Jon Stewart Rips GOP Over Govt. Shutdown: Obamacare is the Law!

  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 01, 2013 9:14 PM GMT
    No one does it like Stewart!

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 01, 2013 9:26 PM GMT
    Silly comedian it has not been by the book. The President has decided to waive parts of the law that are detrimental to supporters and members of Congress.

    One point he made inadvertently. Most people have no idea how our government works. How things a bill becomes a law. And the elegant wisdom of having just about "Everything" up for debate during the budgetary practice.

    This is why we had only 1 budget during Obama's first term and just CR's for the past year. He wanted the law to be implemented before going through any budgetary challenge.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 01, 2013 9:36 PM GMT
    musclmed said He wanted the law to be implemented before going through any budgetary challenge.


    Except the House has already had over forty, count em, forty votes challenging Obamacare. For angry, temper tantrum Republicans to try to retroactively repeal this law by refusing to fund the government and thus threaten economic collapse for all because of their pathological aversion to their own healthcare ideas -- because those ideas were implemented by a President they irrationally hate -- is irresponsible to the point of treason.

    They cannot win and up-and-down vote repealing Obamacare, so they take everyone's toys and go home. They deserve their increasing unpopularity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 9:39 PM GMT
    Jews are funny and smart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    MY GOD! John Stewart said something critical of Republicans?

    Wow!!!! Who could have predicted that. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Maybe Bill Maher will do the same!
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 01, 2013 11:05 PM GMT
    Why the Shutdown Looks So Bad for the GOP

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/government_shutdown_is_bad_for_republicans_the_gop_s_divisions_and_fissures.htmlIn the first hours of the shutdown, the terrain looks very bad for Republicans. It's amazing how consistent the polls have been about linking a confrontation over the Affordable Care Act to funding of the government. While polls show the public disapproves of the law, it has consistently told pollsters it is not in favor of tying government operations to defunding the health care plan. In addition to the Quinnipiac poll, the polls from CBS, CNN, CNBC, National Journal, and Kaiser show this. As GOP Sen. Jeff Flake said, Republicans have found the one gambit less popular than Obamacare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2013 11:10 PM GMT
    CLASSIC and classy icon_lol.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 02, 2013 12:20 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    musclmed said He wanted the law to be implemented before going through any budgetary challenge.


    Except the House has already had over forty, count em, forty votes challenging Obamacare. For angry, temper tantrum Republicans to try to retroactively repeal this law by refusing to fund the government and thus threaten economic collapse for all because of their pathological aversion to their own healthcare ideas -- because those ideas were implemented by a President they irrationally hate -- is irresponsible to the point of treason.

    They cannot win and up-and-down vote repealing Obamacare, so they take everyone's toys and go home. They deserve their increasing unpopularity.


    I am hearing the "treason" start to creep in. When are these holdouts for the Cr to be arrested?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2013 1:43 AM GMT
    God Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2013 5:15 AM GMT
    Let me see if I understand this "it's the law " argument correctly.

    No one should try to defund, amend or repeal any law that has ever been passed no matter how many people don't like it or how much damage it may be doing? Right?
    Even if the ACA, as it is now being implemented, is no longer the same law that was passed by the congress? There have been some 19 unilateral ( and unconstitutional) changes made by the President, some 47 deadlines established in the bill that were not met, more than 1300 waivers granted to friends of the Administration, the ACA is now costing more than 3 times what it was sold as costing and a rewriting of the law by a Supreme Court Justice.

    That's an interesting argument, put forth by the Progressives/Liberals/Democrats (whichever it is you're calling yourselves this week), considering the recent overturning of laws that the Progressives/Liberals?Democrats have overturned or are trying to overturn .

    Prop 8 was the law !

    "Don't ask, Don't tell" was the law !

    DOMA was the law!

    The Arizona Immigration Law was the law!

    Voter ID is the law in many states !

    School choice was the law in Washington DC and is the law in Louisiana !

    The right to own and carry a firearm is the law !

    Prior to Roe v Wade Abortion laws were very different!

    We do have immigration laws that are not being enforced and they are the law !

    Marijuana is still against Federal Law, yet several states with Progressive/Liberal/Democrat majorities have legalized it with no Federal consequences.


    I could go on and on.



    So, how the "it's the law" argument actually works is: If Progressives/Liberals/ Democrats, don't like a law it's ok to go after it by any means until it is no longer the law, but if it's a law the Progressives/Liberals/Democrats like then no one should try to do anything to stop it, no matter how many people are against the law, because "it's the law". Do I have the gist of things correct?

    It seems to me that Progressives/Liberals/Democrats are being disingenuous and unreasonable hypocrites !


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2013 5:30 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??


    They already did try to change the law, within the bounds of the constitutional process, by voting to repeal it 40 times. That never went anywhere.

    The law was negotiated, modified, voted on, signed into law, faced challenge by the Supreme Court and upheld, all within the constitutional process. Those are the steps involved in changing a law.

    What they are doing is not "changing a law." This is not "politics as usual." It is terrorism. Know this: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what House Republicans are doing.

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 02, 2013 7:23 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland said
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??


    They already did try to change the law, within the bounds of the constitutional process, by voting to repeal it 40 times. That never went anywhere.

    The law was negotiated, modified, voted on, signed into law, faced challenge by the Supreme Court and upheld, all within the constitutional process. Those are the steps involved in changing a law.

    What they are doing is not "changing a law." This is not "politics as usual." It is terrorism. Know this: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what House Republicans are doing.

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.


    While on the topic of terrorism, explain how the President can waive parts of the ACA that say "shall" for his political friends. If not terrorism maybe its just plain illegal?

    Regarding your Post CIvil war reference, which sounds earily similar to some absolute Rachel Maddow spouted last evening. Maybe try doing some research beyond MSNBC.

    October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day): The shutdown was a result of several disagreements between Regan and the House including a ban for companies creating subsidiaries, requiring a portion of the goods and labor used in oil rigs to be from America and one that expands Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Democrats in the House compromised a few of their demands and passed a measure that reopened the government.

    The welfare aide was largely unpopular and they knew would be vetoed. So the Democrats added the demand to be added to the budget. They refused to pass the budget unless it was adopted.

    There are a few more situations were the Democrats even when they had control of both houses used the budget process to adopt legislation. I can list them if you like. A few times for abortion funding, and several other pet projects.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2013 10:30 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland said
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??


    They already did try to change the law, within the bounds of the constitutional process, by voting to repeal it 40 times. That never went anywhere.

    The law was negotiated, modified, voted on, signed into law, faced challenge by the Supreme Court and upheld, all within the constitutional process. Those are the steps involved in changing a law.

    What they are doing is not "changing a law." This is not "politics as usual." It is terrorism. Know this: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what House Republicans are doing.

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.


    They can change any law at any time. That is the purpose of the congress. This isn't terrorism, you diminish the meaning of the word quite a lot when you use it like that, and it is irresponsible to do so, considering the most recent example of non-muslims tortured and killed in Kenya. This is our process, if you want a rubber stamp or dictatorship, we aren't there, yet.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 02, 2013 2:06 PM GMT
    The slight difference in this case is the republicans tried to repeal Obamacare 40 times knowing full well they had zero chances of succeeding for every single one of them. This is just a monumental waste of time and money.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 02, 2013 2:56 PM GMT
    Piccadilly saidThe slight difference in this case is the republicans tried to repeal Obamacare 40 times knowing full well they had zero chances of succeeding for every single one of them. This is just a monumental waste of time and money.


    Just like in 1980, where Democrats who had both houses added abortion funding to the Budget. They had no hope of it passing de novo.

    The effective statement is "Not fair! , you are playing by OUR rules"
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 02, 2013 6:26 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Piccadilly saidThe slight difference in this case is the republicans tried to repeal Obamacare 40 times knowing full well they had zero chances of succeeding for every single one of them. This is just a monumental waste of time and money.


    Just like in 1980, where Democrats who had both houses added abortion funding to the Budget. They had no hope of it passing de novo.

    The effective statement is "Not fair! , you are playing by OUR rules"


    It's 2013, not 1980.

    Maybe if Republicans recognized that instead of constantly living in a world that no longer exists, they might be a viable political party again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2013 9:38 PM GMT
    Only the most fanatic communist could have a chance at being popular with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2013 5:19 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    CFL_Oakland said
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??


    They already did try to change the law, within the bounds of the constitutional process, by voting to repeal it 40 times. That never went anywhere.

    The law was negotiated, modified, voted on, signed into law, faced challenge by the Supreme Court and upheld, all within the constitutional process. Those are the steps involved in changing a law.

    What they are doing is not "changing a law." This is not "politics as usual." It is terrorism. Know this: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what House Republicans are doing.

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.


    While on the topic of terrorism, explain how the President can waive parts of the ACA that say "shall" for his political friends. If not terrorism maybe its just plain illegal?

    Regarding your Post CIvil war reference, which sounds earily similar to some absolute Rachel Maddow spouted last evening. Maybe try doing some research beyond MSNBC.

    October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day): The shutdown was a result of several disagreements between Regan and the House including a ban for companies creating subsidiaries, requiring a portion of the goods and labor used in oil rigs to be from America and one that expands Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Democrats in the House compromised a few of their demands and passed a measure that reopened the government.

    The welfare aide was largely unpopular and they knew would be vetoed. So the Democrats added the demand to be added to the budget. They refused to pass the budget unless it was adopted.

    There are a few more situations were the Democrats even when they had control of both houses used the budget process to adopt legislation. I can list them if you like. A few times for abortion funding, and several other pet projects.


    I repeat, there is no precedent for what House Republicans are doing, namely, not funding the government to repeal legislation that had been vetted many times over through the constitutional process.

    That is not remotely the same as the situation that you described in your post.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Oct 03, 2013 5:25 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland said
    musclmed said
    CFL_Oakland said
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid the congress try to change a law, who do they think they are??


    They already did try to change the law, within the bounds of the constitutional process, by voting to repeal it 40 times. That never went anywhere.

    The law was negotiated, modified, voted on, signed into law, faced challenge by the Supreme Court and upheld, all within the constitutional process. Those are the steps involved in changing a law.

    What they are doing is not "changing a law." This is not "politics as usual." It is terrorism. Know this: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what House Republicans are doing.

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.


    While on the topic of terrorism, explain how the President can waive parts of the ACA that say "shall" for his political friends. If not terrorism maybe its just plain illegal?

    Regarding your Post CIvil war reference, which sounds earily similar to some absolute Rachel Maddow spouted last evening. Maybe try doing some research beyond MSNBC.

    October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day): The shutdown was a result of several disagreements between Regan and the House including a ban for companies creating subsidiaries, requiring a portion of the goods and labor used in oil rigs to be from America and one that expands Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Democrats in the House compromised a few of their demands and passed a measure that reopened the government.

    The welfare aide was largely unpopular and they knew would be vetoed. So the Democrats added the demand to be added to the budget. They refused to pass the budget unless it was adopted.

    There are a few more situations were the Democrats even when they had control of both houses used the budget process to adopt legislation. I can list them if you like. A few times for abortion funding, and several other pet projects.


    I repeat, there is no precedent for what House Republicans are doing, namely, not funding the government to repeal legislation that had been vetted many times over through the constitutional process.

    That is not remotely the same as the situation that you described in your post.


    So i guess the 3 other times before that shutdown where abortion funding was tacked on to the Budget , with repeated legislative failures of the same abortion bills.

    The country was halted for a combined 30 days total , for abortion. Yes abortion. Save the selective outrage.

    Get back to me when you can develop a constitutional case for the President waiving part of the ACA without the act giving him the power to do so.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 03, 2013 6:06 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidOnly the most fanatic communist could have a chance at being popular with you.


    And only the most right-wing fascist would have a chance at being popular with you and the rest of the radical conservative Republican right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2013 6:13 AM GMT
    CFL_Oakland said

    I repeat, there is no precedent for what House Republicans are doing, namely, not funding the government to repeal legislation that had been vetted many times over through the constitutional process.

    Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it the truth. I would suggest you read both the constitution and Federalist Papers #58. The Constitution gives the house the "power of the purse.

    Federalist #58:The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure. But will not the House of Representatives be as much interested as the Senate in maintaining the government in its proper functions, and will they not therefore be unwilling to stake its existence or its reputation on the pliancy of the Senate? Or, if such a trial of firmness between the two branches were hazarded, would not the one be as likely first to yield as the other? These questions will create no difficulty with those who reflect that in all cases the smaller the number, and the more permanent and conspicuous the station, of men in power, the stronger must be the interest which they will individually feel in whatever concerns the government.
    Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of dishonorable stagnation in public affairs. To those causes we are to ascribe the continual triumph of the British House of Commons over the other branches of the government, whenever the engine of a money bill has been employed. An absolute inflexibility on the side of the latter, although it could not have failed to involve every department of the state in the general confusion, has neither been apprehended nor experienced. The utmost degree of firmness that can be displayed by the federal Senate or President, will not be more than equal to a resistance in which they will be supported by constitutional and patriotic principles.


    In this case where the law being implemented is not the same law that was passed into law by the congress it is houses responsibility to with hold funding.


    Constitution of The United States, Article. I. Section I: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and Hous of Representatives.



    That is not remotely the same as the situation that you described in your post.

    Actually if you were to check into the previous shutdowns, they are more than remotely the same situation.

    Maybe you should take your own advice and:

    Please inform yourselves before you try to make any comparisons with the activities of political Democrats.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2013 10:18 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Blakes7 saidOnly the most fanatic communist could have a chance at being popular with you.


    And only the most right-wing fascist would have a chance at being popular with you and the rest of the radical conservative Republican right.



    Not really. Fascism is not conservatism, and I recently expressed my admiration for the late Ed Koch, who was a liberal democrat. icon_cool.gif
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Oct 03, 2013 3:19 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    TroyAthlete said
    Blakes7 saidOnly the most fanatic communist could have a chance at being popular with you.


    And only the most right-wing fascist would have a chance at being popular with you and the rest of the radical conservative Republican right.



    Not really. Fascism is not conservatism, and I recently expressed my admiration for the late Ed Koch, who was a liberal democrat. icon_cool.gif


    Modern conservatism is indistinguishable from fascism, and I voted for John McCain in 2008, who is actually a real conservative (or what conservatives used to be before you radical right-wing dittohead fascists took over). icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2013 3:31 PM GMT
    John McCain is seldom conservative. More like a standard big tent republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2013 3:32 PM GMT
    And I don't believe for a second that you'd even consider voting for anyone who wasn't black AND to the right of Al Sharpton.