[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You're right. They obviously have this evil conspiracy to ruin the USA. They had nothing but bad intentions and were successfully hiding it from everybody. Thank God you noticed it though and brought it to our attention. Who knows where we would have ended up had you not called them on it.

They identify themselves - in the words of Hilary Clinton - as "Early 20th Century Progressives."

You think you're being clever, but perhaps you should educate yourself as to exactly what an "Early 20th Century Progressive" is, and what they stand for - I will provide a starting point:

Woodrow Wilson's Views on Progressivism - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Once you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can be all ironic and funny, in the meantime - yes - it's EXACTLY what they want.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually, Obama made good on a promise he delivered during his campaign. He reformed health care. We recall he was voted into office by a majority of voters on election day. He delivered (at least partially) what he had promised to the majority of American voters. And that's the constituents' desire. You can find a poll to support whatever you want, but what counts in a true democracy are the ballots cast on election day.

In fact the entire current government is the result of a democratic process. Obviously some of those who oppose this HCR have trouble understanding the basics of democracy. In a nutshell: Obama won. That means his side gets to call the shots. And the other side gets to take a seat on the bench and shut up for two years. That was what the American voters wanted. End of story.

No he didn't. He didn't write or suggest one word of this bill, which does NOT reform healthcare, but is an attempt to take over the private healthcare INSURANCE industry. And no - it does NOT mean "he gets to call the shots." Civics much?

No matter how many times you CALL this country a "true democracy" it is NOT a democracy - it is a Democratic REPUBLIC, which means elected officials REPRESENT constituencies and are to vote as their constituents would vote in a true Democracy, not dictate what their constituents will do. So - you see - it is YOU who has a misunderstanding of the processes of this government. Which - decidedly - is NOT vote for someone who misrepresents what he is then shut up and do everything he says until next election day.

Funny, where was your claim of this during the Bush Administration?

And Obama didn't deliver on JACK, Congress wrote this abomination and he ran all over the country like a cheerleader - touting it - but contributing NOTHING to it. The one time he ATTEMPTED to do so, he got his ass handed to him in the "Healthcare Summit."

[Simon]

Are you seriously suggesting the POTUS look at polls before signing a bill into law?

[Macrobat]

I am seriously suggesting the people elected should govern according to the Constitution - and this bunch isn't - you have already demonstrated a COMPLETE lack of understanding of the civics of the United States.

It is CONGRESS' responsibility to create legislation according to the will of the People - then the President signs it in affirmation of that will. That is why the CONGRESS makes the laws, not the President - the House is supposed to represent the will of the people - directly (so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.) and the Senate is supposed to represent the rights of the individual states. If you want to make claims, at least KNOW civics first.

We don't elect a king or dictator for 4 years, then be required to shut up and take whatever he or she decides to cram down our throats.

Every single one of them was fully aware that this was an overwhelmingly dissaproved of legislation - they then went "banana republic" and did it anyway "for our own good."

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Once you know what you're talking about perhaps then you can be all ironic and funny, in the meantime - yes - it's EXACTLY what they want.

Thanks for warning me. I feel informed now.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It is CONGRESS' responsibility to create legislation according to the will of the People - then the President signs it in affirmation or that will.

From what I can tell that's exactly what happened. Apparently it just bugs you that congress didn't create the legislation you would have liked.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Simon 

From what I can tell exactly that happened. It just bugs you that congress didn't create the legislation you would have liked.

Not only that, our system of government was designed with the full expectation that elected representatives would in some cases feel the need to vote against popular sentiment. The whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

From what I can tell that's exactly what happened. Apparently it just bugs you that congress didn't create the legislation you would have liked.

Obviously, you are blind, then. Since 81% of the public did NOT want this.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not only that, our system of government was designed with the full expectation that elected representatives would in some cases feel the need to vote against popular sentiment. The whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.

Actually the Tyranny of the Majority is EXACTLY what we just witnessed.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Actually the Tyranny of the Majority is EXACTLY what we just witnessed.

I thought you just wrote that the majority was against the legislation?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Bottom line - the government is now MANDATING that citizens purchase a product - which is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution, despite it supposedly being a "right."

I'm not crazy about this either, but where have your gripes been about being required to pay for auto insurance if you drive a car? Don't forget that people under $50something k/year get tax credits, so there is also some reimbursement (I haven't yet looked into how much this will be).

Again, I'm not crazy about it, but you must not glaze over this if you want to make this argument.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I thought you just wrote that the majority was against the legislation?

The majority in the House, who voted AGAINST the will of the People they supposedly represent. People WANT healthcare reform, they DON'T want what Congress slammed through.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not crazy about this either, but where have your gripes been about being required to pay for auto insurance if you drive a car?

Auto insurance is something you have to purchase IF you CHOOSE to own a car and is mandated by the individual states - there ARE states that do not require it. Not to mention - auto insurance that is required protects OTHER drivers from YOUR actions.

The mandate for health insurance affects everyone who chooses to LIVE - period. It also takes the money FROM the people who actually work and uses it to provide FREE healthcare to anyone who doesn't - a clear transfer of wealth. AND something that is already required under Medicare law - so it did NOT need new legislation.

The auto insurance dodge has been debunked as a complete strawman for more than a year now.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Obviously, you are blind, then. Since 81% of the public did NOT want this.

Says who? Your poll? A poll can deliver pretty much any result. You chose a poll that suits you. Personally, I prefer a more official type of poll: elections.

In the last presidential election 52.9% of the ballots cast were in favor of Obama. Obama campaigned on delivering change, specifically HCR. He now signed HCR into law. To me that sounds like he simply did what a majority of the people elected him to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually, Obama made good on a promise he delivered during his campaign. He reformed health care. We recall he was voted into office by a majority of voters on election day. He delivered (at least partially) what he had promised to the majority of American voters. And that's the constituents' desire. You can find a poll to support whatever you want, but what counts in a true democracy are the ballots cast on election day.

In fact the entire current government is the result of a democratic process. Obviously some of those who oppose this HCR have trouble understanding the basics of democracy. In a nutshell: Obama won. That means his side gets to call the shots. And the other side gets to take a seat on the bench and shut up for two years. That was what the American voters wanted. End of story.

Good point! He also promised big time change. Prior to this people were going "where's my change?" Big change always comes with this sort of blowback, people generally don't like big change, but big change is what his entire campaign was based on, so I think you can extend your argument in the same way.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The majority in the House, who voted AGAINST the will of the People they supposedly represent. People WANT healthcare reform, they DON'T want what Congress slammed through.

Yes, exactly the situation I described. We hope it doesn't happen too often, but sometimes the representatives who have been elected to power feel they have a responsibility to do something that does not enjoy popular support. This is a feature of a republic. It's why we have two chambers of Congress, and the members of one of them are only elected every 6 years (and originally not even by popular vote).

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Says who? Your poll? A poll can deliver pretty much any result. You chose a poll that suits you. Personally, I prefer a more official type of poll: elections.

In the last presidential election 52.9% of the ballots cast there were in favor of Obama. Obama campaigned on delivering change, specifically HCR. He now signed HCR into law. To me that sounds like he just did what a majority of the people elected him to do.

Says EVERY poll taken.

Keep harping on the election. Obama LIED and misrepresented himself as a Centrist during the campaign, now is governing as a hard Leftist.

You keep harping on the presidential election - it's over. The fact he won does NOT mean that EVERYTHING he now wants to do is an automatic. Maybe in some countries - but NOT in this one.

He also currently "enjoys" a 46% approval rating.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

People WANT healthcare reform, they DON'T want what Congress slammed through.

If that's the case, the people are free to pressure their representatives to make appropriate changes. In fact, they are also free to elect different representatives come election day.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Says who? Your poll? A poll can deliver pretty much any result. You chose a poll that suits you. Personally, I prefer a more official type of poll: elections.

In the last presidential election 52.9% of the ballots cast there were in favor of Obama. Obama campaigned on delivering change, specifically HCR. He now signed HCR into law. To me that sounds like he just did what a majority of the people elected him to do.

Besides, as has been pointed out, before the fear mongering hit its stride the same sorts of polls actually showed a majority of the public in favor of the public option. Don't you think that if this bill was widely unpopular because people resisted the notion of health care reform in general that people would be all over opposing the public option?

The polls are low now because:

- Ugly fear mongering politics and its affect on the public
- Some on the left are not happy with the amount of compromising that has had to take place
- Some people are against the process of going through reconciliation
- People are numb and cynical in general, it's been a tough year in terms of the promotion of this legislation. People don't know what to think or believe anymore

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You keep harping on the presidential election

Of course I do. You should too if you have any faith in democracy. In a democracy elections are what counts. Not some poll you pull out of some place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Says EVERY poll taken.

Keep harping on the election. Obama LIED and misrepresented himself as a Centrist during the campaign, now is governing as a hard Leftist.

You keep harping on the presidential election - it's over. The fact he won does NOT mean that EVERYTHING he now wants to do is an automatic. Maybe in some countries - but NOT in this one.

He also currently "enjoys" a 46% approval rating.

Translation: polls only mean something when they can be used to further your own cause

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Besides, as has been pointed out, before the fear mongering hit its stride the same sorts of polls actually showed a majority of the public in favor of the public option. Don't you think that if this bill was widely unpopular because people resisted the notion of health care reform in general that people would be all over opposing the public option?

The polls are low now because:

- Ugly fear mongering politics and its affect on the public
- Some on the left are not happy with the amount of compromising that has had to take place
- Some people are against the process of going through reconciliation
- People are numb and cynical in general, it's been a tough year in terms of the promotion of this legislation. People don't know what to think or believe anymore

Untrue. What those polls showed was that the majority was in favor of healthcare reform - NOT single-payer. The people wanted something done about healthcare costs - not a new bureaucracy. In every single poll where single payer was specifically mentioned - it was disapproved of - always.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Of course I do. You should too if you have any faith in democracy. In a democracy elections are what counts. Not some poll you pull out of some place.

Again - this country is NOT a democracy.

And - hate to break it to you - your argument is circular. In a true democracy it would be PRECISELY the polls that counted.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Translation: polls only mean something when they can be used to further your own cause

Not sure what you're "translating" but that is NOT what I said.

I merely threw his own "logic" back at him about Obama's popularity.

[Simon]

I think you need to look up 'presidential system'.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I think you need to look up 'presidential system'.

There is no such system.

I think what you need is an actual Civics Education.

Try starting with what every legal immigtrant is required to learn:

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-638.pdf

What you THINK you know about this governmental system is fatally flawed.

I have already explained - in simple terms - the basics.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I merely threw his own "logic" back at him about Obama's popularity.

That's the thing you're not getting. His popularity is utterly irrelevant.

The only thing that counts are ballots. And those had a clear message.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Untrue. What those polls showed was that the majority was in favor of healthcare reform - NOT single-payer. The people wanted something done about healthcare costs - not a new bureaucracy. In every single poll where single payer was specifically mentioned - it was disapproved of - always.

Google "polls public option", you'll find all sorts of evidence of overwhelming support for the public option in Fall 2009.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Again - this country is NOT a democracy.

And - hate to break it to you - your argument is circular. In a true democracy it would be PRECISELY the polls that counted.

You say this but then you keep saying that members of Congress should have felt compelled to vote according to the polls. So which is it?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I think you need to look up 'presidential system'.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

There is no such system.

Oh really?

Presidential system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It might interest you to learn that the USA is a actually such a system.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

I think what you need is an actual Civics Education.

It's cute how you try to belittle me and generously offer to educate me. OTOH it's a bit pathetic when you do so while making obviously false claims.

So how about you stick to the discussion and leave my education out of it?

[Macrobat]

It might interest you to know that the United States is NOT such a system.

AGAIN.

The United States is a Democratic Repubulic:

A More Perfect Union - History of Democracy

[besson3c]

What I'm wondering is if Obama was wearing his flag pin when he signed health care into law.

Remember back during campaign season when some of us warned others to save their "anything and everything Obama = bad" blabbering rhetoric until it mattered since this constant deluge of ranting about petty nonsense makes people tune all of this out? I wonder if some of these people are regretting not having an audience now that there is actually something worth going on about?

I know I certainly have a hard time with several posters in here, remembering some of these sorts of past conversations...

I hope that when the dust settles here there will be less of "Obama is eating the wrong kind of hot dog" posting, and wiser spending of the capital that exists in getting people to listen to your anti-Obama rants.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

It might interest you to know that the United States is NOT such a system.

Actually, it is.

The United States is a Democratic Repubulic

Actually, it's a federal constitutional presidential republic.

Regardless, there's no contradiction. A presidential government system can be a democratic republic. In fact, the USA is an example where that's the case.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually, it is.



Actually, it's a federal constitutional republic.

Regardless, there's no contradiction. A presidential government system can be a democratic republic. In fact, the USA is an example where that's the case.

Dude, seriously, you keep throwing Wikipedia as a reliable reference?

Despite your claims, no one is required to "sit down and shut up" just because they elected a president every fours years and do what that president says.

You keep contradicting your own arguments.

Here:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...ts/demrep.html

[BadKosh]

We are a Representative Democracy.

[ort888]

NO!!!

We are a Socialist Cat Food Factory!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Dude, seriously, you keep throwing Wikipedia as a reliable reference?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Dude, seriously, you keep throwing Wikipedia as a reliable reference?

Dude, seriously, you keep throwing Lexrex.com as a reliable reference? At least Wikipedia has citations.

Despite your claims, no one is required to "sit down and shut up" just because they elected a president every fours years and do what that president says.

I don't think anyone claimed that. What is being disputed is that officials should always govern based on real-time polling.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Despite your claims, no one is required to "sit down and shut up" just because they elected a president every fours years and do what that president says.

Nowhere did I say anybody "has to do what the president says". What I pointed out was that the majority won the vote and the minority lost it. Simple as that.

The POTUS got to sign the bill into law. He had every right to do so. And no matter how many thousands of polls you can come up with, what we have witnessed is democratic process.

If you want the law changed, I suggest you talk to your representatives or elect different ones next time.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ort888 

NO!!!

We are a Socialist Cat Food Factory!

Meow Mix, Meow Mix please deliver!

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Dude, seriously, you keep throwing Lexrex.com as a reliable reference? At least Wikipedia has citations.



I don't think anyone claimed that. What is being disputed is that officials should always govern based on real-time polling.

Actually, he claimed PRECISELY that.

Exact quote:

In a nutshell: Obama won. That means his side gets to call the shots. And the other side gets to take a seat on the bench and shut up for two years

And - dude - I posted ONE lexrex link, no "keep throwing it." Strawman much?

And Simon, that is PRECISELY what's being put into motion. So far 13 states have filed suit against the bills constitutionality, and movements toward repeal are started. Not to mention, Republican candidates now lead in the majority of states and districts up for election this year. The GOP also leads in the generic ballot.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Actually, he claimed PRECISELY that.

Actually, he didn't. Reread his statement that you quoted.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And Simon, that is PRECISELY what's being put into motion. So far 13 states have filed suit against the bills constitutionality, and movements toward repeal are started.

We'll debate the repeal if it happens. For now, the bill has been signed into law.

Not to mention, Republican candidates now lead in the majority of states and districts up for election this year. The GOP also leads in the generic ballot.

If the GOP wins the next election, they'll get to call the shots. Until then, we have elected representatives doing what they were elected to do. And they just did. You simply don't approve of the outcome. But that doesn't mean it's not proper democratic process.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Actually, he claimed PRECISELY that.

No, actually I didn't. And it's there for everyone to read. I'll gladly leave it at that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And - dude - I posted ONE lexrex link, no "keep throwing it." Strawman much?

Well, it's also where the Tea Party Manifesto link points to. Regardless, I was merely aping you for rhetorical effect. Touchy much?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We are a Representative Democracy.

No, technically we're not. We're a Constitutional Republic. A representative democracy has as its highest authority its legislature and the majority that constitutes it at any given time; that majority can at will change or abolish any of the country's laws. Our highest authority is the Constitution, which can only be amended by overwhelming agreement of both federal and state officials.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Besides, as has been pointed out, before the fear mongering hit its stride the same sorts of polls actually showed a majority of the public in favor of the public option. Don't you think that if this bill was widely unpopular because people resisted the notion of health care reform in general that people would be all over opposing the public option?

The polls are low now because:

- Ugly fear mongering politics and its affect on the public
- Some on the left are not happy with the amount of compromising that has had to take place
- Some people are against the process of going through reconciliation
- People are numb and cynical in general, it's been a tough year in terms of the promotion of this legislation. People don't know what to think or believe anymore

Indeed. I am utterly sick of these conservatives who just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that everybody who opposed this legislation in the polls is NOT motivated by the same reasons that they are!!!!!

It just seems incomprehensible to them that many people opposed the legislation that just passed because it didn't go far enough. A LOT of people opposed it because it didn't implement single-payer or "Medicare for all". That wasn't reflected in the "polls" because it was never even on the table. A LOT of people opposed it because a*shat "Democrats" like Joe Lieberman gutted the public option from it. That was clearly reflected in the "polls" where it was favored by a 60% majority. This was a very "moderate" plan ... the centerpiece of which are state based exchanges of private, FOR PROFIT, insurance. The same thing that the REPUBLICANS offered as an alternative to the more government oriented approach when the Clinton Administration attempted healthcare reform. But now that the Democrats have actually passed the legislation all of a sudden it's a problem and a "government takeover"? Oh please!!! STFU with that downright ridiculous, demonstrably false, BS!! No ... the real problem here is that the Democrats got it done and the Republicans didn't when they were in charge. Just like deficits are only a problem for Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House.

So yes, it's true. A majority opposed the legislation in its current form. But no, it's not true that all of these people were part of the Tea Party crowd. But those who opposed it for other reasons are apparently coming around and seeing that this is a start and something was better than nothing. As seen in the latest USA Today poll on the topic:

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

Imagine that.

OAW

[Doofy]

Wow. 49% of people are of below average intelligence? Imagine that.

[ort888]

ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I'm thirty seven -- I'm not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can't just call you `Man'.
DENNIS: Well, you could say `Dennis'.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn't know you were called `Dennis.'
DENNIS: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the `old woman,' but from the behind
you looked--
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king...
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By
exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society!
If there's ever going to be any progress--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh -- how d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. we're all Britons and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about if only people would--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives
in that castle?
WOMAN: No one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified
at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, 'ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I,
Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen -- strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an empereror just
because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd
put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that,
eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me,
you saw it didn't you?

[The Final Dakar]

Whatever. Like conservatives gave a shit what polls said during the Bush administration. Back then it took spine to do the right thing even if the public didn't know it.