would not refute the claim of moderation -- we would explain this as evidence that the GOP had moved to the right and/or embraced a partisan strategy of opposition.

 

And indeed, this is exactly the case. Obama's plan closely mirrors three proposals that have attracted the support of Republicans who reside within their party's mainstream: The first is the 1993 Senate Republican health plan, which is compared with Obama's plan here, with the similarity endorsed by former Republican Senator Dave Durenberger here. The second is the Bipartisan Policy Center plan, endorsed by Bob Dole, Howard baker, George Mitchell and Tom Daschle, which is compared to Obama's plan here. And the third, of course, is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan, which was crafted by the same economist who helped create Obama's plan, and which is rhetorically indistinguishable from Obama's. (The main difference are that Obama's plan cuts Medicare and imposes numerous other cost-saving measures -- which is to say, attempting to craft a national version of Romney's plan would result in something substantially more liberal than Obama's proposal.)

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

Oh I see, when you said a bill proposed by Reps a decade ago that was "strikingly similar" to Obamacare you really meant something RINO Lincoln Chaffee sponsored as an alternative to HillaryCare 20 years ago that went absolutely nowhere.

 

 

Gotcha.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It isn't his fault that Republicans suddenly decided they were against that very same plan once it was proposed by a Democratic president.

 

 

 

:lol:

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Oh I see, when you said a bill proposed by Reps a decade ago that was "strikingly similar" to Obamacare you really meant something RINO Lincoln Chaffee sponsored as an alternative to HillaryCare 20 years ago that went absolutely nowhere.

 

 

Gotcha.

 

 

You are such a hack. I just rubbed your face in proof that Republicans proposed a very similar plan in the 1990s and your answer is that they weren't real Republicans. Fockin dooshbag.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

You are such a hack. I just rubbed your face in proof that Republicans proposed a very similar plan in the 1990s and your answer is that they weren't real Republicans. Fockin dooshbag.

 

It didn't get close to passing, Sport. Both the Senate and the House was controlled by the Dems.

 

 

Face it, Obamacare is all on the Demwits. Going back 20 years to dredge up some compromise proposal to Hillarycare offered up by a RINO isn't changing that fact. :lol:

 

ETA: Was it "very similar", or "the very same plan"? Your story changes from one post to the next.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

It didn't get close to passing, Sport. Both the Senate and the House was controlled by the Dems.

 

 

Face it, Obamacare is all on the Demwits. Going back 20 years to dredge up some compromise proposal to Hillarycare offered up by a RINO isn't changing that fact. :lol:

 

1. Obviously it didn't pass, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You're a little slow on the uptake, aren't you?

 

2. I was not discussing who the bill is "on". I think it's a good bill so I am in favor of Democrats receiving credit for it. My only point was that Republicans have supported similar plans in the past but suddenly unanimously opposed it when it was proposed by a Democratic president. This goes against jerry's thesis that Obama was ramming a liberal plan down the Republicans' throat without offering any concessions whatsoever.

 

3. You are as bad as admitting defeat as your are at honoring bets.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

1. Obviously it didn't pass, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

How many Reps voted for Hillarycare when it came up for a vote?

 

How many Reps voted for your Chaffee bill when it came up for a vote?

 

I'll hang up and listen.

[Little Rusty 17]

I hope he becomes President and gets a law passed to lock away weirdos who pee on a girl or a let a girl pee on them.

 

And also makes it perfectly LEGAL to pee on Looney Libs

[IGotWorms 3,317]

How many Reps voted for Hillarycare when it came up for a vote?

 

How many Reps voted for your Chaffee bill when it came up for a vote?

 

I'll hang up and listen.

 

It never came up for a vote because the Dems wanted HillaryCare. But here is a list of cosponsors:

 

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [uT] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Boren, David L. [OK] - 5/17/1994

 

Sen Cohen, William S. [ME] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Danforth, John C. [MO] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Domenici, Pete V. [NM] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Durenberger, Dave [MN] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Faircloth, Lauch [NC] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Gorton, Slade [WA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Grassley, Chuck [iA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [uT] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [KS] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Kerrey, J. Robert [NE] - 5/17/1994

 

Sen Lugar, Richard G. [iN] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Warner, John [VA] - 11/22/1993

 

Sen Brown, Hank [CO] - 11/22/1993 (withdrawn - 10/4/1994)

 

 

Were they all RINOs too?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It never came up for a vote because the Dems wanted HillaryCare.

 

Wait, what? The Dems had the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives and it never even came up for a vote?

 

Why were all those Dems opposed to the "very same bill" in '93, but for it now?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It isn't his fault that Republicans suddenly decided they were against that very same plan once it was proposed by a Democratic president.

 

 

When you first started this line of whining you said it was proposed a decade ago, which would have put it under Bush. Now you bring links to Hillarycare, which if I'm not mistaken was proposed under a Democrat President.

 

You aren't having a good day, Worms.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Obama dropped the public option out of his healthcare plan which was a huuge concession.

 

Huge concession to who? It still didn't get any Republican votes, so it must have been to appease Dems. This is your example of Obama being Bi-partisan?

[IGotWorms 3,317]

When you first started this line of whining you said it was proposed a decade ago, which would have put it under Bush. Now you bring links to Hillarycare, which if I'm not mistaken was proposed under a Democrat President.

 

You aren't having a good day, Worms.

 

So were all of the Republican cosponsors to the 1993 RINOs or not? I am waiting for your answer.

[Voltaire 4,564]

My biggest concern with President Obama is that he just doesn't seem interested in deficit reduction and the things needed to make that happen. As I've said here any times, I broke with him over this very issue, in December 2010 when Simpson/Bowles came out as did the other deficit reduction plan released at the same time and he ignored them. Entitlement reform has got to be on the agenda, and the GOP -to their great credit- understand this. Hopefully with all the rhetoric going around about deficit reduction, it'll keep up and the GOP will hold his feet to the fire.

 

Meanwhile, the other things I hate about Dems are still around as well: the welfare state, affirmative craption, trial lawyers, public-employee unions, I'm so sick of having to vote for these a$$holes all the time. I use to be a Republican and I still would vote for Gingrich in a heartbeat. Like I told my German friend the other day: in any respectable, well-run country, I'd be one of the most conservative members of the conservative party. It's only in the US that I get stuck having to vote left.

[FeelingMN 273]

Once again, he said he would appoint an AG that goes after 'illegal pornography'. If you have a problem with what is illegal you should take it up with those who passed the laws.

 

Seems to me you are taking this personally, which leads me to believe I was onto something with my crack about you being into kiddie porn.

 

** Miller v. California (1973) -- New benchmark reflected political changes in the Supreme Court with new Nixon appointees. Community standards replaced national standards, and the court tried to isolate hard core pornography from expression protected by the First Amendment. This is still the main "controlling" case in defining obscenity. In Miller, the court said a work was obscene if it:

 

*Meets the Roth test

*describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way

*taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

 

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/class/law/1.12obscenity.html

 

Nixon was a Republican, right? So the Right wants to create these laws and now the Right wants to enforce them. If Santorum were a cop, he'd give a ticket for going 36mph in a 35mph zone.....because that's the law.

 

Dipsh!t....all pornography is illegal to Santorum, and he wants it done away with because it's rooning America. But the Patriot Act is alright.

 

Cool.

 

Now go back and read my link where he said it was a state's rights issue to him. Read where he said states have the right to pass laws he considers "dumb". Read where he pointed out he has voted for legislation that included contraception.

 

Read all about it, cuz I'm done rehashing that thread in this one.

 

I read where he thought marital rights didn't exist and were created out of nothing. I read where he thought pornography was ruining America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also read where Snuffy was getting a heads-up from Obama to ask a certain question.

 

 

 

 

 

Bwwwaahhhhaaaahhhaaaaa

[nikki2200 4]

Meanwhile, the other things I hate about Dems are still around as well: the welfare state, affirmative craption, trial lawyers, public-employee unions, I'm so sick of having to vote for these a$$holes all the time. I use to be a Republican and I still would vote for Gingrich in a heartbeat. Like I told my German friend the other day: in any respectable, well-run country, I'd be one of the most conservative members of the conservative party. It's only in the US that I get stuck having to vote left.

 

Interesting you say that. It reminded me of something.

 

There was a guy I worked with who was born in the UK and lived there his whole life and then lived in Australia for 15 years. I'll preface this by saying this guy is hardcore cutthroat business man type. He was a VP at the Fortune 200 CPG company I worked for and he was under 40.

 

I was having lunch with him and somehow politics came up. And he said, "I was a conservative my whole life, and I come to America and I'm a focking bleeding heart liberal." He went on to say how he thought the republicans in this country were focking whacko.

 

I get what you are saying. And when people say we are living in a "socialist" country they obviously have no worldy experience whatsoever and spend way too much time reading wingnut conspiracy blogs. I feel the same way. I agree with most of the republican ideals, but I run from associating myself with them and it always seems that I can relate more to the democratic candidate than the republican one, as much as I disagree with things that the democrat might stand for. The republican candidates just seem to be a focking nut jobs to me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So were all of the Republican cosponsors to the 1993 RINOs or not? I am waiting for your answer.

 

Doesn't matter, does it.

 

Zero Republicans voted for Hillarycare in 1993.

 

Zero Republicans voted for Obamacare.

 

 

Zero Democrats voted for Hillarycare in 1993.

 

A majority Democrats voted for Obamacare.

 

So, you tell me who flip-flopped and who didn't change their positions on Govt run healthcare over the years.

 

Your Sunday is starting out as badly for you as your Saturday ended.

[jerryskids 5,208]

Here is a comparison between Obama's health care law and a plan proposed by Republican Cogressmen in 1993. You'll note that they are strikingly similar.

 

http://www.kaiserhea...comparison.aspx

I see 16 criteria for comparison (excluding the last three rows), and 8 are different. Is that "strikingly similar"?