The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in.
Click to expand...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=529AD458-F859-AAB8-4D74EDC0FFA2DD0D

Stay classy brah.

Should note that the guy could apply for COBRA, which was passed by Reagan, who was a socialist communist sympathizer who wanted to redistribute wealth.
 
[quote name='nasum']To this day I still don't understand the Bush family's obsession with Saddam Hussein.[/QUOTE]

They put him in power, so when Hussein went Pali... er, rogue, the Bushes were probably personally insulted.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Only in AMERICA!!! can a person admit to ordering torture, being legally responsible and able to be prosecuted for war crimes, walk around with impunity, while some kid in the hood caught with a couple dimebags is sent to prison for years and has his/her life ruined.[/QUOTE]

....this is how disillusioned dohdough is with the rest of the world. It must seem like a Utopia out there to him, and America is just fucking everything up.
 
[quote name='Clak']No surprise there. I remember some folks here whining about "gotcha" moments, well there is your completely engineered gotcha moment.[/QUOTE]

How is it a gotcha moment? The guy walks up and grabs the kid video taping, he didn't even have a chance to instigate, let alone engineer a "gotcha" moment.
 
[quote name='Knoell']....this is how disillusioned dohdough is with the rest of the world. It must seem like a Utopia out there to him, and America is just fucking everything up.[/QUOTE]

Come on dude, you know that's not what he's saying.

He's complaining that there are different rules for different people. Rich people and people who have connections aren't subject to the same punishment that normal people are. I'm sure you saw that story of the hedge fund manager in Colorado who was given a lighter sentence because his job is important.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It doesn't matter if you're conservative and I'm liberal. We're subject to rules that people above us are not.
 
[quote name='IRHari']
This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It doesn't matter if you're conservative and I'm liberal. We're subject to rules that people above us are not.[/QUOTE]

The same mentality trickles all the way up to considering certain private businesses "too big to fail". If individuals participated in, or committed, many of the shady dealings you see huge banks, for example, perform - we'd go to prison. But instead, we give them hundreds of millions of dollars because we are afraid of what happens if we punish them.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How is it a gotcha moment? The guy walks up and grabs the kid video taping, he didn't even have a chance to instigate, let alone engineer a "gotcha" moment.[/QUOTE]
The whole thing was a set up, what more do you need? I'd use the ACORN incdient as another example, but you wouldn't accpet that either.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']They put him in power, so when Hussein went Pali... er, rogue, the Bushes were probably personally insulted.[/QUOTE]

It can be argued that James Colby and Richard Helms had more to do with Hussein's ascent to power but it can't be argued that Saddam got most of his money, arms, and supplies while Sr. was Director of Central Intelligence and Vice President.

The Bushes were genuinely pissed when Saddam invaded Kuwait and even more so when the reported assassination attempt of Sr. happened. GW was going to invade Iraq no matter what happened.

Translation for tivo: Rich white men hate uppity middle eastern dictators that bite the hand that feeds them.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The same mentality trickles all the way up to considering certain private businesses "too big to fail". If individuals participated in, or committed, many of the shady dealings you see huge banks, for example, perform - we'd go to prison. But instead, we give them hundreds of millions of dollars because we are afraid of what happens if we punish them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Read Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, he makes this argument pretty persuasively.
 
Republicans wouldn't purposefully damage the country just to win an election.

....
........

Crap.
 
In the meantime Democrats rise to power in opposing two unpopular wars. They oppose military advice, almost withhold funding for the troops, and publicly condemn the wars to complete failures.

Would democrats have been elected in 2006 to take control of congress had the wars been supported by the people? No, Well they must have sabotaged the wars to get elected then.
 
[quote name='Knoell']In the meantime Democrats rise to power in opposing two unpopular wars. They oppose military advice, almost withhold funding for the troops, and publicly condemn the wars to complete failures.

Would democrats have been elected in 2006 to take control of congress had the wars been supported by the people? No, Well they must have sabotaged the wars to get elected then.[/QUOTE]I would argue the defunding of the troops is a symbolic thing. They wanted to send a message. They wouldn't actually vote to defund unless they knew the votes were already there.

It's analogous to the debt ceiling. A lot of incoming Republicans are saying they'll vote to *not* raise the ceiling, even though it was obviously mean the US would default. They realize this and they just want to vote to protest the idea of going into even more debt. It's like what this guy says:

"We need to send a strong message," Paul said. He added, though, that not enough members of Congress would vote against raising the debt limit, making a default of government loans unlikely.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Knoell']In the meantime Democrats rise to power in opposing two unpopular wars. They oppose military advice, almost withhold funding for the troops, and publicly condemn the wars to complete failures.

Would democrats have been elected in 2006 to take control of congress had the wars been supported by the people? No, Well they must have sabotaged the wars to get elected then.[/QUOTE]
How the hell can you even say that? You know, for a fact, the war wasn't started by any member of the Democratic party. On the other hand, what lengths would Republicans go to in order to win in 2012? they're out for fucking blood. And why do you even care what we say about Republicans, aren't you supposed to be a libertarian or some shit?
 
[quote name='Clak']How the hell can you even say that? You know, for a fact, the war wasn't started by any member of the Democratic party. [/QUOTE]

And yet, so many Democratic congressmen and women voted in favor of both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Including our current Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. You know, the face of our foreign diplomatic relations when Big O's not around? That chick he selected? Yeah, she voted in support of the wars. Voted several times to fund the military action. Then she gets picked, by Obama himself, to be, virtually, the second most powerful person to shape our foreign policy. Yay!
 
[quote name='Clak']On the other hand, what lengths would Republicans go to in order to win in 2012? they're out for fucking blood.[/QUOTE]

They have been wanting the country to fail for quite a long time, it is only shot they have at dismantling the government programs they don't like.

Now they just see a way to blame it on someone else.

They know exactly what they are doing, hell even their supporters seem to have some idea the ones that aren't just completely clueless or addled.
 
Anyone see The Simpsons tonight? they had a fox news helicopter that said "Not racist, but # 1 with racists":rofl:

Oh and "We're unbalanced, it's not fair!"
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And yet, so many Democratic congressmen and women voted in favor of both actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Including our current Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. You know, the face of our foreign diplomatic relations when Big O's not around? That chick he selected? Yeah, she voted in support of the wars. Voted several times to fund the military action. Then she gets picked, by Obama himself, to be, virtually, the second most powerful person to shape our foreign policy. Yay![/QUOTE]

It would've been political suicide to vote against the wars at the time. 'merica was out for blood and it was going down whether we liked it or not.

Now, you could say that politicians should've done what was best for this country but can you really say that giving up the seat to a Republican would've been the best for this country in the long run? Do you stand up for your principles and get buzz sawed by popular sentiment or do you go with the flow and do everything you possibly can to get a Democratic President and Congress elected in '08?

Translation for tivo: Rich white Christians desperately needed a Holy War and would've done anything to ensure that. Secular America could have stood up and got castrated or they could have gone along with it until popular sentiment turned. This opened the door for a Democratic sweep in '08.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The same mentality trickles all the way up to considering certain private businesses "too big to fail". If individuals participated in, or committed, many of the shady dealings you see huge banks, for example, perform - we'd go to prison. But instead, we give them hundreds of millions of dollars because we are afraid of what happens if we punish them.[/QUOTE]

TB, at some fundamental level you and I agree. Among the conservative-leaning members of the board, I've always felt you stood out.

I have a feeling that in saner times we would argue about personal politics incessantly. However things in America have gotten so out-of-kilter that rational people realize our country is being raided for every penny by folks that just don't give a damn.
 
[quote name='camoor']TB, at some fundamental level you and I agree. Among the conservative-leaning members of the board, I've always felt you stood out.

I have a feeling that in saner times we would argue about personal politics incessantly. However things in America have gotten so out-of-kilter that rational people realize our country is being raided for every penny by folks that just don't give a damn.[/QUOTE]

We're being attacked by both parties. It might be time to ban political parties, period. Run on your own personal merits. Vote on what's best for your constituents instead of your party and we might get back to real America.
 
"Just imagine if all the KKK members put their energy to use in other ways. We could have been to Mars by now."

This is what Republicans at my work actually think.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It would've been political suicide to vote against the wars at the time. 'merica was out for blood and it was going down whether we liked it or not.[/quote]

While I do mostly agree with this, I'd like to point out that Ron Paul voted against the Iraqi resolution and has been re-elected.

Now, you could say that politicians should've done what was best for this country but can you really say that giving up the seat to a Republican would've been the best for this country in the long run? Do you stand up for your principles and get buzz sawed by popular sentiment or do you go with the flow and do everything you possibly can to get a Democratic President and Congress elected in '08?
Click to expand...

Again, I completely understand what you're saying - it's just sad (but not surprising) to see that politicians are willing to disregard their belief system just to further their political agenda. But, beyond that, it doesn't change the fact that Democratic voters who claim to be against the war supported a Presidential Candidate who supported the wars and supported funding for the wars. Then, everyone's okay with this same individual being put virtually in charge of foreign policy.

[quote name='depascal22']We're being attacked by both parties. It might be time to ban political parties, period. Run on your own personal merits. Vote on what's best for your constituents instead of your party and we might get back to real America.[/QUOTE]

I like this idea - except that I don't like the idea that banning parties would be so close to banning the freedom to assemble and freedom of association.

However, I see no reason why the government should be required to provide any funding or support towards one political party over another, nor do I see any reason why political affiliations need to be printed on ballots.
 
So support all the parties equally with public funding, that will decrease the role money plays in elections, which these days seems to be one of the most important factors. If everyone is given an equal amount of funding, there's no monetary advantage.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What would the requirements for a new party have to be to get that equal funding?[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing. I'd rather just defund the parties and let people run on their own merit.

As for freedom of assembly, when does that right trump our nation's right to have politicians that represent the people instead of their parties?
 
[quote name='depascal22']We're being attacked by both parties. It might be time to ban political parties, period. Run on your own personal merits. Vote on what's best for your constituents instead of your party and we might get back to real America.[/QUOTE]
Actually the best approach might be to make parties stronger, but instead make individual candidates weaker. Weaken the person so that you can better control the party. This seems to work pretty well in Germany, where politics are more in line with voter preferences that in the US and Japan, where personalistic politicians will vote against the party and for stupid legislation just because their local constituents want it.
 
But that's exactly what we should have. We're voting for a person not a party. I want a representative that will do what's best for his district or state. That's the whole point of Congress.
 
Then you take the inefficiency of our congress, you deal with the effect of a single round SMD district and have the losing party sidelined, and no meaningful minority representation.

This may just be a difference of opinion, I don't buy into that whole cut the snake into bits argument and generally believe govts. should do things.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What would the requirements for a new party have to be to get that equal funding?[/QUOTE]

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General

That's what we currently have; certainly it would need to be amended, but there is a sound structure in place. I distinctly recall (personally) thinking this was part of the push to vote for Nader in 2000; I wanted the Green Party to receive public funding.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What would the requirements for a new party have to be to get that equal funding?[/QUOTE]
Stability? Actual cohesive leadership? I don't know personally. I'm just sickened by the amount of money spent on political campaigns. It seriosuly comes down to who has the most money to get their message out, and it shouldn't be that way. It should be about the message itself, not how many eyes see it or ears hear it. At any rate it might cut down on political advertisements, and I wouldn't mind that at all.
 
[quote name='depascal22']As for freedom of assembly, when does that right trump our nation's right to have politicians that represent the people instead of their parties?[/QUOTE]

Freedom of assembly? It's tucked somewhere in that "Bill of..." thingee. Try looking under #1. :D

However, no where do you have a "right" to have politicians of any sort. You have a responsibility to work to get politicians into office that represent your views and beliefs. We don't get the government we deserve, we get the government we work for.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Freedom of assembly? It's tucked somewhere in that "Bill of..." thingee. Try looking under #1. :D

However, no where do you have a "right" to have politicians of any sort. You have a responsibility to work to get politicians into office that represent your views and beliefs. We don't get the government we deserve, we get the government we work for.[/QUOTE]

I know where freedom of assembly is, dude.

Let me reword. Congress and the First Amendment are both in the Constitution. One is original and one is the first reworking.

Which one trumps the other? Do we have a right to a Congress that represents the people (and not political parties) or do we have a right to assemble in political parties and thus force government to follow Party lines?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution does not provide us any right to any particular type of congressman/woman (except age, citizenship and primary residence). There is no "right" for you to have a congressman that gives to craps about you or any of the people he's been elected to represent.

We the People are responsible for electing the kind of people who will represent our interests instead of their own or that of their buddies (political, corporate or otherwise).

They have a right to assemble. You have a responsibility to vote or not vote for them.
 
[quote name='Clak']Stability? Actual cohesive leadership? I don't know personally. [/QUOTE]
In the parliament system it varies by country but I think you just need 5% of total votes to get a seat. Since it's a low threshold, it encourages party formation and deconstruction. And since you almost always need a coalition to govern, it pretty much guarantees moderation and deal making. Kadima in Israel is a great story. Moderate politicians from the "Republican" and "Democrat" parties were tired of having to pander to their hard line wings and split off to form a new moderate party. Americans would break out in tears of joy if that happened here.

Everyone everywhere in America seems to want a parliamentary system, but it's like you're throwing a 40lb box of rape at the Statue of Liberty to even suggest it here. I still can't figure out why we don't do it. Shit, when we knock over countries and "establish democracies" we sure as hell don't establish our political system. We always do parliaments because even we know it gets the most people to the table the fastest to establish credible governance.

I don't get it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']In the parliament system it varies by country but I think you just need 5% of total votes to get a seat. Since it's a low threshold, it encourages party formation and deconstruction. And since you almost always need a coalition to govern, it pretty much guarantees moderation and deal making. Kadima in Israel is a great story. Moderate politicians from the "Republican" and "Democrat" parties were tired of having to pander to their hard line wings and split off to form a new moderate party. Americans would break out in tears of joy if that happened here.

Everyone everywhere in America seems to want a parliamentary system, but it's like you're throwing a 40lb box of rape at the Statue of Liberty to even suggest it here. I still can't figure out why we don't do it. Shit, when we knock over countries and "establish democracies" we sure as hell don't establish our political system. We always do parliaments because even we know it gets the most people to the table the fastest to establish credible governance.

I don't get it.[/QUOTE]

That's also a PR system, which is fundamentally different than the US's SMD plurality system. A better way to get at the positive benefits of the PR system in our SMD system would to increase the district magnitude and bring in a cumulative voting system (essentially the same voting system that lady during the Clinton administration proposed) which is basically there are multiple candidates per district and you have x amount of votes, which a voter could spread around to his favorite candidates or focus on one candidate.

This should have the effect of, at least in SMD's, increasing the power of the voter (minorties could focus their votes on one candidate to have a better chance of gaining representation), while at the same time making sure that candidates are more tied to their districts. Arguably this would allow a centrist challenger to win an election easier and force established parties to work together, however this form of voting has not been tried to my knowledge.



@depascal, Do you support term limits? If you do how do you deal with the fact that term limits gets rid of politicians incentives to listen to his electorate in his final term (ala Arnold in California during his second term). It's effect has been to turn politicians into trustees rather than true representatives? I am not attacking you personally, but I personally hate the term limits, initiatives, referendum, and recall, but am interested in the reasons why others are. So this question is not just a jab, but I honestly am interested.
 
I'm interested in term limits for the sole purpose that many people become professional politicians and completely forget who they are representing. It seems like a double edged sword to be honest.

I'd rather have someone turn into a one term lame duck instead of perpetual lame duck status because their district will never elect someone from the opposing party.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm interested in term limits for the sole purpose that many people become professional politicians and completely forget who they are representing. It seems like a double edged sword to be honest.

I'd rather have someone turn into a one term lame duck instead of perpetual lame duck status because their district will never elect someone from the opposing party.[/QUOTE]

But the other side is your choice as a voter is taken away from you. You lose the ability to vote a good politician back into office, so that he doesn't turn into a bad politician. It makes no sense to me honestly, and is just, in my mind, an infringement on voters rights. Secondly I why would an electorate re elect a bad politician if there is a choice? Hell even in Nevada Reid won the election not because he was well liked, but because he was less crazy, which runs contrary to your electing someone from an opposite party.
 
[quote name='speedracer']In the parliament system it varies by country but I think you just need 5% of total votes to get a seat. Since it's a low threshold, it encourages party formation and deconstruction. And since you almost always need a coalition to govern, it pretty much guarantees moderation and deal making. Kadima in Israel is a great story. Moderate politicians from the "Republican" and "Democrat" parties were tired of having to pander to their hard line wings and split off to form a new moderate party. Americans would break out in tears of joy if that happened here.

Everyone everywhere in America seems to want a parliamentary system, but it's like you're throwing a 40lb box of rape at the Statue of Liberty to even suggest it here. I still can't figure out why we don't do it. Shit, when we knock over countries and "establish democracies" we sure as hell don't establish our political system. We always do parliaments because even we know it gets the most people to the table the fastest to establish credible governance.

I don't get it.[/QUOTE]I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up more, but nobody ever seems to notice. We brought "democracy" to Iraq, but they don't use our political system.
 
I think you guys aren't understanding what they mean when they say they are bringing democracy to an area. They don't mean specifically our system with 3 branches etc., they mean a government by the people.
 
I understand, just look at Japan. fucked up democracy based more on a fusion of the German and American version of Democracy, or for that matter Germany itself. I don't think anyone is under the pretense that American democracy is the only one.

Speaking Democracy, I wonder if the Ukraine will be able to make the transition, and if the failure of Democracy in Russia will effect its chances to do so. Feel sorry for the Ukraine's poisoned president, nobody should go through that.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I think you guys aren't understanding what they mean when they say they are bringing democracy to an area. They don't mean specifically our system with 3 branches etc., they mean a government by the people.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, we act like the U.S. has some sort of monopoly on democracy, I'd expect our government to want others to emulate our system. I don't even care really, just interesting.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I understand, just look at Japan. fucked up democracy based more on a fusion of the German and American version of Democracy, or for that matter Germany itself. I don't think anyone is under the pretense that American democracy is the only one.

Speaking Democracy, I wonder if the Ukraine will be able to make the transition, and if the failure of Democracy in Russia will effect its chances to do so. Feel sorry for the Ukraine's poisoned president, nobody should go through that.[/QUOTE]
Just as another example of the power of the Israeli lobby in the U.S., kids learn about the holocaust and the millions of Jews who were killed, but nothing about the larger millions who died of famine in the Ukraine under Stalin. As bad as being gassed or otherwise killed is, at least they weren't starving to death by the tens of thousands every day.
 
I think the idea of "bringing" democracy to other nations isn't about setting up a mini-me America, the goal is more to take out the dictator and try to let the people decide what kind of government they want and let them write their own constitution.

Of course, that's ideal. I am certainly not going to argue that is what is done.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think the idea of "bringing" democracy to other nations isn't about setting up a mini-me America, the goal is more to take out the dictator and try to let the people decide what kind of government they want and let them write their own constitution.

Of course, that's ideal. I am certainly not going to argue that is what is done.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the people know that we propped up said dictator and they immediately rebel against any system we put into place.

@cinder, I understand what you're saying about term limits. I just don't think career politicians are what this country needs anymore.
 
It's hypocritical to support dictators that are on your side and not others who aren't. That's what makes me laugh when someone says the Saudis are our alies, no they're not, they're our supplier. If we didn't need oil we'd have basically no reason to do business with them. Humans rights are a huge issue for Saudi Arabia, but you don't see us telling them to start acting right, do you? We aren't invading and liberating their people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top