So...the Republicans deserve more blame because the Democrats can't all agree on this issue. Brilliant.
You've shown your true colors here. Republicans should be blamed more than Democrats for everything, even when they're not in charge!
You don't have to apologize. Your attitude is very typical and completely expected from those who suck suck up much and remain soullessly empty. And you needn't reply. I also know you are completely unaware of it. Enjoy your dream. The angel of death, I'm sure, will be impressed by your intelligence and ambition such that, unlike the rest of us, your life will not be over in a flash.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
You've discovered Craig's motto -- blame the Republicans for everything, regardless of how logically impossible it is to blame them.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Yes, I know. My point, which is now OT, is that Bush didnt "steal" anything. It was Gore who requested the court's involvement.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
Sorry chief, the Democrats are in complete control. If they can't get it done, it is THEIR failure, not the fault of Republicans, independents, or anyone else.
Every single Republican in Congress could vote against the proposals, or simply stay home, and the Democrats could still pass any version of the bill they want... that is, IF the Democrats had their shit together.
Given that fact, blaming the Republicans for the failure of these proposals is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Given that fact, blaming the Republicans for the failure of these proposals is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
It illustrates the degree to which Craig will go to any lengths to find scapegoats for his Democrat masters. It is really pathetic.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Similar, but different. Its a public option, by the states. Each state is different, but for WA state, for example (where I last used it), eligibility is:
You must be a resident of Washington state;
You must have been rejected for coverage by an insurance carrier based upon the results of the Standard Health Questionnaire, or live in a Washington state county where individual health benefit plans are not offered; and
You must not be eligible for Medicare coverage.
Thats it. So to say people dont have options is a lie, propagated mostly by Democrats. Is everyone 100% covered? Probably not, and NO option will cover that. But its a resource for people in need. Its been around for over a decade.
And I take exception to your misinformation - but to your creidt you leave the door open to if there are things you don't know. It appears there are.
But first, you're right to insist on scrrutiny of the Supreme Court issue, and it's not as black and white IMO as some versions that they had *no* reasoning for their actions.
It's more complicated than that, even if I see more problems with it than you do, not all of which are 'provable' in terms of thei motivation. But let's put the court to the side for now.
But was *not* "elected fairly, and in accordance with the law."
First, fair.
Was it fair that he was elected in large part based on people being lied to, such as the 'Al Gore claimed he invented the internet' lie that influened so many voters?
Was it fair that a bad ballot design by the precinct led to the 'butterfly ballot' flaws that caused thousands of voters who meant to vote Gore, to vote for Buchanan accidentally?
Was it fair that the state run by Jeb Bush and Bush's campaign co-chair Secretary of State Katherine Harris hired a firm to create a 'voter purge list' that created a purge list that included tens of thousands of (legitimate voters* to purge from the voter rolls, by abusing a low Republicans had pushed for, by the state directing the company to use *very* loose matching criteria, but criteria that would very disproportionately add legitimate *black* voters to the list - blacks who voted 90% for Gore?
That the state even responded to written concerns by the company that the loose rules were capturing large numbers of valid voters by ordering them to make them even looser?
That the state let the company not perform the validations phone calls that had been committed to and paid for to reduce the number of false matches?
Was it fair that the state could have fairly recounted ballots, but was prevented by Republicans stalling, flying operatives down to create phony 'protest mobs' to disrupt the recounts, not to mention the Supreme Court not allowing reasonable time - as Alan Dershowitz argued they easily could have - for that recount, which a later private recount study suggests would have given Gore enough votes to win?
Was it fair that the wealthier districtis with the fewest blacks had the better machines that informed the voter of any irregularity on the ballot and returned the ballot for correction, while the poorest and more black districts had the machines that did not notify the voter of any problem, but simply took the ballot and had the ballot not counted - resulting in very low rates of discarded votes from the most white districts (2%-4% as I recall) and far higher rates in black districts (sometimes over 20% as I recall)?
Was it fair that even when the same machine was in use, it appears that it was found to havemoe frequently been set to return the ballot for corrections in the white districts, but not the black districts, also contributing to the large discrepencies in the rate of voided ballots between them?
On 'legal', was it legal for the Jeb Bush administration to contnually strike voters from the voter rolls on excessively loose criteria, if they had *any* felony conviction - including many thousands who had felonies in other sttes who restore their right to vote, and then moved to Florida, and had to sue tha state to get their right to vote back - even while the courts had repeatedly declared the Bush practice illegal and ordered it stopped (which it was finally after the election)?
Let's go back the Supreme Court decision now on an issue - a couple questions.
One - the key issue in their ruling was the Bush argument that 'inconsistent standards' across the counties for counting ballots was a violation of 'equal protection'. This was a bizarre argument where the Bush attorneys earned their money for coming up with an *excuse* for the Court to use, because think about it - that's how elections work in every state. There are no 'federal laws' governining the details on how to count chads - across the nation, county to county, local laws are used that vary by county and state.
So we already have such 'inconsistencies' as a normal, everyday part of our elections.
So why isn't every election a denial of the 'equal protection' to each voter to have the same standards applied? Because that's not our system, and the court accepts that.
So what we had here was the Supreme Court creating this argument that not having the same 'chad counting' rules in the details in every county was a constitution violation of equal protection - but applying that novel argument *only to the state of Florida and only in the 2000 election* - and in fact, you see the court - reportedly for the first time in history - made part of its decision the statement that the ruling COULD NOT be used in any other case and was limited to only that state and election, because they KNEW they were being that selective in applying that standard,and did not want every election held to be able to be challenged on the same basis - it was merely a device for them to justify overriding the state Supreme Court's order for a recount.
That's an outrageious corruption of the Supreme Court.
(As a side note - had the statewide recount been done, Gore won; but if only the four counties Gore compromised to have recounted were done, Bush still 'won').
Also, the Supreme Court justified its role in the issue by accepting the Bush argument that *counting all the votes could be damaging to George Bush*.
There was some airy notion that counting all the votes could somehow taint the election results and harm Bush - and that was more of a concern than actually getting it right.
That was a very dubious if not specious premise for the Court to justify accepting the case. Interests of the voters to have the votes counted, not so much - Bush interests, yes.
Any one of many issues, includig the ones above, was enough to change the election to Gore - and so for many reasons, the election was not won 'on a fair' and 'legal' basis.
The historical fact is that Al Gore was the choice of the American people - not only by the popular vote which he is indisputed to have won, for those who consider that the 'moral' victory in democracy and feel that our electoral system corrupts the democracy - but also, for the reason above and others, Gore won the election under our electoral system, but the American people were denied the rightful president they elected for these reasons, such as many legal voters being wrongly denied the right to vote.
So let's get that accurate history understood. Again you are right to point out some common flaws in the other side's argumements, but you have your own mistakes.
The question is, do yuo care about the truth - are you willing to accept the facts that show that the election was wrongly decided and Gore was the rightful president?
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Craig, you really should have been on he Gore team. You could have pointed out he was being wtfowned by the GOP and probably wouldnt have conceded the vote, and would be prez. After all, he didnt have the wherewithal to stand his ground, and he simply took his defeat like the beaten dog he was.
Its too bad. The Democrats need a clear headed truth seeker like you who can wake them from their constant stunnings by the lifeless, out of power, limp dog GOP. Seriously look into a career change. The Dems need you man.
No, you misrepresent what I said. Have someeone with a decent ability to comprehend what they read help you readmy post again.
If Democrats are 10% opposed to the public option and Republicans are 100% opposed, then Republicans deserve more blame for being against it (or credit if you oppose it).
That's separate from the issue of who controls Congress.
But if there are 25 Democrats against it, and 150 Republicans against it, why should the Democrats get more blame, just because the 25 are going against their own majority?
Each group is responsible for thier own position, and the party 90% in favor of a policy gets more credit for being in favor of it than a party 0% or 10% in favor of the policy.
As I said in my post - and you did not understand - you CAN blame the Democrats for not having the unity to pass this - but that's separate from which party gets more blame on it.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
You said you wouldn't respond to my posts and yet you have on multiple occasions since making that statement, making you a confirmed liar. I, on the other hand, have not lied about anything. Every post of yours seems to try to find a way to blame Republicans. It is beyond ridiculous that you would try to blame Republicans if the health care bill fails -- the Democrats are in FIRM control and it is theirs to lose.
Please point to a single thing I lied about. You can't. Either put up or shut up.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to refute/provide more information in the California IOU thread. I suspect you won't because I suspect you were blatantly wrong and you know it.
That's why I repeatedly said 'credit or blame', depending whether you agree - but at least you agree with the fact the Republicans get more of either for opposing the public option.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
And I only replied to your post on accident. Disregard, since you have previously shown yourself unable to have civil discussion and are not being responded to.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
BRILLIANT logic. Blame the Republicans, most of whom are on record as being opposed to the plan in the first place and have made no secret about their intentions, but don't blame the Democrats who have pledged to get the bill passed and have ample opportunity and the majorities to do it.
You can play your silly little games of "blame the Republicans" as much as you want, and you can try to somehow separate the blame from the issue of who controls Congress. It won't work. The Democrats are the ones who pledged to get this passed, the Democrats are the ones who have the necessary majorities to pass the bill regardless of where the Republicans fall on the issue, and the Democrats are the ones who came up with the bill. They are responsible for getting this bill passed or having it not pass, not anyone else.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Heh, and I thought that the 'public option' alongside private insurance WAS the compromise compared to what many want - a single payer system.
Without the public option, this is more just a tweaking of the current system than any real reform. So, ten years from now we'll probably be bitching about this like its 1993....again.
Without the public option, this is more just a tweaking of the current system than any real reform. So, ten years from now we'll probably be bitching about this like its 1993....again.
So you got nothing. I posit to you that calling Obama a socialist or communist when the majority of his policies so far have been pretty centrist or giant business payoffs, is basically a method of letting racists irrationally hate Obama and be politically correct about it instead of yelling N1GGER all the time. This is somewhat similar to the "STATES RIGHTS" rallying cry against civil rights.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter