It was a clip from the Family Guy premier. The first dimension they visited.
Printable View
It was a clip from the Family Guy premier. The first dimension they visited.
So without a common plan that's decided upon by the opposition, isn't that just the same (end result at least) as filibustering? Nothing brought to the table that'll actually have a chance of getting voted through could be perceived as a delay tactic and not as a discussion tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
How do you perceive what's being done now? Just curious.
The lack of discussion within the Democrats, to me seems to also be a delay tactic... but nothing has really come to the table as what needs to be an option that would get passed either.Quote:
It's the same thing on the other side of this issue. The reason Obama is having trouble has a lot to do with Democrats who object to the plan.
No options means that people lose out. No discussion means the anger we're starting to see. I'd love to see something different than what we're saying now.
Children don't pay into the system until they are employed. Would you deny children healthcare?Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
No. Their parents take that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
I don't think that everyone has to agree to a single opposition plan in order for it to not be filibustering. Nobody is going to bother putting legislation together that they already know doesn't have the numbers to get through. Even if they had the votes, Obama wouldn't sign an opposition solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
My perception of what's being done now is that Obama is stuck between the impractical far left and the Democrats in the house and senate that want to keep their jobs. They're trying to avoid the embarrassment of not passing what they wanted to by moving the goal posts back on each aspect until they can finally pass something they can call reform.
I didn't say everyone. I said a plan that could actually pass. Unanimous is the key word I left out.
The ideas that the two "sides" have are distinctly different. So, passing something just for the sake of doing something about it isn't desirable to the opposition. Passing Obama's plan would be worse than not passing anything at all from the perspective of conservatives. It's the same in reverse. Obama would rather not pass anything than to push for the solutions that conservatives offer.
No, no.
I mean bringing up an option that actually has a chance of getting passed. No more time-wasting with outlandish claims; draft up something that a majority of the people will actually pass. Not one of ideals - people are dying whilst jaw-jacking about ideals and positions.
Bring about something that actually counters, specifies and makes a compelling reform that fits better instead of rank belly-aching that solves nothing.
I'm quite sure the logic of "Oppose it? Then solve it!" applies here easily. Instead, what's apparent is "Oppose it? Then keep opposing it!" is all I see.
I don't mean pass something just to pass something. That solves nothing. Actually take the time to point-for-point explain why you are opposing something, then draft up something that's worthwhile. Forget about fear-mongering. Forget about audio soundbytes that just... sound great. Do something that solves something.
It ain't that hard. That's why they get voted in. They can't do it, then they should be voted out.
Nothing the opposition would draft is going to be signed into law by Obama. You can't solve anything if the person who has the final say in the solution refuses to sign. Given that he has already publicly dismissed the alternative solutions proposed, it would be a waste of time for someone to take the next step and organize it into a bill.
You don't know that, you're merely speculating. This isn't Bush we're dealing with [ case in point ]
And that's the problem. Once you stop guessing "it won't get passed"... what won't get passed? What's the option being brought to the table by the "opposing team"? So far, with nothing being brought to the table other than rank opposition, it's just... opposition for the sake of living for an ideal. I cannot be the only person that sees that.
Time to be bipartisan or nothing will get passed. The fact that nothing has been brought forth in a discussion that says "Well damn, that would work too"... that's the true waste of time. A whole lot of speculation, assumption, talking... but nothing is getting done whatsoever.
I hate to bring my brand of "put up or shut the **** up" type of logic to this; however it's due time to do just that. Either stop delivering long-winded speeches on how you will not budge and bring to the table something that actually makes sense. That's on both sides of this and all other debates as far I go.
It's so hard to google through the muck. What exactly is a public option in relation to a NHC?
Edit: Ok I'm a little clearer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6...embedded#t=286
Edit: This echo's the circular thinking I've been seeing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHysv...eature=related
If Obama came out and stated that he wanted to see an alternative bill, Republicans would do it. Instead, he comes out and says that opposition to his bill consists of lies and smears. Not exactly the way that you welcome a bi-partisan, co-operative effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Are you trying to say that those opposing healthcare reform, including elected Republican officials, rightwing talking heads, and the townhallers/teabaggers, didn't use any lies or smears in doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Perhaps if they had brought up relevent points and honest debate instead of "Obama wants to kill your granny" then he wouldn't have had to say anything about lies and smears in the first place.
It's really too bad those included in that list didn't take more of a pragmatic approach. They might have some credibility today. Still, that's not to say Nothing Pelosi and Harry Greed have earned much respect.
Care to show where he's said he wouldn't view an alternative bill? Sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I can't say one way or the other, just sorta don't remember hearing that. If that's actually true, that explains quite a bit. If it's not... then I'm back to my square one.
There are always people on both sides of any controversial political subject that play dirty. However, in this case, Obama is pretending that that is ALL that Republicans have done. He cites the lowest common denominator in an attempt to dismiss all opposing voices, including the ones that have put forth legitimate arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Many have brought up relevant points. Complaining about the worst opposing arguments is not to address and debate the best ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I didn't say that he said he wouldn't view an alternative bill. Watch C-SPAN. Many sound arguments have been put forth in public hearings. Obama's response: the opposition consists of lies and smears. That isn't debating the issues. That isn't compromising to get something accomplished by responding to those arguments with modifications to the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Prove the stuff said is 100% true. From the "Obama wants to kill my baby" - Sarah Palin to the death panels.
What? The craziest arguments you can find don't need to be true in order for other arguments to have merit.
Are you testing the tequila vs. HFCS theory over there?
I'm sober. Thanks for asking. Just finished my daily liter of water. However, have you imbibed something alcoholic? Just thought I'd ask you since you asked me. Fair is fair.
Now, care to prove your point? Or are you stating that your "argument", or whatever you're trying to state right now, is crazy and have no merit? Or do you not have any proof?
I'm also sober. I rarely drink these days. But, it's been on a my task list for some time to drink more. I just never seem to get to it.
What point are you asking me to prove, specifically?
No worries. You have nothing to prove.
Have this thread and the others. I have better things to do than participate in these games.
Nobody "has" a thread do they? They're just there for people to participate in.
I have to respectfully disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Obama has been addressing the largest common denominator (and most vocal) in the opposition, not the least.
The fact that there may be a few islands of sanity within the sea of radical rightwing lunacy that the Republican party has become does not mean that he should ignore the vast majority of the opposition against him no matter how crazy you and I know them to be.
The only way to deal with such overwhelmingly public "lies and smears" is to confront them head-on.
To do anything else would only give them legitimacy in the eyes of the FOX faithful and breed even more ignorance and lies like roach eggs laid in the brains of the conservative masses by the likes of Hannity, Rush, and Beck.
If you want Obama to address the opposition that you think is rational and sane then you're going to have to convince your party to silence the current majority of craziness that is drowning it out and making you all look like a bunch of lunatics first.
On a side note....
I love how you named Sarah Palin, the candidate you voted for Vice President, the "craziest" voice in the opposition.
:D
Unfortunately, a lot of Republican voters (probably yourself included) have a bumper sticker with her name still proudly stuck to their car. For them, she is the standard-bearer for your party, craziness and all.
Change that and you change the debate.
Palin is not a crazy. She simply got swept up in the crazy. Imagine being that popular within hours and under that much scrutiny. She may have cracked up a little because of it but she's hardly incubating the koo-koo's nest. Even Glenn Beck has toned it down a little (Yes Fox news is my new comedy central) but compared to the other incomprehensible rabble rousing lunatics, I simply can't understand the hatred of Michael Moore. Why is he so demonized?
she would not have been that popular if she wasnt such a hot piece of ass.
I respect your disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
On what basis do you conclude what is the most vocal opposition?
And isn't that a really bad way to participate in a debate? Isn't the whole point that, if there is a valid criticism of a plan, it should be addressed regardless of how many people pointed it out? It's not a popularity contest. It's looking for the best logic to apply to a significant problem.
First, I don't think it's true that the vast majority of Republican opposition is unreasonable. Portraying it as such is simply his strategy. That is bolstered by a number of media outlets that give air time to the lowest common denominator and don't cover the better and more common arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Second, even if this claim were true, a person making a genuine effort to have an intelligent debate should seek out the best opposing arguments he can find and offer an answer.
No party can ever prevent some of it's member from making bad arguments, statements or behavior. So, it will always be an option for political parties to cherry-pick those cases and pretend that that represents the majority of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The politician interested in a genuine, intelligent debate will not waste their time or give legitimacy to such arguments by responding to them.
And anyway, you make this statement as if Democrats are winning on this issue. The public option just got voted down twice yesterday. In my opinion, it's in large part due to them insulting the American people who have legitimate concerns by painting them as the lunatic fringe.
I wasn't meaning to respond to that case specifically. I don't think that Palin is the best debater for conservative principles. But, I think that the obsessive and hysterical reaction of the left to anything that she does is crazier than anything she has ever said or done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
No. I'm not a bumper sticker kind of person. That's more of a liberal thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Why would I want to change the debate when the side I disagree with is losing?
Hate is a strong word. I don't hate him. But, I think it's pretty bad that he believes that the opposite of capitalism is democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
If that's true then I agree, pretty stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Couldn't find a youtube clip. But, he says it on the last Real Time he was on while pitching his new movie. Bill Maher even questions him on it but Moore insists.
Bleh Cute only goes so far. What keeps her spotlight is shock value media candy. If conservatives can throw Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck under the bus they can do the same to palin.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
She quit her job. So that makes her less of a liability. Sure, she can say whatever she wants now. And who knows... it might become a sound byte or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
Beck and Coulter... they're not under any bus.