- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.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:
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.
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?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:
The dogs bark, the train keeps on going.Now that is a really nice post sic !!!!
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.
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?
And now we should pretend like the Republicans won...and let them dictate how things will be.
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.
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.
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.
Really. So where does it say elected officials are supposed to vote on bills they don't read?
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.
Are you attempting to present an argument here? If so, you've failed. This is a strawman fallacy.
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.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.
Actually no its not. Don't praise democrats who didn't read the bill they were voting on.
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.
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. .
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.
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?
13% is alot of the people, but it isn't statistically signifigant.And conversely, there are lots of people who are angry because Obama didn't go far enough.
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.As far as health care not being an up front issue, I disagree.Obviously not, since I consume much more news than the average person and it was treated like a secondary issue.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.
Fair enough CA, Rock on!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.
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.
My point to you is that if they don't even read the bill they are signing, how can we trust them.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?