• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Address the Nation on the government shutdown.

ItAin'tFree said:
"It should be a right to be irresponsible". Well, those are your words.

The facts won't back it up.
Click to expand...
That was my description of your argument. You never countered it or denied it.....you were defending it.

Good grief.
 
It's pretty humorous that people actually think they can defend forcing people into commerce. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
It's pretty humorous that people actually think they can defend forcing people into commerce. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's also humorous that people think the government actually shut down.

We've done this 17 times since 1977. Somehow, I think we'll be just fine.
 
You know what is scary stupid? The libs think that if the republicans get out of the way and vote for all their big government spending/takovers, that we will enter some sort of state of utopia. It's just the republicans that stand between us and a carefree life. Free government healthcare! Free government cheese, cars, homes, etc... All mandated, of course.
 
CalGun said:
Republicans have offered an alternative, the left doesn't want it because it doesn't grow government. The Republican's position is to carry on the government but the left won't accept it without its beloved take over of private health care systems.
Click to expand...

The "alternative" they offered is to abandon our democracy and make terror the rule of law. Let's not mince words here.
 
shagg said:
So you think republicans just want to make sure obamacare is ready and implemented correctly? You don't think the delay is just buying more time to kill the ACA? You must not be from around here....
Click to expand...

I am sure it is another attempt to have more time to kill it.

I for one would love to see that monstrosity go away but I have a feeling it wont, so why not just delay it, fix it and get on with it. Oh, and demand that if the people must submit to it so must every single person in our government. No exemptions, no waivers no special treatment at all. What do you have against that?
 
Mithros said:
Compromise is a transaction, give a little, get a little. What have the Republicans put on the table in exchange for defunding the ACA? Allowing the government to function? Paying the bills they've already voted for? Not sabotaging the US economy? Wanting the government to function isn't a Democratic priority, it's an American priority.
Click to expand...

What have they given in on? They gave in on the defunding. Plain and simple.

What have the Democrats given in on? Nothing. They pouted because they didnt get every thing they wanted so they took their ball and went home and are crying about it to the media (their mommy and their defender).

Talk about a bunch of little children.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes yes..mandates on individual financial responsibility (car insurance, health insurance).....is totalitarian.

What hippie response.
Click to expand...

State mandated liability car insurance is not the same thing as federally mandated health insurance. Now this difference has been repeatedly pointed out, but like most liberal progressives, you ignore that and keep moving the talking point along...Much like the whole "Heritage HC plan" meme....It's dishonest, and wrong.
 
j-mac said:
State mandated liability car insurance is not the same thing as federally mandated health insurance. Now this difference has been repeatedly pointed out, but like most liberal progressives, you ignore that and keep moving the talking point along...Much like the whole "Heritage HC plan" meme....It's dishonest, and wrong.
Click to expand...
LOL...YOU moved the conversation along by ignoring the documentation on how the individual mandate WAS a conservative/Heritage/Gingrich/Romney concept AND implemented policy......and then characterized it as "totalitarian".

Now your argument is that mandated financial responsibility for auto insurance "is not the same" as the core concept in the PPACA.....without being able to bring yourself to explain how in a fundamental way it is not.

Don't start whining about "dishonesty", the hypocrisy of such a comment is really obvious.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...YOU moved the conversation along by ignoring the documentation on how the individual mandate WAS a conservative/Heritage/Gingrich/Romney concept AND implemented policy......and then characterized it as "totalitarian".

Now your argument is that mandated financial responsibility for auto insurance "is not the same" as the core concept in the PPACA.....without being able to bring yourself to explain how in a fundamental way it is not.

Don't start whining about "dishonesty", the hypocrisy of such a comment is really obvious.
Click to expand...

I'll give you two...Not that you'll pay attention, or address them honestly or anything....:roll:

1. State mandated liability auto insurance is there to protect the (now pay attention) other driver! It is not there to protect your own bad driving skills.

2. You don't pay a fine if you own a car, and don't drive it, have it plated, or in that case don't have to carry insurance on that car....Obamacare, is exactly the opposite, you must pay for the mere fact of existing.
 
j-mac said:
I'll give you two...Not that you'll pay attention, or address them honestly or anything....:roll:

1. State mandated liability auto insurance is there to protect the (now pay attention) other driver! It is not there to protect your own bad driving skills.
Click to expand...
It is there to FINANCIALLY protect yourself when fortune does not smile on you.
If fate does not smile on your health, you are protected FINANCIALLY.

2. You don't pay a fine if you own a car, and don't drive it, have it plated, or in that case don't have to carry insurance on that car....Obamacare, is exactly the opposite, you must pay for the mere fact of existing.
Click to expand...
You don't have to pay if you don't have a car, you don't have to pay if you don't have a body.

Now since you again ignored the fact that this was a concept pushed by cons (I suppose they were totalitarians) I am going to take this as a concession on your part.
 
Imnukingfutz said:
What have they given in on? They gave in on the defunding. Plain and simple.

What have the Democrats given in on? Nothing. They pouted because they didnt get every thing they wanted so they took their ball and went home and are crying about it to the media (their mommy and their defender).

Talk about a bunch of little children.
Click to expand...

They gave in on the defunding? Demanding one thing and then demanding less is not compromise. Its like a spoiled child demanding 10 cookies, and then demanding 2 when their parent says no.

All you've done is described what the Republicans are demanding. The question is what are they willing to give up. What is their leverage?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is there to FINANCIALLY protect yourself when fortune does not smile on you. If fate does not smile on your health, you are protected FINANCIALLY.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand auto insurance....please educate yourself, and we can continue.

You don't have to pay if you don't have a car, you don't have to pay if you don't have a body.
Click to expand...

No, you can have a car, hell, you can have as many cars as your little, cold heart desires....If they aren't plated, and on the road, you don't have to insure them....

Now since you again ignored the fact that this was a concept pushed by cons (I suppose they were totalitarians) I am going to take this as a concession on your part.
Click to expand...

I posted this before, but I will again for your edification....Please read it this time...

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
Click to expand...

Now, do you see what is different between the two? It is glaring.....
 
Conservative said:
The President shutdown the govt. because of his desire not to negotiate on any part of the bill. He gives exemptions to his friends and campaign contributors but then won't negotiate exemptions for the average American and even the bill that the Democrats created that exempts Congress.
Click to expand...

LOL.....nice attempt at spin...but sorry Conservative....the American people aren't buying it. BTW....there is nothing to negotiate. The ACA passed Congress and was signed into law.....it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The teabaggers who have the Republican party by the balls are attempting to do the same thing to America...but unfortunately for them, America isn't going to wimp out the way that the GOP has to the teabaggers. America sees the GOP for what it has become....a complete and utter joke.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....nice attempt at spin...but sorry Conservative....the American people aren't buying it. BTW....there is nothing to negotiate. The ACA passed Congress and was signed into law.....it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The teabaggers who have the Republican party by the balls are attempting to do the same thing to America...but unfortunately for them, America isn't going to wimp out the way that the GOP has to the teabaggers. America sees the GOP for what it has become....a complete and utter joke.
Click to expand...

imo, I blame both Houses and the President. I am an American, and I am not buying what Reid is saying. Seems Reid is the one holding things up. Won't conference with the House.

All the players need to pass a spending bill and then get back to working out the issues.
 
mike2810 said:
imo, I blame both Houses and the President. I am an American, and I am not buying what Reid is saying. Seems Reid is the one holding things up. Won't conference with the House.

All the players need to pass a spending bill and then get back to working out the issues.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Americans as a whole, however, are rejecting the tea party games. They see this for what it is....the teabaggers holding America hostage to try to "negotiate" something that there is nothing to negotiate about....the same way that terrorists take hostages to try to force negotiations where no negotiations are warranted. We as Americans refuse to negotiate by and large with terrorists because we refuse to give into their games. That is why the American people are siding against the GOP and the teabaggers in large numbers on this one.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL...YOU moved the conversation along by ignoring the documentation on how the individual mandate WAS a conservative/Heritage/Gingrich/Romney concept AND implemented policy......and then characterized it as "totalitarian".

Now your argument is that mandated financial responsibility for auto insurance "is not the same" as the core concept in the PPACA.....without being able to bring yourself to explain how in a fundamental way it is not.

Don't start whining about "dishonesty", the hypocrisy of such a comment is really obvious.
Click to expand...

I'm jumping in here but I did want to address this.

1: There is a huge difference between car mandated insurance and healthcare mandated insurance. You don't HAVE to have car insurance. Even if you own a car you do not HAVE to have car insurance. So long as you do not drive it on public roads. You can drive your car all you want on your own private property without any type of car insurance. You don't even need a drivers license to do that. Healthcare mandated insurance on the other hand is mandated to have no matter what. There is no way to opt out of it without being fined at the very least. You either get it, or else. That is a huge difference. The whole car/heal care insurance analogy is a false analogy that has never panned out...even when Obama touted it.

2: Just because republicans once over a decade ago wanted the same thing does not mean that they have to accept it now. It was shot down before, it should have been shot down this time also. But if you really want to play the game of hypocrisy then how does it look that at one point democrats helped shoot it down the last time (due to the American people not wanting it) and this time it was so gung ho for it that they completely ignored the majority of the American People in order to enact it this time around? Funny how that is never mentioned huh?
 
disneydude said:
Good for you. Americans as a whole, however, are rejecting the tea party games. They see this for what it is....the teabaggers holding America hostage to try to "negotiate" something that there is nothing to negotiate about....the same way that terrorists take hostages to try to force negotiations where no negotiations are warranted. We as Americans refuse to negotiate by and large with terrorists because we refuse to give into their games. That is why the American people are siding against the GOP and the teabaggers in large numbers on this one.
Click to expand...

Umm...you have a warped definition of "terrorist" if you are equating the government shut down and tea baggers as being terroristic.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Umm...you have a warped definition of "terrorist" if you are equating the government shut down and tea baggers as being terroristic.
Click to expand...

Clearly I am not saying that the teabaggers are "terrorists" in the same sense of the word as violent terrorists. However, the ploy involved is exactly the same type of ploy used by terrorists/kidnappers....in any attempt to force negotiations over something that there is nothing to negotiate about. The ACA passed both houses of congress, it was signed into law....it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Now...because the teabaggers don't like it, they essentially want to put a gun to America's head and say, unless you negotiate we are going to shut down the government? That is not the way congressmen should act...it is irresponsible, childish and gamesmanship at its worst.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....nice attempt at spin...but sorry Conservative....the American people aren't buying it. BTW....there is nothing to negotiate. The ACA passed Congress and was signed into law.....it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The teabaggers who have the Republican party by the balls are attempting to do the same thing to America...but unfortunately for them, America isn't going to wimp out the way that the GOP has to the teabaggers. America sees the GOP for what it has become....a complete and utter joke.
Click to expand...

The low information voter which apparently you are will always buy the propaganda from the source that you want to believe. There is nothing to ever negotiate with this President, he can exempt whoever he wants and the rest of us sit back and take it. How liberal of you. Love being part of that joke you claim us "teabaggers" are as we can all see exactly what kind of person you are with everyone of your posts. Unlike you I understand what the T.E.A. Party stands for, I understand what the original TEA Party did, and unlike you, I understand the role of the Federal Govt.
 
Finally, Obama calls it like it is: a bunch of rightwing lunatics trying to undertake a coup by imposing their discredited policies on an electorate that rejected their weirdness.

Republicans, you lost. Get used to it. There's more of it coming!
 
disneydude said:
Clearly I am not saying that the teabaggers are "terrorists" in the same sense of the word as violent terrorists. However, the ploy involved is exactly the same type of ploy used by terrorists/kidnappers....in any attempt to force negotiations over something that there is nothing to negotiate about. The ACA passed both houses of congress, it was signed into law....it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Now...because the teabaggers don't like it, they essentially want to put a gun to America's head and say, unless you negotiate we are going to shut down the government? That is not the way congressmen should act...it is irresponsible, childish and gamesmanship at its worst.
Click to expand...

If you don't mean "terrorist" then don't use the word. Hyperbole only degrades your arguement. It does not add to it.

And yes, it did pass both houses of Congress and Senate. But then so did a lot of other F'd up laws through out history. It being passed by them is certainly not indictitive that it was a good law to pass. As far as SCOTUS goes, at best it was passed on a technicality of the mandate being linked to the IRS and therefore a "tax". Despite what Roberts (I believe it was him...correct me if I'm wrong) said in the mandate being a "tax" that was BS and everyone knows it. Even Obama stated that it was not a tax. But again, it wouldn't be the first time that SCOTUS also upheld some F'd up laws. Sure it won't be the last either.

Now, despite both houses and SCOTUS upholding it does not mean that the opposing side (in this case republicans) does not have the right to try and get it tossed in any way possible. Democrats have used the system in dispicable ways in order to not only get things passed but to stall things that they didn't want also. Indeed this tactic is hardly new and has been used multiple times on both sides of the fence. Yet if people are partisan enough they will always ignore that fact and only claim that only the "opposing side" does it...or at the very least they will just flat out ignore any statement showing that...and other times just deflect or claim "its apples and oranges!".
 
Conservative said:
The low information voter which apparently you are will always buy the propaganda from the source that you want to believe. There is nothing to ever negotiate with this President, he can exempt whoever he wants and the rest of us sit back and take it. How liberal of you. Love being part of that joke you claim us "teabaggers" are as we can all see exactly what kind of person you are with everyone of your posts. Unlike you I understand what the T.E.A. Party stands for, I understand what the original TEA Party did, and unlike you, I understand the role of the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie....but America should not...and will never negotiate with people who engage in "terroristic-type" strategies. The American people are by overwhelming numbers aware of the gamesmanship and aren't buying into the ploys any more than I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom