• 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!

Boehner Will Resign from Congress

Hopefully he is replaced with a real conservative and hopefully Mitch McConnellis leaves and is replaced with someone actually conservative. No one votes for a democrat while thinking to themselves "Gee I sure hope he gives the republicans everything they want and do not nothing to stop legislation I oppose". But yet republican politicians don't seem to understand that fact. Republicans control both houses, therefor Obama should not be getting anything he wants

That control is not sufficient to override a veto therefore Obama can get (or or at least keep) what he wants. Efforts to remove (or replace) PPACA or the funding of PP require establishing new law - that can only happen if the new law (actually just a bill at that point) is not vetoed or the veto is overridden.
 
That control is not sufficient to override a veto therefore Obama can get (or or at least keep) what he wants. Efforts to remove (or replace) PPACA or the funding of PP require establishing new law - that can only happen if the new law (actually just a bill at that point) is not vetoed or the veto is overridden.
You're talking common sense. We will not be having any of that around here. We only accept unrealistic demands and "false prophets" around here.
 
If I'm not hearing about Obama vetoes everyday, they aren't keeping their promises. Why isn't Obamacare defunded, we own both houses. Why is PP is funded, we own both houses. McConnell needs to go too.

"We" actually did own both houses *and* the presidency and we still didn't get the health care reform we wanted, so obviously things are more complicated than that. In fact republicans had both houses and the presidency not long ago and they still didn't defund planned parenthood.
 
Just like you calling yourself a moderate.

I am a moderate and the people who aren't obsessed with bashing the right know that. Just because I don't have a Bush bashing avatar 7 years after he left office doesn't mean I'm a stupid partisan. It's fun to watch your dopey partisan posts, though. I'm sure the smart Liberals (and there are a lot of them on here) are ready to throttle you for making Liberals look idiotic. Too bad, that.
 
I am a moderate and the people who aren't obsessed with bashing the right know that. Just because I don't have a Bush bashing avatar 7 years after he left office doesn't mean I'm a stupid partisan. It's fun to watch your dopey partisan posts, though. I'm sure the smart Liberals (and there are a lot of them on here) are ready to throttle you for making Liberals look idiotic. Too bad, that.

So just because l like a majority of non partisan americans think bush is an epic failure does not mean I am a liberal. Bush was a bad president. Nothing partisan about that. BTW I tend to vote for republicans in Illinois.
 
"We" actually did own both houses *and* the presidency and we still didn't get the health care reform we wanted, so obviously things are more complicated than that. In fact republicans had both houses and the presidency not long ago and they still didn't defund planned parenthood.

Were they trying to defund PP.
 
If you know Obama is going to repeatedly veto it, then you're in favor of increasing the deficit to symbolically vote on it over and over....?

smh.

I'm for letting the process take it's prescribed course.
 
Were they trying to defund PP.

Not that I recall. Now why would a government that republicans had a stranglehold on not even try, do you suppose?
 
What does that have to do with ISIS? Try nothing, just another attempt to deflect.
The authority to fight ISIS....

You see, the President can push for actions, he can set an agenda, he can ask for Congressional assistance in that pursuit... BUT...

... Obama, as correctly noted in the post you deflected from... Obama dropped the ball. He didn't just drop it, his Red Line was moved, then erased... He didn't want the ball.
The "Red Line" you are referencing to was about chemical weapons us by the Assad regime (even tho this has not been proven)


Now... I bring you back to his campaign for 2008... Do you recall he claimed to have "superior judgment"?
Nope.

Well... we see everywhere, foreign and domestic...
What do we "see"?

he had miserable judgment at best. He's bought into a perverted, failed ideology for domestic economic politics, and his Disneyland worldview has created mass turmoil.
How so? Foreign and domestic their is mass turmoil that is solely his fault?


That all spells success in the eyes of the Leftist.

It does? How so?

Just listen to what you folks defend.
Defend what?

No sane person possessing the sense of sight and sound could ever associate these past 7-years with success.
Did I say the past 7 years was a "success"?


Believe me, when Obama is ejected from his stool in 2016, ISIS will have the same regrets about a change of American leadership that the Left has with Boehner's... exit... Stage Left.
Huh?
 
Well, one of them was an entire organization of government whereas the others are simply addendums for purposes of a small part of it, but I'll let it slide.
You cannot compare the two. Its comparing apples to oranges.

When, exactly, did it become accepted wisdom that, in order to be good law, it had to be too complex and indecipherable for anyone to understand?
We are dealing with complex issues here.... Sometimes bills can be short and sometimes they can be long. When a bill is long its usually going into various scenarios, various financial, regulatory agencies, distributing powers amongst the beuaracy, etc.


When did that become an accepted measure of good - as opposed to atrocious and abusive - governance?
Noone said its a measure of "good". Its the realities that sometimes bill cant just be, "everyone has healthcare now.. The end". You have to spell out who is given powers, who will implement the bill, which agencies do what, where money is distrubited, various legal scenarios, etc.

Then you have the situation reversed. Conservatives wanted a wider AUMF than the White House did - that's the current argument. The White House wants its hands tied on the ISIL fight, and conservatives don't.
So they want a more broad authorization? How broad should it be?
The GOP congress "can demand that Obama destroy ISIS while remaining vague on how exactly to make that happen. Do they support long-term U.S. ground operations? Should the war be open-ended? Should it be limited to Iraq and Syria or cover the entire globe? Voting on a specific war resolution—or resolutions—would make that evasion harder because it would force Republicans to define the parameters of the war they want to fight. And, just as importantly, it would force Hillary Clinton to do the same." Congress and the AUMF for the War on ISIS - The Atlantic

It seems like to me they want to criticize, but when it comes to specifics they dont want to lay out details.
 
Yes... it's called get the government out of the BUSINESS of healthcare. You see... every time government sticks its fingers in the pie wanting to "help"... they fark things up royally. They screw those they claim to want to help. ObamaKare is no exception. Not all the hammers have fallen yet either. God help us if they ever wanted to manage the computer business. We'd be running tape cassettes and Commodore 64's. You see... when there is competition, a free market... costs decrease and services improve. That's not what happens... EVER... when government gets involved with their "help". Quite the opposite in fact.
Tell me of one government program where predictions have actually been met? There are none. They're all miserable failures. Sorry to tell you, but Obama was rebuked in the last midterms, and his party is now The Desert. In state offices, in national offices, the Demokrat Partei has been gutted. That's why you have Hillary, Sanders and Biden as your great hopes. Your bench... is empty. The destruction Obama has wrought on your party... thorough. That's about the only good thing about his Reign of Error.

Ahhhh more CON spin.

Yeah, most CONs demand the Gubmint out of healthcare- until they grow old and demand Gubmint healthcare- or want the Gubmint to get between a doctor and his female patient... :roll:

Umm computers and the Interwebz got their start with the bad ol' Gubmint... funny how CONs forget that part and overlook one simple fatc- many parts of the Gubmint but also big corporations routinely starve IT from funds to upgrade- the 'it ain't broke' theory. Fun Fact for ranting CONs- COBOL was declared obsolete in the mid 80's. Many major corporations TO THIS DAY use COBOL and it's upgrades. These days these corporations have to train new IT hires on COBOL. Old COBOL programmers are retiring or have moved up and out of the role of programmer.

Another fun fact for CONs who are IT challenged- in the mid 70's HP introduced the HP 3000 mini-frame. It was a big success with corporations across the spectrum. Finally in 2001 HP announced a 5 year phase out. It was pushed back several times. Other companies began to support the HP 3000 and HP has arranged for other companies to use their OP system to maintain the 40 YEAR OLD systems. (In a time when laptops and cell phones are old school after 3 years these machines are ancient school)

So it is the PRIVATE SECTOR that drives this demand to keep 'commodores' up and running... ;)

Ahhh the old CON lament- NO GUBMINT PROGRAM EVER IS AS SUCCESSFUL AS PREDICTED!!!! Oh wailing, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth!!!!

Sad little act- many Gubmint programs have been successful- some to the point CONs routinely try to sabotage and them starve them out. How about the Space Race??? Wildly successful. CONs applaud us 'winning' the Cold War.

Sad fact CONs overlook- GUBMINT isn't a monolithic block- both parties play in the GUBMINT, sometimes we watch each side pulling in opposite directions- little wonder there are programs not doing as well as SOME programs do in the private sector.

But the private sector has had it's share of poorly performing programs. Pricewaterhouse and Coopers surveyed corporate programs- 10,000 in 30 different countries, 7 billion invested- less than 3% are 100% successful. (2004)

Ahhhh the old CONs are winning at the State level- well to be honest the CONs are winning in the Choir states, not so much in the battle ground states as Colorado and to a degree Texas is becoming.

That the GOP has a bushel basket of candidates simply says the CON game is alive and well- we don't seem to have a lack of clowns in the GOP.

Course back in the 'good ol' days the GOP had a front runner and a few- 'who was that guy?' in their primaries- guess the GOP was bankrupt back then... :peace
 
Stupid post, but par for the course for you. It's people who are pro-choice who vote on one issue, not the Republican voters.

Actually I heard a lot of my Fellow Okies claim they'd never vote for a 'Jessie Jackson' looking candidate for president. Then of course there is the 'defend marriage' one issues... try and stop the CON game- lots of Republican voters have a single drum to beat- from taxes to marriage... abortion has plenty of one issue voters in BOTH parties.... :peace
 
Not that I recall. Now why would a government that republicans had a stranglehold on not even try, do you suppose?

I guess they were unaware of the butcher shop.
 
About ****ing time. I guess he saw the handwriting on the wall.

Here's what he saw:

He refused to back down from calling one of the tea party-styled leaders and presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, a “jackass.”

“Absolutely they’re unrealistic,” Boehner said. “The Bible says, `Beware of false prophets.’ And there are people out there spreading noise about how much can get done.”

Boehner: GOP 'false prophets' are making unrealistic promises
 
Thanks! That was a helluva' read!

Did make the VPD look a bit "Keystone Cop-ish", though.



Through the years I have had a very good working relationship , and still volunteer in community office work. Those were the dark years, the old guard who saw prostitutes and addicts as criminals. They were resistant to the serial killer idea from the outset, to be fair it was hard to make a case. They had no bodies, no witnesses, and no pattern. Women simply disappeared. Adding to that, the trade itself makes for a difficult investigation as co-workers don't remember much, are often too loaded to be of any service, and they tend to have transient life styles.

In the end of the 70 plus women reported missing, years of work also revealed many had left the business were living elsewhere, had died of natural causes and in one case was living a few blocks away, had gotten clean and sober. So they had a lot working against them.

However that old guard was also a problem on the street, using what we call American policing, jail, jail, jail for small offenses to "keep order" in a hell where order doesn't exist [Vancouver's street problems are concentrated all in one ten block area called The Downtown Eastside]. They failed to grasp the issues.

As a result there have been some changes, and the new Chief, Jimmy Chew is a Vancouver born lifetime cop who has revolutionized the force, documenting that most of the work they do is not "crime" related at all, but is actually mental health work, enforcing regulations, traffic, patrolling with some emergency response and investigation at the low end. They have brought in new techniques, gotten rid of all fatal and near fatal techniques, Tasers are banned, and they are putting key people through mental health training. They have a special squad of cops and medical people and work in tandem with EMT's.

Where they were simply moving the disorder around, now they have reduced it, and brought management. By recognizing [through my group] that addicts here aren't addicted to one substance, but anything they can get, they can allow pot sales and concentrate on the hard drugs.

We have also reformed the courts and brought in a community court system with impact and working in concert with Insite, the safe injection site, the street teams we are bringing and forcing a lot of druggies into treatment. I travel there at least twice a week, and I have seen the difference.

But then our whole country has different policing. Except for where the Mounties are in charge [morons with guns on horseback still] it is very laid back. Unless its an issue, police don't act on petty stuff, kind of a no harm, no foul on traffic laws; what you don't want to ever do is introduce violence with them. Your day ends fast and ugly at that point.
 
Well actually the majority of people did oppose SSM but as we know, when the left cannot win with a vote they run to the courts. What's my proof? 31 states amending their constitution, which has more weight the a "pew poll"... Also let's not forget the most liberal of states California, remember prop 8? Even cali rejected it, but with couple liberal black robes, anything is possible.

Well, then. Show me a credible national poll that says that the majority of America now opposes SSM and you might have an argument. I'll be standing by waiting. Have a great day!
 
You cannot compare the two. Its comparing apples to oranges.

That's not really much of a response.

We are dealing with complex issues here....

No - it's only complex if you try to get the government to run everything. If you are attempting to put decision-making power in the hands of patients and doctors, it reduces the need for complexity significantly.

Sometimes bills can be short and sometimes they can be long. When a bill is long its usually going into various scenarios, various financial, regulatory agencies, distributing powers amongst the beuaracy, etc.

No, when a bill is long, that usually means that A) the government is trying to steer too much and B) in order to make it pass, everyone got to attach what they wanted to it

Noone said its a measure of "good".

You suggested that length, opaqueness, and indecipherability were marks of good legislation when you dismissed alternatives to Obamacare by claiming that they only ran 15 pages in length.

So they want a more broad authorization? How broad should it be?

:shrug: personally I'd replicate the AQAM authorities.

However, as long as Congress doesn't pass anything, that is the de facto result. So long as the White House claims that the AQAM AUMF legitimizes its' activities against ISIL, they can't claim to be limited in the way that they want to be limited.

The GOP congress "can demand that Obama destroy ISIS while remaining vague on how exactly to make that happen.

Yup. That's one of the political benefits of not being C-in-C. Additionally, there has been a bit of a fight within the GOP (both parties, really) with a resurgent isolationist wing.

Similarly, Obama is trying to get a restricted AUMF as he perceives that it will be a political benefit to him. Every time someone accuses him of not ending ISIL, he can just point at the AUMF and claim he's enacting Congress' will.

Do they support long-term U.S. ground operations? Should the war be open-ended? Should it be limited to Iraq and Syria or cover the entire globe?

ISIL is all over the globe, and situated to take years to defeat. It makes sense to fight them at least where they already are.

Voting on a specific war resolution—or resolutions—would make that evasion harder because it would force Republicans to define the parameters of the war they want to fight. And, just as importantly, it would force Hillary Clinton to do the same." Congress and the AUMF for the War on ISIS - The Atlantic

An AUMF is not the same as a specific campaign resolution, nor does an AUMF explicitly require anyone to vote on such things as troop levels, deployments, etc.

But it would be extremely entertaining to see Hillary try to dance that line :)

It seems like to me they want to criticize, but when it comes to specifics they dont want to lay out details.

They don't want to take on the role of C-in-C, agreed. The problem is, neither does the President.
 
Well, then. Show me a credible national poll that says that the majority of America now opposes SSM and you might have an argument. I'll be standing by waiting. Have a great day!

Remember all those "vote" things?
 
??? The majority support SSM.

When given the choice, the majority consistently voted against it, approving it in a couple of rare places. Even California voted against it.

Now? :shrug: it's been a few years, and blacks shifted dramatically, following the President.

The problem with the SS movement was that they sought to short-circuit the self-government process, and overturn the voters.
 
Back
Top Bottom