What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Obama promised not to have closed door negotiations and he did. That's simply a broken promise.

Anybody who spent one second supporting the prior administration who is now calling this conduct out is being laughably hypocritical, unless they're restricting their criticism to it being a broken promise.

Not quite sure how Obama can be simultaneously a gol-durned so-schlist plotting to drive the insurance companies into bankruptcy and plotting with the insurance companies, but the 28%ers have never been logical so why start now? :p
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Slap Shot said:
It's one friggin meeting.
Click to expand...

It is, but Rover is acting like breaking a promise is irrelevant simply because others have also done it. Others doing something wrong doesn't make it right when your side turns around and does the same thing.

Breaking a promise is wrong. Admit it. And the "but they did it too" argument is only valid in kindergarten.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

sagard said:
The current administration is really a function of the previous admin's actions. The election just served notice that people felt they were made fools of in '04.

We don't pay for anything, we just borrow and spend. Really we won't pay a lot on this, but our kids and their kids will.

This is why the next time Repubs are in charge (and it will happen) they should try to avoid being so vile in so many ways.
Click to expand...
Filp the Repubs to Dems in about, say 2012 or so, and you'll be right on. It's the neverending viscious cycle.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

moe24 said:
It is, but Rover is acting like breaking a promise is irrelevant simply because others have also done it. Others doing something wrong doesn't make it right when your side turns around and does the same thing.

Breaking a promise is wrong. Admit it. And the "but they did it too" argument is only valid in kindergarten.
Click to expand...

"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

moe24 said:
It is, but partisans often act like breaking a promise is irrelevant simply because others have also done it. Others doing something wrong doesn't make it right when your side turns around and does the same thing.
Click to expand...

FYP, but otherwise yes, absolutely.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

moe24 said:
Your sarcasm MIGHT be valid if the opposite course of action hadn't been promised before hand.
Click to expand...

You must be a lot of fun to hang around with...

This issue = Who. Cares. I don't expect ever planning meeting the guy has to be open to the press. That would be ridiculous and nothing would ever get done. Its like if a candidate said "I never broke the law" then some internet nerd finds out he got a parking violation once. Yes, technically he lied, but really, aren't there maybe more important issues to worry about?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
You must be a lot of fun to hang around with...

This issue = Who. Cares. I don't expect ever planning meeting the guy has to be open to the press. That would be ridiculous and nothing would ever get done. Its like if a candidate said "I never broke the law" then some internet nerd finds out he got a parking violation once. Yes, technically he lied, but really, aren't there maybe more important issues to worry about?
Click to expand...

Nice try at back peddling. But if that promise was so ridiculous to make then he shouldn't have made it.

And the comparison you made is absolutely absurd... but thanks for playing.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

moe24 said:
Nice try at back peddling. But if that promise was so ridiculous to make then he shouldn't have made it.

And the comparison you made is absolutely absurd... but thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

No backpeddling involved on my end. I don't expect any President, be it Bush, Clinton, or Reagan, to have every meeting public. That's an unreasonable thing to expect. Nor do I care to see Obama explain it, because its a stupid issue only meant for people who's loins get excited when they see Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on their TV screen. :eek:

I'll let you answer if you're one of those people...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
No backpeddling involved on my end. I don't expect any President, be it Bush, Clinton, or Reagan, to have every meeting public. That's an unreasonable thing to expect.
Click to expand...

I don't expect it either, but it is reasonable to expect people to either keep their promises or not make promises they have no intention of keeping.

Rover said:
... its a stupid issue only meant for people who's loins get excited when they see Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on their TV screen. :eek:

I'll let you answer if you're one of those people...
Click to expand...

I honestly have never seen either of their shows, nor do I care to.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

1500 pages of one senate bill supposed to hit the web today. This will be fun to watch. I have a feeling the CBO will have to re-issue its numbers if they can ever manage to sift through the BS in this thing.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

dropthatpuck said:
1500 pages of one senate bill supposed to hit the web today. This will be fun to watch. I have a feeling the CBO will have to re-issue its numbers if they can ever manage to sift through the BS in this thing.
Click to expand...

Yes because your predictions are always so accurate....:D

In the meantime, ponder this support for that socialist plan, the public option. :cool:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)

If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, would be in favor of it, about double their level of support without such a limitation.
Click to expand...

The Dems should float that plan just to bring the crows home to roost for all the Sanford-Perry hypocrites. You'd wind up with universal coverage in blue states which already are healthier and have higher wages, more education and higher quality of life. Under those circumstances, every good job (not to mention every female with more than a grade school education) in the US would pull out of the red states, leaving the GOP with ideological purity and control of one-third of the country as a UNESCO/WHO-recognized Failed State. Cut inter-state transfers by calling the originalists' bluff on the Commerce Clause and the slave states will be begging Mexico to annex them.

It might even make them start telling the truth, which would in and of itself be funny.
 
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
The Dems should float that plan just to bring the crows home to roost for all the Sanford-Perry hypocrites. You'd wind up with universal coverage in blue states which already are healthier and have higher wages, more education and higher quality of life. Under those circumstances, every good job (not to mention every female with more than a grade school education) in the US would pull out of the red states, leaving the GOP with ideological purity and control of one-third of the country as a UNESCO/WHO-recognized Failed State. Cut inter-state transfers by calling the originalists' bluff on the Commerce Clause and the slave states will be begging Mexico to annex them.

It might even make them start telling the truth, which would in and of itself be funny.
Click to expand...

Did I miss the :D or :) on your post? I thought better of you.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I like the idea of calling the GOP's bluff with a trigger/opt out. Give the law a few years to reduce costs. Then allow a public option in states unless they say no. This lets Republican states keep their ideological purity, even if its detrimental to their citizens if they choose and "gubmint" isn't forced upon them.

Of course, given the option to refuse the stimulus money, I didn't see anybody say "no" to the allocation coming to their state, but hey - conservatives can always dream I guess....
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
Of course, given the option to refuse the stimulus money, I didn't see anybody say "no" to the allocation coming to their state, but hey - conservatives can always dream I guess....
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are committed and sincere conservatives who would like to decline the money, like there are committed and sincere liberals who would like to fund every government expenditure as PayGo. In both cases, they'd be eaten alive by their constituents. The problem in the end isn't just the leaders being charlatans, but also the voters being spoiled infants.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
Of course, given the option to refuse the stimulus money, I didn't see anybody say "no" to the allocation coming to their state, but hey - conservatives can always dream I guess....
Click to expand...

You'd get more people saying "yes" if they also got to opt out of having to repay that money down the line.

As it stands, you'd be a financial idiot to turn back the stimulus money, because you'll have to help pay it back whether you take it or not.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

A bit off topic but one of the ranting media jocks is telling people they would be fools to take the H1N1 vaccine. Not being a good Christian, my first thought was well, that will kill off a bit of the population who are a few french fries short of a happy meal and gullible enough to listen to the guy. He isn't taking it either so ....:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top