• 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!

House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

You mean the clear majority of voters who elected Obama, knowing that he'd pass healthcare reform because that was a part of his platform? Obama should have ignored them because a few loudmouths disrupted the townhall meetings, you mean...

:roll:
Your argument might actually work if the typically American voter could tell you anything substantive about candidates, as is our people were pissed off at Republicans and the dicatator in training had a D behind his name.

As well McCain was possibly the most inept candidate in over 4 decades, but please, let's simplify things and use logic that has no causal connections and not admit that Obama got elected on "hope and change".:roll:
 
C'mon Catz, you can sidetrack all you want, but it's hard to argue that Congress didn't defy the will of the people when they voted for this when that is exactly what happened. You can argue that this was justified, that the people should've known who they were voting for, that public opinion shouldn't shape legislation. But you can't argue that public opinion wasn't ignored when it clearly was.

So? It's not Congress's job to respond to the will of a straight poll of respondents. It's the job of a member of congress to respond to the will of the locals who voted for them. Bear that in mind, with your opinion polls. We have a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY in this country, not a straight democracy. That means that on issues like this, the majority of the population may not approve of the legislation, but on a district by district basis, the people who elected the representatives DO APPROVE.

Opinion polls are misleading when you attempt to suggest that they reflect the will of the people. We don't rely on a popular vote in this country. That's why Al Gore could win the popular vote in 2000, and still lose the election. Remember that? I sure do. I live in Florida. I became very familiar with the electoral college back in those days.

THe majority of the people in individual districts elected an overwhelming majority of democrats to both the house and the Senate in 2008, REALIZING that by voting Democrat, they were voting for healthcare reform. That has been on the Democratic agenda since 1992.

So, forgive me if I find your impassioned pleas rather disingenuous.

Sometimes representative democracy works in your favor. Sometimes it doesn't.
 
sold their souls to the big corporations?

LOL!

the secret deal with phrma:

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

the seiu's exemption from the cadillac:

44 - White House, unions reach deal on taxing insurance coverage

the fed's instructions to aig to keep secret from the sec the obscene details of its bailout package:

Geithner's New York Fed Pushed AIG To Keep Sweetheart Deals Secret (READ THE AIG EMAILS)

i could go on...

one side asks silly questions and states their convictions (as if anyone could care)

the other posts links containing real information

very revealing
 
Y'know. That's too funny. I remember a few days ago some nutter(s) in here were claiming that the vile-hateful tea-party behaviors were most likely liberal plants or someone from MoveOn.org planted in the crowd to discredit the Tea Party.

You guys all remember that, right?

I doubt you see too many liberals making such an absurd claim. That would make them look like a republican. :mrgreen: They are too proud of a bunch to go there, I think.

Incidently, what made you think of that? Just curious. :roll:
Well, some nutters on the left are already saying that. I'll make you a deal CA, you don't frag our side for our nuts and I'll make the distinction as well. Deal?
 
Your argument might actually work if the typically American voter could tell you anything substantive about candidates, as is our people were pissed off at Republicans and the dicatator in training had a D behind his name.

The average voter doesn't have to understand all of the issues. He/she elected people to handle his/her business legislatively. That's how a representative democracy functions.
 
Do you think the people who elected them to office DID NOT REALIZE that they were electing people who'd be doing something about healthcare?

Obviously, some people did not realize that the bill that ultimately passed was going to exist and was going to pass, and that their representatives in Congress were going to vote for it. In fact, I know at least two of those people. My mother and brother voted for Mark Warner for Senate because he said he was a moderate who would work across party lines. Guess what the chances of them voting for him again are.

But let's spin things another way. According to you, people vote for a party (a dumb concept to begin with) to do what the party leaders say they will do. Obama said he would bring a new era of post-partisanship. So since he got voted into office, he was supposed to do that... and yet, with the health care bill, he sided with the entirely partisan majority in Congress against the bipartisan minority. Even by your logic then, Obama defied the will of the voters by supporting this bill.

And now we should pretend like the Republicans won...and let them dictate how things will be.

Lots of Republicans won, in both the House and the Senate. They were elected to obstruct legislation which they and their constituents did not like. They did their jobs.
 
You can show me where I said this? I said the Constitution doesn't apply democracy to military strategy, so the whole surge thing is a red herring.

This is a classic Redress tactic. When you can't argue the facts you impose an opinion your opponent never used.


The average voter doesn't have to understand all of the issues. He/she elected people to handle his/her business legislatively. That's how a representative democracy functions.

Really. So where does it say elected officials are supposed to vote on bills they don't read?
 
Obviously, some people did not realize that the bill that ultimately passed was going to exist and was going to pass, and that their representatives in Congress were going to vote for it.

In 2000, when I voted for George W. Bush, I didn't know that airplanes were going to be flown by terrorists into two large buildings in NYC and that in 2001, we were going to declare war on the Taliban, and in 2003, we'd start a war with Iraq. **** happens.

The representatives and the president were elected to do a job, and they were elected with an overwhelming mandate that supported healthcare reform. That was part of their winning platform.

The Republican party not only had a chance to create a vision for America's future that appealed to voters, but they also had an opportunity to work with the Democrats to craft this legislation. They abdicated that responsibility in both cases.

If I were you, I'd be pissed at them, and not at Obama, who is simply delivering on the promises he made to the people who voted for him.
 
Lots of Republicans won, in both the House and the Senate. They were elected to obstruct legislation which they and their constituents did not like. They did their jobs.

Lots isn't a majority. The majority of representation in this country is currently from the Democratic party. The Republicans can figure out how to work within that system, or they can continue to fail.

Every indicator suggests that they are still in full-on whiny bitch mode and will continue to fail/flail/make asses of themselves.

It's unfortunate. I prefer a healthy two-party system, not Nancy Pelosi emasculating the other party. I don't really like her, truth be told.
 
Are you attempting to present an argument here? If so, you've failed. This is a strawman fallacy.

Actually no its not. Don't put trust in congressional democrats who didn't read the bill they were voting on.
 
The average voter doesn't have to understand all of the issues. He/she elected people to handle his/her business legislatively. That's how a representative democracy functions.
I consume alot of news Catz and to be honest I'd say healthcare was maybe 2.5% of the discussion coming into the elections. This is my perspective, but when I talked to people here who voted for Obama it was mainly that they were voting for party, a couple of people said it was time to "try something other than old white guys", or "Well, I wanted Hillary but....", in fact, I don't remember healthcare being a major issue before it was mentioned as the agenda during the presidency. Now, this isn't to say that politicos weren't talking about it, but the average person wasn't.

And, most of the people I know that voted for Obama are pretty quiet right now, you could see it in their faces that they didn't want anything this administration is doing. The only two people in my family I know of that voted for him are quiet, my cousin because she has no arguments pro, and my uncle because when the facts hit him his arguments turn into a stutter fest.

EDIT- And you'll never get me to agree that the average voter doesn't have to understand the issues, I am a fan of having to take an issues test before you can cast a vote.
 
Last edited:
Actually no its not. Don't praise democrats who didn't read the bill they were voting on.

Every elected official congresscritter has multiple staff members whose jobs consist of reading and analyzing legislation. Your argument IS in fact a strawman.

Here's how a strawman works:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


So, for instance, in my case, I suggested that Democratic representatives were following the will of the people who elected them.
You stated that they voted for a bill that they didn't read.
You then attacked that position. And then, pretended that it made my argument false.

failure-of-logic-fail-demotivational-poster-1209989155.jpg


p.s. I expect a thanks for this considerate lesson in basic logic.
 
Last edited:
I consume alot of news Catz and to be honest I'd say healthcare was maybe 2.5% of the discussion coming into the elections. This is my perspective, but when I talked to people here who voted for Obama it was mainly that they were voting for party, a couple of people said it was time to "try something other than old white guys", or "Well, I wanted Hillary but....", in fact, I don't remember healthcare being a major issue before it was mentioned as the agenda during the presidency. Now, this isn't to say that politicos weren't talking about it, but the average person wasn't.

And, most of the people I know that voted for Obama are pretty quiet right now, you could see it in their faces that they didn't want anything this administration is doing. The only two people in my family I know of that voted for him are quiet, my cousin because she has no arguments pro, and my uncle because when the facts hit him his arguments turn into a stutter fest.

And conversely, there are lots of people who are angry because Obama didn't go far enough. The health care bill is not nearly what they hoped for. There are also a great number who are angry DADT is still on the books, Gitmo is open for business and we are not getting out of Iraq fast enough for them.

So...


As far as health care not being an up front issue, I disagree. Obama brought that up often when he spoke of his mother and how she was dying of cancer while fighting with insurance companies because they were denying her coverage saying it was a pre-existing condition.

This was a well known plank in his platform, because it was so personal to him.
 
I consume alot of news Catz and to be honest I'd say healthcare was maybe 2.5% of the discussion coming into the elections. .

I can't speak to the news in Louisiana, but in Florida, the websites were rife with conservatives bleating that Obama = socialized medicine.

So, forgive me if I'm a little sick of it all at this point.

I voted for Obama. I'm not a wild-eyed liberal. I was iffy about the bill. However, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this subject. This bill is modeled very closely on what Massachusetts did. I've read about what's happened with medicine in other western countries. I'm not thrilled about healthcare reform, but I have to agree with Bob Dole: The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

Will this fix it? I don't know. It's a start. I see this exactly the way I saw welfare reform, which if you remember, required some additional tinkering.
I'm certainly not going to be firing my gun in the air and screaming that the sky is falling. We weathered 9/11 and Iraq. We'll figure it out.

All the frenzy makes the conservatives look a little kookoo-loco.

p.s. Boyfriend interjected that at least 50% of the back and forth between Hilary and Obama was about healthcare reform.
 
Every elected official congresscritter has multiple staff members whose jobs consist of reading and analyzing legislation. Your argument IS in fact a strawman.

Here's how a strawman works:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


So, for instance, in my case, I suggested that Democratic representatives were following the will of the people who elected them.
You stated that they voted for a bill that they didn't read.
You then attacked that position. And then, pretended that it made my argument false.

Lets break down the stupidity of your argument.

You argued when confronted with the fact that the people were against the bill being signed you responded with that was why the people elect congressman.

My point to you was that if they don't even read the bill they are signing, how can we trust them to represent the people?

But that apparently was too involved an argument for you.

Only weak minded people attack the other person exposing the idiocy of their argument by googling "definitions of arguments"

You got caught defending the indefensible. I know its hard to take but next time try thinking about the argument before posting it.
 
Last edited:
Well, some nutters on the left are already saying that. I'll make you a deal CA, you don't frag our side for our nuts and I'll make the distinction as well. Deal?

Deal.

I don't make a habit of it. I mostly tend to just point out hypocracy when the oppertunity presents itself. It's like finding an Easter egg. And because it's the nutter's, most all of the time, that are the one's who tend to blatantly spew the FOXNews brand of hypocracy, it may appear that I am picking on nutters. Pure coincidence. Even if someone happens not to be a nutter yet slips up in a moment of hypocracy, I cannot resist pointing them out either. And to be fair, I just LOVE to catch a leftwing nutter in a moment of hypocracy. (It's just harder to catch them as they tend to be more subtle.)

Hell, I have even caught myself working both sides of the street before. I admit it. :3oops: But I keep trying to be better.

It's not MY fault the nutter persuasion mostly happens to be, well, you know.
 
Last edited:
And conversely, there are lots of people who are angry because Obama didn't go far enough.
13% is alot of the people, but it isn't statistically signifigant.
As far as health care not being an up front issue, I disagree.
The point was that everyone is saying that is what he was elected on, but during the campaign it was always treated as a secondary issue, those things rarely see the light of day, something I didn't think of earlier actually, so a lot of people maybe said give him a chance, it's not like he's really gonna get anything damaging done. Well, now people know better.
Obama brought that up often when he spoke of his mother and how she was dying of cancer while fighting with insurance companies because they were denying her coverage saying it was a pre-existing condition.

This was a well known plank in his platform, because it was so personal to him.
Obviously not, since I consume much more news than the average person and it was treated like a secondary issue.
 
I don't make a habit of it. I mostly tend to just point out hypocracy when the oppertunity presents itself. It's like finding an Easter egg. And because it's the nutter's, most all of the time, that are the one's who tend to blatantly spew the FOXNews brand of hypocracy, it may appear that I am picking on nutters. Pure coincidence. Even if someone happens not to be a nutter yet slips up in a moment of hypocracy, I cannot resist pointing them out either. And to be fair, I just LOVE to catch a leftwing nutter in a moment of hypocracy. (It's just harder to catch them as they tend to be more subtle.)

Hell, I have even caught myself working both sides of the street before. I admit it. :3oops: But I keep trying to be better.

It's not MY fault the nutter persuasion mostly happens to be, well, you know.
Fair enough CA, Rock on!
 
And conversely, there are lots of people who are angry because Obama didn't go far enough. The health care bill is not nearly what they hoped for. There are also a great number who are angry DADT is still on the books, Gitmo is open for business and we are not getting out of Iraq fast enough for them.

So...


As far as health care not being an up front issue, I disagree. Obama brought that up often when he spoke of his mother and how she was dying of cancer while fighting with insurance companies because they were denying her coverage saying it was a pre-existing condition.

This was a well known plank in his platform, because it was so personal to him.

This Bill is just about what the Republican controlled Hertitage group proposed back in the 1990's in response to the Clinton & Clinton health insurance care so called plan. So in essence the TP ARTISTS are going absolutely bezerk over a Bill that there own ilk was touting.

This is why I have no respect for the TP ARTISTS they are nothing but slogans, empty rhetoric and I must honestly say BS !!!
 
Last edited:
My point to you is that if they don't even read the bill they are signing, how can we trust them.

I've done a considerable amount of legislative lobbying. This is precisely why every single congresscritter has multiple aides from a variety of professional backgrounds whose role is to provide guidance on legislation. It is physically impossible for an elected official to read every single page of every single page of legislation that he/she votes on.

Personally, my field of expertise is in law enforcement and gangs. That's what I've provided guidance on. I've read countless pieces of legislation and provided summaries of them.

That's why these folks have staff...to do this work. When you vote for a congressman/woman, you are not only electing him, but his entire staff, all of whom will be working for you.

I find your comments in this regards incredibly naive and lacking in any practical experience with this subject.

But by all means, go ahead throwing **** and hoping some of it will stick. That's working out well for you so far.
 
So? It's not Congress's job to respond to the will of a straight poll of respondents. It's the job of a member of congress to respond to the will of the locals who voted for them. Bear that in mind, with your opinion polls. We have a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY in this country, not a straight democracy. That means that on issues like this, the majority of the population may not approve of the legislation, but on a district by district basis, the people who elected the representatives DO APPROVE.

For one thing, there are many ways to know the will of one's constituents without polls.

But do you really think that everyone who voted for a Democrat in 2008 liked a bill that didn't even exist yet back then? Because I can guarantee you that's not the case (I've already noted two people I know who wouldn't have voted for a Democrat if they knew what would have come of it; if you think those are isolated cases, you haven't been paying much attention to politics lately).

Opinion polls are misleading when you attempt to suggest that they reflect the will of the people.

When I attempt to suggest that? I have yet to attempt to suggest that. Odd you would put words in my mouth. Let me say it now though: opinion polls show the will of the people. That's actually what they're measuring, so it's hard to say that they don't.

We don't rely on a popular vote in this country. That's why Al Gore could win the popular vote in 2000, and still lose the election. Remember that? I sure do. I live in Florida. I became very familiar with the electoral college back in those days.

This has nothing to do with whether or not opinion polls show the will of the people (they do). But now that you mention it, it's funny all the people now saying the will of the people doesn't matter when a bill is unpopular by a large margin, but were viciously against ignoring the will of the people in 2000, when their candidate won a plurality by a fraction of a percent.

THe majority of the people in individual districts elected an overwhelming majority of democrats to both the house and the Senate in 2008, REALIZING that by voting Democrat, they were voting for healthcare reform. That has been on the Democratic agenda since 1992.

A bill that didn't exist until recently has been on the Democratic agenda since 1992?

People who vote for any Democrat at all expect them to support the entirety of the Democratic agenda?

So, forgive me if I find your impassioned pleas rather disingenuous.

"Impassioned"?

Sometimes representative democracy works in your favor. Sometimes it doesn't.

Question: when was the last time an important bill as unpopular as this one was approved by a slim partisan majority? Was it under Bush? Clinton? Surely in the last 20 years, right? The last 50 years? 100?

Answer: 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act. But people came to like that one over time... right? Hey, they voted for Democrats, so they must've secretly approved of it in the back of their minds. It's not like civil war would break out over it or anything... right?
 
Excerpted from “Richmond Police Statement On Cantor Office Vandalism,” TPMLiveWire, March 25, 2010, 3:23PM
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he Richmond Police Department released the following statement Thursday, along with this incident report:

Richmond Police Investigate Cantor Building Vandalism

March 25, 2010

The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.

A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.

The Richmond Police Department is sharing information about the incident with appropriate law enforcement agencies.

At this time there are no suspects.

“I shot an arrow into the air, It fell to earth, I knew not where.” — Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “The Arrow and the Song”​

While I am doubtful that this is a case of political violence, I will repeat my opinion that political violence whether conservative or liberal or otherwise in orientation redounds to the great discredit of the perpetrator's purpose.
 
Christ I'm so sick of the inbred retarded asshole extremists who are acting out over this bill.

These filthy, lawless, scumbags exist on both sides of the aisle. They are all enemies of the state if you ask me.

Now, enough about Congress...how about the jerks doing the shooting?

:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom