The Passage of the Democratic Health Care Bill: An Act of God?

[AnnaG]

Like I said, it's called duplicity:

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: du·plic·i·ty
Pronunciation: \du̇-ˈpli-sə-tē also dyu̇-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural du·plic·i·ties
Etymology: Middle English duplicite, from Middle French, from Late Latin duplicitat-, duplicitas, from Latin duplex
Date: 15th century
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
2 : the quality or state of being double or twofold
3 : the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action

Either way it's definitely deplorable.

 

[FiveParadox]

Oh yes. Romney was governor and the Democrats said the law takes away the right of the people to elect their Senator. The reality was they did not want him appointing a Republican Senator. After our state elected a Democrat Governor, the Mass House took the right away from the people to immediately vote for a Senator and allowed our Democrat Governor to appoint one.

Highly hypocritical and corrupt.

I don’t think it’s hypocritical, I think that it’s in the best interests of the American people.

An ideal system would be an elected House of Representatives, and a Senate of the United States with members entirely appointed by the governors of the states. This would create a distinct and separate role for the Senate as a less partisan revising chamber, while still ensuring the safeguarding of state interests and effective review of the House’s decisions.

 

[AnnaG]

I don’t think it’s hypocritical, I think that it’s in the best interests of the American people.

An ideal system would be an elected House of Representatives, and a Senate of the United States with members entirely appointed by the governors of the states. This would create a distinct and separate role for the Senate as a less partisan revising chamber, while still ensuring the safeguarding of state interests and effective review of the House’s decisions.

Nuts. Switzerland has a better system than that.

 

[countryboy]

And just how does that constitute hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is when a politician preaches to the masses that they should live one way and he himself does exactly the opposite, like Newt ‘three divorces’ Gingrich, or Senator Larry ‘wide stance’ Craig, Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh etc.

What happened in Massachusetts was pure political hardball, something which both parties indulge in. But then you probably think that anything Democrats do is hypocrisy, while anything Republicans do (like what they did in Texas, or what they did in Florida during 2000 election) is a paragon of virtue. After all, Republican Party is the party of God, how can it possibly do anything wrong?

So no doubt in your opinion, what Democrats did in Massachusetts constitutes hypocrisy (but then doesn’t anything and everything that democrats do constitute hypocrisy and corruption?). But that is not hypocrisy in the conventional sense of the word.

Congratulations! You would qualify as a Democrat in the US - you certainly talk like one.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Congratulations! You would qualify as a Democrat in the US - you certainly talk like one.

I don't think I would be comfortable in the Democratic Party, counrtyboy. Democratic Party is too right wing for me.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don’t think it’s hypocritical, I think that it’s in the best interests of the American people.

An ideal system would be an elected House of Representatives, and a Senate of the United States with members entirely appointed by the governors of the states. This would create a distinct and separate role for the Senate as a less partisan revising chamber, while still ensuring the safeguarding of state interests and effective review of the House’s decisions.

FP, interestingly India has such a system. In India, the lower House is elected by the people and the upper chamber is elected by the state governments. That was also the system in USA, before they changed over to directly elected Senate.

Indeed, that is the system which Harper could switch over to at the stroke of a pen (as I pointed out in a post on another thread), if he was serious about senate reform (which he isn’t, it was just a promise to keep the rubes happy and satisfied).

Harper could tell the provincial assemblies to elect the senators, and tell them that he will appoint Senators only if they are elected by the corresponding provincial assembly. PM has full discretion as to whom he may appoint to the Senate.

At a stroke of a pen, he will achieve significant Senate reform, comparable to what they have in India or the old US system. But of course, he isn’t serious about senate reform, it was just one of the promises to keep his base happy.

 

[ironsides]

I see, so you really had no answer for me, as to why hardball politics by Republicans is acceptable, but hardball politics by Democrats constitutes hypocrisy and corruption. I thought so.

Ok SJP, I'll bite what Republican hardball politics, what are they doing now?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ok SJP, I'll bite what Republican hardball politics, what are they doing now?

I don’t know what hey are doing right now, ironsides, but I have already given two examples. One is of course, world famous, was the way Katherine Harris in Florida during 2000 election, handed down one partisan, political decision after another, favoring Bush and against Gore and contributed to Bush’s victory in 2000. For her troubles, she was rewarded by the Republican Party with a safe House seat (but when she tried to run for the Senate, she opened her yap once too often, essentially claiming that Christian Theocracy would be the best model for USA, she got crushed in the primaries).

So that was the classic example of political hardball. Another example I gave was what they did in Texas, with the blessings of ‘The Hammer’, Tom Delay. As soon as they got the majority in both the houses in Texas, they gerrymandered the whole state to give them seven additional safe seats in the House (that is in the federal House, in Washington DC, not the Texas House).

So Republicans are quite capable of playing hardball, as capable as Democrats, when they have the means to do it.

 

[EagleSmack]

And just how does that constitute hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is when a politician preaches to the masses that they should live one way and he himself does exactly the opposite, like Newt ‘three divorces’ Gingrich, or Senator Larry ‘wide stance’ Craig, Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh etc.

I would not expect you to see hypocrisy in anything that the Democrats do. Whereas I DO see hypocrisy when the GOP is hypocritical. You have no intergrity.

What happened in Massachusetts was pure political hardball, something which both parties indulge in. But then you probably think that anything Democrats do is hypocrisy, while anything Republicans do (like what they did in Texas, or what they did in Florida during 2000 election) is a paragon of virtue. After all, Republican Party is the party of God, how can it possibly do anything wrong?

Wrong again as usual.

So no doubt in your opinion, what Democrats did in Massachusetts constitutes hypocrisy (but then doesn’t anything and everything that democrats do constitute hypocrisy and corruption?). But that is not hypocrisy in the conventional sense of the word.

It most certainly is hypocrisy but since you are a US Democrat wannabe I know you are incapable of seeing wrong in anything the the US Democrats do.

The law that allowed the Governor of Massachusetts to appoint a Senator was on the books for decades. It was changed by the Democrats when there was a possibility of a Republican Governor choosing a Senator if Kerry won the Presidency. When Kennedy died it was changed back to allow the Democrat Governor to chose a Senator. Hypocrisy at it's worse.

I don't expect you to agree as you are incapable of logic and have no integrity.

 

[EagleSmack]

I don’t think it’s hypocritical, I think that it’s in the best interests of the American people.

Which way was in the best interest of the American people?

An ideal system would be an elected House of Representatives, and a Senate of the United States with members entirely appointed by the governors of the states. This would create a distinct and separate role for the Senate as a less partisan revising chamber, while still ensuring the safeguarding of state interests and effective review of the House’s decisions.

So each time a new governor is elected does he get to swap out (fire) all the Senators and Congressmen? Don't you think that puts way to much power in the hands of one person?

For example... Arnold is the GOP Governor of California. Do you have any idea how many seats California has in Congress?

 

[TenPenny]

So each time a new governor is elected does he get to swap out (fire) all the Senators and Congressmen? Don't you think that puts way to much power in the hands of one person?

For example... Arnold is the GOP Governor of California. Do you have any idea how many seats California has in Congress?

Read carefully, there's a comma in there.

 

[EagleSmack]

Read carefully, there's a comma in there.

I read it again. The message is still the same.

 

[countryboy]

I don't think I would be comfortable in the Democratic Party, counrtyboy. Democratic Party is too right wing for me.

You're probably "right" about your comfort zone issue. In the interests of trying to help you seek a better fit, it is possible that you would be more comfortable in a place like North Korea? They have the basic system down pat - the government "takes care" of everything, and the people don't have to think. In fact, I believe individual thinking is frowned upon. Left-winginess taken to the extreme...it might be the situation you've been unknowingly seeking all this time.

Passage of a Health Bill - like what we're discussing here for the US - would not be encumbered by a bunch of political debate and bothersome viewpoints of ignorant people within the citizenry. No, it would simply "be done" and one could move on to other important priorities that would surely save the masses from themselves.

Although it's a bit difficult to obtain statistical data and facts on the subject, I'm pretty sure that there isn't much political hardball being played in North Korea. I'm also fairly certain that there are no right-wing conservative extremist evangelical types there to get in the way of good, solid decision making and leadership.

There could be a bonus there for you personally - being as how they appear to be a little short on awareness in areas like gay rights, you could apply your skills, experience, and detailed knowledge of the world to save the entire country. If you could gather up all your posts on that and other important subjects, I'm sure you could use them as a base for a very motivating proposal to their current government. I think "Minister in charge of Social Injustices" would be an accurately descriptive title for the position.

Imagine, an extremist left-wing utopia, just waiting for someone to add the finishing touches to launch them into the 21st century. Sounds like a once in a lifetime opportunity for someone of your social stature and overall station in life. And we would all benefit here on this forum, because you would be able to supply real, live proof sources on your progress as the reforms are implemented. I think it would be a win/win/win scenario. Very exciting indeed.

From a more macro point of view, this effort would show the world, once and for all, how effective extremist left-winginess can really be when applied to the "right" situation. That would put the right-wing extremists in their rightful places with no further arguments and disagreements.

Once again, I'm just trying to assist you here in the process of considering alternative comfort zones by presenting what I think must surely qualify as the last word in extremist left-wing environments...North Korea, or perhaps we could say "heaven on earth." It never hurts to consider all the alternatives.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I would not expect you to see hypocrisy in anything that the Democrats do. Whereas I DO see hypocrisy when the GOP is hypocritical. You have no intergrity.

Let us agree to disagree on that, EagleSmack. You are clearly a Republican. While I am not a Democrat, my sympathies clearly lie with the Democratic Party. I don’t think we will ever agree on this.

You clearly see Democratic hypocrisy everywhere, Republican hypocrisy nowhere (can give me even one example of Republican hypocrisy?). I say this was not hypocrisy, but political hardball, both parties do that when they can.

Let us leave it at that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You're probably "right" about your comfort zone issue. In the interests of trying to help you seek a better fit, it is possible that you would be more comfortable in a place like North Korea? They have the basic system down pat - the government "takes care" of everything, and the people don't have to think. In fact, I believe individual thinking is frowned upon. Left-winginess taken to the extreme...it might be the situation you've been unknowingly seeking all this time.

Passage of a Health Bill - like what we're discussing here for the US - would not be encumbered by a bunch of political debate and bothersome viewpoints of ignorant people within the citizenry. No, it would simply "be done" and one could move on to other important priorities that would surely save the masses from themselves.

Although it's a bit difficult to obtain statistical data and facts on the subject, I'm pretty sure that there isn't much political hardball being played in North Korea. I'm also fairly certain that there are no right-wing conservative extremist evangelical types there to get in the way of good, solid decision making and leadership.

There could be a bonus there for you personally - being as how they appear to be a little short on awareness in areas like gay rights, you could apply your skills, experience, and detailed knowledge of the world to save the entire country. If you could gather up all your posts on that and other important subjects, I'm sure you could use them as a base for a very motivating proposal to their current government. I think "Minister in charge of Social Injustices" would be an accurately descriptive title for the position.

Imagine, an extremist left-wing utopia, just waiting for someone to add the finishing touches to launch them into the 21st century. Sounds like a once in a lifetime opportunity for someone of your social stature and overall station in life. And we would all benefit here on this forum, because you would be able to supply real, live proof sources on your progress as the reforms are implemented. I think it would be a win/win/win scenario. Very exciting indeed.

From a more macro point of view, this effort would show the world, once and for all, how effective extremist left-winginess can really be when applied to the "right" situation. That would put the right-wing extremists in their rightful places with no further arguments and disagreements.

Once again, I'm just trying to assist you here in the process of considering alternative comfort zones by presenting what I think must surely qualify as the last word in extremist left-wing environments...North Korea, or perhaps we could say "heaven on earth." It never hurts to consider all the alternatives.

That must have taken a lot of effort, time and thought, countryboy. Thanks for the advice.

 

[EagleSmack]

Let us agree to disagree on that, EagleSmack. You are clearly a Republican. While I am not a Democrat, my sympathies clearly lie with the Democratic Party. I don’t think we will ever agree on this.

You are clearly Democrat and I am right of center and Unenrolled. Look it up

You clearly see Democratic hypocrisy everywhere,

Wrong

Republican hypocrisy nowhere (can give me even one example of Republican hypocrisy?).

Wrong again

Congressional priveledges.

Do you admit you are wrong now?

I say this was not hypocrisy, but political hardball, both parties do that when they can.

You would say that.

Let us leave it at that.

Sure...

I win again

 

[countryboy]

That must have taken a lot of effort, time and thought, countryboy. Thanks for the advice.

Not really...it just "flowed from the heart." And you're welcome!

And besides, at this time of the year, what's wrong with sharing ideas and having a little fun doing it? 'Tis the season to be jolly and all that...

Hope you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2010!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Not really...it just "flowed from the heart." And you're welcome!

And besides, at this time of the year, what's wrong with sharing ideas and having a little fun doing it? 'Tis the season to be jolly and all that...

Hope you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2010!

And the same to you, countryboy.

 

[AnnaG]

lol I saw some dough-head on the news last night proclaim that the US has the best healthcare system in the world. I kind of think he's a Rep but being a dough-head isn't strictly a Rep thing but seems to abound in both parties. Anyway, obviously that was a personal opinion and had little to do with fact.

 

[coldstream]

As i understand it this bill could have been written by the Health Insurance Industry. Without a 'Public Option' it is just a way of cyphoning money from government through the outrageous markups of Health Care Administrators.

The effort to keep abortion out of the funding arrangements seems fragile. I've seen a lot of people predicting that it will, in the bill's final form, allow a government sponsored bounty hunt on the unborn babies of poor people.