General Politics Thread

[DayWalker]

Something Obama just said that i find very interesting. Basically he said the federal govt. won't commit ISA or policing power to enforce this law. Is it not one of the duties of the president to ENFORCE our laws? Like it or not, he is duty bound to enforce our laws, but whatevs. lets just let him pick and choose what he wants to without the legislation branch at all.

DW Reaches back to his polisci 101 class from 2004....Thomas Jefferson did something similar... I think it was him at least... one of the "founding fathers" or early presidents...

The supreme court lacks the power of the sword.

======

happy that is is in fact illegal for police to harass someone b/c the FEEL like they might have done something illegal

[Morganator]

not really. executive privilege can be used to protect information/intelligence vital to whatever operation.

and I don't know how the race card was pulled nor how its proof of anything either.

Yes really. The president can't pull the executive privilege unless he's directly involved. So yes, the president has full knowledge of what went on. Holder pulling the race card is nothing new because that's what he's been doing ever since he got his position.

[DayWalker]

Yes really. The president can't pull the executive privilege unless he's directly involved. So yes, the president has full knowledge of what went on. Holder pulling the race card is nothing new because that's what he's been doing ever since he got his position.

disagree on the race card.

please provide evidence that executive priv can only be used if the President is DIRECTLY involved... cuz that a new one to me

[btbam]

DW Reaches back to his polisci 101 class from 2004....Thomas Jefferson did something similar... I think it was him at least... one of the "founding fathers" or early presidents...

The supreme court lacks the power of the sword.

======

happy that is is in fact illegal for police to harass someone b/c the FEEL like they might have done something illegal

andrew jackson did it too. it doesn't make it any more justified though. Its ludicrous. Obama should work with congress to make a law that is fair and something he will willfully enforce rather than just not enforce laws he doesn't like. The american people hired him to do a job, one of which is to enforce the laws of this country. I disagree strongly with this move.

ADDENDUM: I think my might be thinking about Marbury V. Madison with jefferson which established the precedent of judicial review. Basically Chief Justice John Marshall (political rival and cousin to TJ) basically struck down the law despite having no vested power to do so basically leaving it to Jefferson to ignore or honor the ruling. Jefferson did honor it. Jackson did ignore the court with a indian land case where he said "they made the decision, let them enforce it." or something to that effect. I will reiterate though, this does not justify it.

[DayWalker]

Obama should work with congress...

thats hilarious.

[weskurtz81]

thats hilarious.

No kidding, that would require at least a MARGINAL amount of leadership abilities.... a department in which he is severely lacking.

Seriously though, a State makes a rule, the Supreme Court upholds it, but the President still does what HE wants... Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he were to do whatever he could to ignore the ruling from the SCOTUS on the healthcare law if it goes against his will as well. Just like stopping deportations, a year ago he says it's beyond the scope of the office to stop enforcing laws he doesn't like, that's not how the US works, a year later when he needs some votes he does EXACTLY what he said he couldn't do before! Like I said before, we should get rid of the SCOTUS, get rid of Congress, all we need is our Obama to make all the decisions for us!

If he really wanted to work with Congress, he would figure out how to do so, just like Clinton did.... but that's not how this OG rolls!

[DayWalker]

ah yes... as opposed to the "leadership" of the other party while in the minority and now the majority of the House... they've just been stellar.

ya can't fix stupid and you can't work with crazy/petulant/whiners....

please.

[weskurtz81]

ah yes... as opposed to the "leadership" of the other party while in the minority and now the majority of the House... they've just been stellar.

ya can't fix stupid and you can't work with crazy/petulant/whiners....

please.

LOL, sure, they Republicans have been a little obstructive in some cases, but his "leadership" doesn't do much of ANYTHING to make it any better.

If you remember, Clinton ran into all sorts of problems with the opposition, he still managed to be a fairly effective leader during his time in office... what's the difference?

[DayWalker]

LOL, sure, they Republicans have been a little obstructive in some cases, but his "leadership" doesn't do much of ANYTHING to make it any better.

If you remember, Clinton ran into all sorts of problems with the opposition, he still managed to be a fairly effective leader during his time in office... what's the difference?

announced that their #1 priority was to get Obama out of office... 2 weeks into his presidency... "a little obstructive" ???

record number of filibustering...

...this isn't the GOP of the 90s- the party that originally proposed the individual mandate for health care.


===================

edit-

hilarious watching how the different networks covered the AZ immigration law.

Spin spin spin spin spin spin.....

[weskurtz81]

announced that their #1 priority was to get Obama out of office... 2 weeks into his presidency... "a little obstructive" ???

I've heard this before, talk radio personalities said this, which Republicans in Congress said this, or was it all of them?

record number of filibustering...

How many of the filibusters in the 111th Congress were from Repblicans, how many were from Democrats? How about when compared to the 110th Congress under GW Bush? Were there more REPUBLICAN filibuster under the 110 Congress than the 111th? Were the Rebublicans obstructing Bush? It's important to differentiate which party is filibustering, don't just assume they are ALL from the Republican party.

...this isn't the GOP of the 90s- the party that originally proposed the individual mandate for health care.

Sure, that's absolutely correct, nor is it the same circumstances or President.

hilarious watching how the different networks covered the AZ immigration law.

Spin spin spin spin spin spin.....

Surprised? Pick which which narrative you want to believe and you can find a network to support it.

[Sub-stance1]

boom! there it is:

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:“We are focused on making sure that we meet our obligations that we’ve talked about for years,” said Turzai in a speech to committee members Saturday. He mentioned the law among a laundry list of accomplishments made by the GOP-run legislature.“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done.


Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”Voter identification efforts disproportionately affect low-income voters of color, a typically Democratic demographic. Despite insistence by Republicans that the efforts are needed to prevent misconduct on election day, voter fraud is less likely than being hit by lighting.

http://www.care2.com/causes/the-cats...democrats.html

just goes to prove what was said from the beginning.

[Sub-stance1]

You gotta hand it to them, the fact that they'll stick to their guns and pretend that Obama's inability to pass any meaningful legislation is due to a lack of leadership (and not the constant, mindless adherence to the policy being osbstructionist) really tells you just how dedicated to the lie they are.

Try to point out something their team is doing, now, and they'll play the apologist and try to shift the focus to something the other party is doing, however unrelated or far in the past it might be. The joke is you're not going to change their mind on anything. Changing your mind involves processing information based on what their party is actually doing and has been doing, then coming to a logical conclusion based on that information. Not gonna happen, the complete opposite actually; they've already determined the conclusion they want to come to: the Republicans are infallible and it's certainly not a case of them being completely obstructionist and intentionally trying to continue bludgeoning the economy so as to later point at the President and make their candidate appear more favorable (While simultaneously crying "See! What a bad President! Also we totally had nothing to do with it!) Then comes the process of only processing and regurgitating the information that reaffirms that conclusion.

The only people who don't see through this completely transparent bullshit? Those too stupid to know, and those who know but are nothing more than republican cheerleaders/apologists. Don't bother trying to change their mind. No matter what you say, their thought process will always be: Conclusion first (Republican party: infallible), then the support (regurgitates only that which supports their conclusion, argue for the sake of arguing, and continue towing the party line).

Edit, hell. If you're already used to it from the party that gave us such gems as;
"Our only goal...is to make this a one-term President."
"Our idea of bipartisanship...is the President bending to the Republican way of thinking."
And more fillibusters during this Presidency than in the entire prior history of the Senate. The ENTIRE history.

If this kind of mindless adherence to party politics is what you can expect from the party, why would you expect anything other than mindless adherence from their constituents?

delete post...wrong thread.

[weskurtz81]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Towards the end, Jon Stewart and Marco Rubio discuss the filibuster issue, interesting comments from Rubio explaining that it's not as simple as Republicans are simply obstructing progress but they aren't being allowed to have legitimate votes, so the Republicans are trying to amend bills to get stuff passed, but they are only being allowed amendments that Democrats are allowing them to have... so if they aren't being allowed legitimate votes or amendments they threaten to filibuster.

Sure, the Republicans have used the filibuster more than years past, but is it simply because they hate Democrats and Obama or is there more to it than that?

[DayWalker]

Supreme Court upholds the law 6-3... wow...

Gentlemen... do your thing

[weskurtz81]

Honestly, hard to believe it was upheld even as a tax...

[DayWalker]

Supreme Court upholds the law 6-3... wow...

Gentlemen... do your thing

correction: 5-4

SPIN FAUX SPIN!!!!

Rush Limbaugh's ears are bleeding... hopefully this is the final nail in his coffin...

[weskurtz81]

correction: 5-4

SPIN FAUX SPIN!!!!

Rush Limbaugh's ears are bleeding... hopefully this is the final nail in his coffin...

Still can't quite believe it was upheld, but I doubt it's over yet. This will ultimately drive us the a single payer system in the (not so) long run. If it's less expensive for people and businesses to pay the fine than offer insurance, and there's not downside to not carrying it in the first place and you can just fire up a policy when you need it, then why carry it when you don't need it?

It's going to be interesting to what happens moving forward.

And, DW, they all spin.

Edit: So, ultimately, I can be taxed for just being alive now?

[DayWalker]

Still can't quite believe it was upheld, but I doubt it's over yet. This will ultimately drive us the a single payer system in the (not so) long run. If it's less expensive for people and businesses to pay the fine than offer insurance, and there's not downside to not carrying it in the first place and you can just fire up a policy when you need it, then why carry it when you don't need it?

It's going to be interesting to what happens moving forward.

And, DW, they all spin.

Edit: So, ultimately, I can be taxed for just being alive now?

death and taxes...

[weskurtz81]

death and taxes...

So, Obama DID pass a MAJOR new tax during his term? I thought he said Obamacare is NOT a tax? I wonder where this new tax ranks on the history of new middle-class taxes? Probably near the top...

[DayWalker]

So, Obama DID pass a MAJOR new tax during his term?

lol well I wasn't specifically referring to Obamacare... just pointing out that you were already taxed for being alive...

I have no problem with a fee/fine/tax for all those free loaders who use healthcare services and pay nothing. thas a major reason why healhcare costs were sky rocketing...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...alth-care-law/

Top 5 falsehoods about the health care law

By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.

The health care law is huge and complicated -- 1,000-plus pages that affect virtually every aspect of health care for millions of Americans.

That's made it an easy target for exaggeration, distortion, and outright fabrication. For three years, the claims have kept PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter busy, as we've checked hundreds of statements from supporters and critics.

We've found exaggerations and falsehoods from both sides. For example, President Barack Obama has repeatedly said preventive care in the law saves money, a claim we've rated False. But supporters have often been out-shouted by the law's detractors, who have repeated inaccurate claims about the law.

And repeated them, and repeated them, and repeated them.

With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that upheld the law, we have chosen the five biggest falsehoods about the law:

The health care law is a government takeover of health care. This was our Lie of the Year in 2010, a claim that crumbles when you look at the actual substance of the law. It relies overwhelmingly on the free market, leaving in place employer-provided insurance and the popular Medicare program for people over age 65. It offers credits to Americans of modest means to help them buy private insurance..

The law does not take over hospitals, and it does not offer government-sponsored insurance to all. It’s markedly different from health care systems in Canada or Great Britain and is nothing close to a government takeover.

The law said people could be jailed for not buying insurance. Yes, the law does include an "individual mandate," a requirement that everyone buy insurance. But the penalty for not doing so is a tax fine, not jail time. For many, the fine would be much less than what they would have paid for insurance. Most importantly, the law says people cannot be jailed for not paying the fine, nor can they be criminally prosecuted, or have liens put on their property. In most cases, the Internal Revenue Service would simply withhold refunds.

The health care law rations care and denies treatments. This has been a favorite attack line by critics who suggest that a panel of bureaucrats are making life and death decisions. But the health care law rations care no more nor less than the current health care system does. For evidence, critics have pointed to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, something the law introduced as a means of controlling costs for the Medicare system. But the board’s parameters are very narrow. It only applies to Medicare. It kicks in only when spending outpaces certain benchmarks. And it can only make system-wide recommendations to rein in future spending. Congress can overrule the board, and the law specifically states that the board may not "ration care" or increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Death panels. This falsehood, our 2009 Lie of the Year, started after an early draft of the bill sought to allow Medicare to pay for doctors’ visits in which patients discussed end-of-life care, such as living wills. The critics labeled it suicide counseling. Conservative superstar Sarah Palin amped up the debate in August 2009 by declaring on her Facebook page, "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." But there was never any panel like that in the bill. Recently, Palin has defended her comments, pointing to the Independent Payment Advisory Board as a death panel. Either way, the claim is ridiculously false and earned a Pants on Fire.

If the U.S. Supreme Court throws out the law, it will be an unprecedented and extraordinary overturning of a law passed by a strong majority of Congress. President Obama, for one, said this back in April, and he was wrong on both counts. The law passed, but it was along party lines in a sharply partisan environment -- far short of a "strong majority." Also, the Supreme Court has overturned many laws as unconstitutional, and some of those have been passed with overwhelming majorities of Congress. In 1997, for example, the court overturned City of Boerne vs. Flores, a religious freedom law that glided through Congress but was held unconstitutional by a majority of the court, including two liberal justices.

[weskurtz81]

lol well I wasn't specifically referring to Obamacare...

Oh, I thought you were responding to my post that was referring to Obamacare, obviously I was confused.

just pointing out that you were already taxed for being alive...

Actually, you were being taxed for consumption of goods, you aren't required to BUY goods therefore you aren't automatically being taxed. In this case though, you are being REQUIRED to pay for the good regardless of whether or not you want to or whether or not you use it, so it seems to me like it's quite different from all your other taxes.

I have no problem with a fee/fine/tax for all those free loaders who use healthcare services and pay nothing. thas a major reason why healhcare costs were sky rocketing...

Federal government keeps getting larger. You will be able to throw this one in with SS, Medicare, etc, all of the screwed up programs that DC will be campaigning to fix every election cycle.

[DayWalker]

Oh, I thought you were responding to my post that was referring to Obamacare, obviously I was confused.



Actually, you were being taxed for consumption of goods, you aren't required to BUY goods therefore you aren't automatically being taxed. In this case though, you are being REQUIRED to pay for the good regardless of whether or not you want to or whether or not you use it, so it seems to me like it's quite different from all your other taxes.



Federal government keeps getting larger. You will be able to throw this one in with SS, Medicare, etc, all of the screwed up programs that DC will be campaigning to fix every election cycle.

I don't think a "new tax" = larger government (necessarily). remember that private insurance is still in the drivers seat.

and if you can find a way to be alive and not buy goods... I'll concede the point. You're taxed as a fetus for christ sake

[weskurtz81]

I don't think a "new tax" = larger government (necessarily). remember that private insurance is still in the drivers seat.

and if you can find a way to be alive and not buy goods... I'll concede the point. You're taxed as a fetus for christ sake

DW, this one does, because you have to enforce it, especially something that's this big. See my comment below on where it seems that this will logically lead to.

Anyway, so it looks like we agree, this is a new tax? Hell, that's what the supreme court said it was and that's the only way it can be legal, is as a tax, so it must be a new tax.


Edit: DW, you know that article said something negative about Obama right? That article must be written by Fox News.

The one part I disagree with Poltifact on is that I think it is the first step to a single payer system. If it costs less for businesses and individuals to pay the fine, why would they pay for insurance if it costs more rather than just pay the fine and have the people go through the exchanges?

[DayWalker]

Edit: DW, you know that article said something negative about Obama right? That article must be written by Fox News.

...ok...???

The one part I disagree with Poltifact on is that I think it is the first step to a single payer system. If it costs less for businesses and individuals to pay the fine, why would they pay for insurance if it costs more rather than just pay the fine and have the people go through the exchanges?

... and whats wrong with people going through the exchanges?

[Sub-stance1]

CNN, Fox News flub report on health care ruling

The race to be first with the news of the Supreme Court's ruling on the health care law tripped up CNN and Fox News, which erroneously reported that the heart of President Obama's law was struck down.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-/1?csp=34news

Another unequivocal victory. And some people say this man hasn't accomplished anything while he has been in office.....