has the right reached a new low?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 159002
  • Start date
Since Trump supporters can't intellectually justify the GOP's agenda, they've resorted to obfuscating debate by slandering news stories as "fake news" when the agenda's harmful consequences are reported. They can't win debates, so they'll try to make debate seem impossible to neutral observers. Were things this bad during W's presidency, or has the right reached a new low?
Speaking as someone who was there for it... Can't tell yet.
The worst thing W did was to get us into a war of choice.
Trump hasn't had time. Putting millions off of insurance would be a great way to reach equality.
 
I am not a big fan of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party is full of a bunch of crybabies that won't accept the election results.

dem_party_seal.jpg

Show me an example of Democratic leader denying that Trump is President or that he won. Denying a Presidents legitimacy is part of Trumps playbook that he perfected during seven years leading the birther movement.
 
The problem with the Mandate is that it mandates people to buy a plan that they don't necessarily like or need. As a male I do not need coverage for a pap smear nor do I need coverage for drug addiction yet I am forced to pay for it the ACL was a stinker and it is falling. And by the way it was done under Darkness and passed through budget reconciliation was unpopular when it passed and is still unpopular today.

Under darkness? There was an entire month and hundreds of hours of public hearings. Also, the largest portion of the Bill was passed as a regular bill, not as reconciliation. The Democrats did not need reconciliation because, wait for it, they had 60 votes. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way though.

The Jan. 9 news article “ Obama vetoes bill aimed at repealing health law ” repeated a commonly held misconception about the process used to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2010: “To pass the Obamacare repeal bill, Republican lawmakers used the complex budget procedure known as reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in this case — the same procedure Democrats used to pass the bill in 2009 when they controlled both the House and Senate.” The Senate did not use the reconciliaton process to pass the ACA. The act, comprising 906 pages, is the basic comprehensive substance of Obamacare. It was passed on a bill that was filibustered, and a supermajority vote of 60 was required to end that filibuster (by invoking cloture under Senate Rule 22). It was signed by the president on March 23, 2010, and became Public Law 111-148.

A second bill, which was a reconciliation bill, was passed after that date to make a series of discrete budgetary changes in the ACA. That act, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, was signed by the president on March 30, 2010, and became Public Law 111-152. It comprises 54 pages, 42 of which dealt with health care. Like the reconciliation bill in 2010, the reconciliation bill that the president vetoed this month made discrete budgetary changes in existing law. That vetoed bill did not “repeal” Obamacare. It amended several of the law’s budgetary components while leaving the basic structure of the law in place.
 
you realize hospitals have to treat and stabilize people, regardless of insurance right?

now that doesn't mean you'd get help w/ say diabetes or some other debilitating illness (shit happens, that's life, earn some keep if you want actual coverage), but they don't just let people die in the waiting room b/c they don't have Medicare.....

also poor people get sick and die more often, that's inherent when you're relying on somebody else to provide/pay for services for you. Nothing has changed

how many poor people are overweight? how many smoke cigarettes? there's many reasons why we shouldn't just gift people things for poor personal choices, it perpetuates the cycle of poverty and keeps people dependent

Do you think maybe hospitals have to charge paying customers like insurance companies more to cover the costs of the services they provide for free to those without insurance? Do you think insurance companies happily take that money out of their profit or do you think maybe they pass those costs on to customers like you?
 
It's complicated, but access to social media and information is greater than it's ever been, we (humans) are tribal by nature, a lot of bad media coverage, people are pissed off, there are lots of poorly educated voters or at least poorly educated on issues, etc.. There are a lot of causes but one major cause that has specific people to point to are political leaders who use this for personal gain. The other reasons are social.

Also, I'm an accountant not a politician so you shouldn't say "you guys" when replying to me.

So you meant tribal as in tribal group . . . not tribal as in indian. Got it . . .

You guys? Huh?
 
Lol.
Me: Jack called me a liar.
Jack: You're lying about that, and it proves you are a liar.

This is a perfect illustration of your issue. This is what I said:

"Of course thinking that Clinton was a terrible candidate and wasn't likely to win the Democratic nomination doesn't make you a liar, and of course I would never say that it does or did. I call you a liar because you lie with disturbing regularity (again, you're doing it here)."

And you rephrased that as me saying that I didn't call you a liar.

So the reality:

Inga: "Jack called me a liar because I said something that wasn't a lie."
Me: "No, I called you a liar because you lie all the time."
Inga: "Jack said he didn't call me a liar."
Me: Is this some kind of a joke?

The substance of my argument was that Kong consistently disparaged Ripskater for things that were none of his business, in this instance buying dirtbikes. I don't think you poked any holes in that. Nor was I parroting any talking points in arguing with Kong that it was unnecessary and ugly.

"The left thinks it knows how to spend your money better than you do." That's a common, dumb talking point that is the exact opposite of the truth (paternalism about spending is a right-wing thing). I pointed it out, and you immediately defended that paternalism. That made you look ridiculous, which is why you started attacking and why your fellow hacks tried to intervene--not by defending the substance of your points (impossible), but by attacking the messenger.

I'd also note that your concern about rip is unnecessary. He didn't actually buy dirtbikes instead of health insurance for his kids. It's just a Ken M-type gimmick.
 
Last edited:


I'm glad they are doing what they're doing. Go full...embrace the perpetual binaural hypocritical hypocrisy. Stop complaining you big baby.

The ACA was debated publicly for months, had several amendments and was analyzed by experts. Republicans are doing a stealth operation now, the opposite of what Democrats did with the ACA.

So you're being a dishonest hack.
 
Like shit. I already said it. What didn't you understand.

There are 2 kinds of people. One who are selfish asshole who think they're alone in all this and the second who understand we are all living together and don't mind helping others.
And this is why you're widely regarded as an infantile idiot that cannot post anything without looking like a tourette's addled chimp.
 
People underestimate the right's ability to turn arguments about policy into arguments about the argument. David Frum pointed this out on Harris' podcast a little while back. Think back to the number of arguments you've tried to have about bad Trump admin policies, only to find yourself in an argument about whether you're even allowed to argue about it. You have to keep correcting them back onto the tracks.

This is what's so troubling. Whereas 10 years ago I would bring a news story to a right winger's attention and then he would defend the GOP's policy, nowadays a right winger will just stick his fingers in his ears and insinuate the reporter lied. It's a dangerous movement. I hate to think lawsuits are the answer, but I think news orgs perhaps should start suing people who a priori accuse them of being "fake news".
 
This a valid point, but...

I personally know a family from way back when (went to school with) that cheats ssi, welfare, etc. while getting professionally full sleeved, owning five top end axes, including one of Zakk Wyldes signature series (and the dude cannot even fucking play a note), buys a half of weed at a time, etc... seriously, the motherfucker is 31, (the other, his brother is in his 40s, and they've never had a job, they sit around and smoke weed all day and play video games, living with their mom). It's disgraceful.

you honestly cannot see how that would rub someone working there ass off, oftentimes in shit jobs and long hours, while they do without those luxuries, the wrong way?
It sounds like they are getting money from an undeclared or illegal source. Abuse should be investigated and illegal activity should be punished. But, to answer your question, yes I can see how that would bother anyone who witnesses it. It still doesn't change my position that outcomes are more important than micro-managing people just to prevent a relatively tiny number of abusers.

Those programs aren't designed for able bodied adults who refuse to work. They're for households with dependents or someone who needs a caregiver, and for the elderly or disabled.
If it were up to me I'd replace pretty much all of the different programs with simple cash distribution, like a negative income tax. Much more efficient.

Actually, one of the sources of contention I see is that we tax income in the first place. I think it drives a lot of political class warfare. I'd support getting rid of income tax--except to pay for SSI which makes sense to be funded by income--and let all other revenue come from land value and capital gains.
 
And this is why you're widely regarded as an infantile idiot that cannot post anything without looking like a tourette's addled chimp.


Except we already pay taxes now that are allocated for programs that help other individuals.

I don't understand why you're having such a hard time accepting things like that.

Most Americans want a universal system. It's inevitable.
 
Like shit. I already said it. What didn't you understand.

There are 2 kinds of people. One who are selfish asshole who think they're alone in all this and the second who understand we are all living together and don't mind helping others.

The problem is we have a lot of lazy leeches that have built an entire culture around entitlements and victimhood. And the left makes nothing but excuses for them. The left literally demands that we throw more money at their problems.

That and leftist seem to care more about people that don't belong here and refugees than they do with Americans.

So it's hard to want help people out when these undeserving people are your main beneficiaries.
 
The problem is we have a lot of lazy leeches that have built an entire culture around entitlements and victimhood. And the left makes nothing but excuses for them. The left literally demands that we throw more money at their problems.

That and leftist seem to care more about people that don't belong here and refugees than they do with Americans.

So it's hard to want help people out when these undeserving people are your main beneficiaries.

I think there a some people who abuse the system but the overwhelming majority are working people who need some type of government assistance.
 
The ACA was debated publicly for months, had several amendments and was analyzed by experts. Republicans are doing a stealth operation now, the opposite of what Democrats did with the ACA.

So you're being a dishonest hack.


How am I being dishonest? I never questioned anything you just said, as a matter of fact, I agree...except for the last part.

By the way, speaking of the last part...how many times was the ACA amended by Obama?

By the way, how many times did Obama meet with lobbyists in Pharma secretly prior to the implementation of ACA?

You might be the dishonest hack here.
 
How am I being dishonest? I never questioned anything you just said, as a matter of fact, I agree...except for the last part.

By the way, speaking of the last part...how many times was the ACA amended by Obama?

By the way, how many times did Obama meet with lobbyists in Pharma secretly prior to the implementation of ACA?

You might be the dishonest hack here.
I never mentioned any of that, so how am I dishonest? Are you a mind reader?
 
The left shatters new lows every day and the TS asks "Has the right reached a new low?".

Sickening.
 
They've descended into a cult of identity that is more dangerous than any we've ever seen in the United States since the worship of George Washington that he eschewed in one of the most virtuous acts (if not THE most virtuous) in all the history of human politics.
 
The problem is we have a lot of lazy leeches that have built an entire culture around entitlements and victimhood. And the left makes nothing but excuses for them. The left literally demands that we throw more money at their problems.

That and leftist seem to care more about people that don't belong here and refugees than they do with Americans.

So it's hard to want help people out when these undeserving people are your main beneficiaries.

I'd personally rather my tax dollars go to keeping the "lazy leeches" from dying and going hungry than go to the hundreds of military bases and regime changes we are involved in across the globe. 71% of households in our nation have someone who received entitlements at some point in time.

I love the selective use of "entitlements" that you'll use. Are public schools not an entitlement then by your definition? What about public roads? Public services like parks and ambulances and hospitals? Where do you draw the line of entitlements?

Nobody on the left wants that money spent on perfectly healthy individuals who are just lazy. It's a stupid fucking dishonest argument. The left realizes that when you cut these programs on that argument, you're impacting people who actually need help. Single mothers, the elderly, the real poor. Those are the victims of Republican ideas. Instead of cutting the programs, why don't you suggest better monitoring of who gets the funds?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,248
Messages
55,267,617
Members
174,713
Latest member
F5CHAMPIONSHIP
Back
Top