"Frightening GOP Behavior"

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

    Mar 23, 2010 8:24 PM GMT
    "Before dashing off to celebrate a hard fought victory in achieving health care reform, it is important to reflect on a deeply disturbing aspect of the debate that I believe spells danger ahead.

    A Republican talking point repeated ad nauseam during yesterday's debate pounded on the theme that they, and they alone, had the right to speak for "the will of the American people." This took different forms: "the American people have spoken," or "you (Democrats) are ignoring/imposing your views on the American people" or "the American people have sent a message," etc. All making the same point -- that the GOP speaks for the American people.

    Of course, the American people have spoken, and in November 2008 elected a Democratic White House and Senate and House of Representatives. But, elections and the workings of our democracy including the idea that the losing party respect the outcome of elections appear to be alien concepts to today's GOP.

    The idea that the minority party represents the "will of the people" (not some of the people, but "the people") is the seedling of a totalitarian mindset. In this mindset -- democracy doesn't matter, ideas are not to be discussed, and opposing views are not to respected. What matters is that they alone have truth, they alone are metaphysically connected to the "mind of the people" can interpret their will, and because they have truth and speak for the people, others represent a threat and must be silenced and stopped.

    This was a major concern last summer as violent demonstrators disrupted "town meetings" -- with angry chanting mobs claiming to represent the "will of the people" arrayed against the elected Congresspeople and their constituents who had freely assembled to discuss issues. The mobs didn't come to discuss or even debate. They were mobilized to disrupt discussion and silence debate.

    Listening to the rhetorical excesses of last summer's demonstrators, or those who mobilized to chant slurs at Democrats over the weekend, or to the radio and TV personalities who incite with hate and fear ("that we are losing our country"), or the GOP Congressional leadership who charge much the same and incite in similar ways -- I hear echoes of last century's history. The behavior fits a frightening pattern and ought to be of concern."

    By: James Zogby (03.22.2010)

    * * *

    Instead of permitting history to repeat and/or cycle again, "we the people" must implement a plan of action either by deed or law to squash this unacceptable and threatening pattern of behavior.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 12:48 AM GMT
    In response to the civil unrest of the 1960's, the Republicans presented theirselves to voters as the party of "law and order".
    Democrats have an opportunity to do the same, in response to the insane, out-of-control, activism of the right-wingers.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 24, 2010 12:56 AM GMT
    Truth endures forever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 1:20 AM GMT
    Republicans should seriously rethink this strategy of stirring up hatred.

    And the rest of us have to demand "Law & Order" as Rick says above.

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

    Mar 24, 2010 1:35 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidTruth endures forever.

    So does ignorance, unfortunately.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Mar 24, 2010 1:35 AM GMT
    You're the most backwoods country in the civilized world when it comes to providing health care to your citizens. Shut up and get on with joining the rest of the planet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    barriehomeboy saidYou're the most backwoods country in the civilized world when it comes to providing health care to your citizens. Shut up and get on with joining the rest of the planet.


    Explain to me where in the U.S. Constitution the Federal government has the authority to compel a citizen to purchase a good or service.

    The healthcare bill that was signed into law today is unconstitutional.


    Agreed. It's really stunning how many provisions of the Constitution it violates. More even than the PATRIOT Act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 2:36 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    cbdtw79 saidAgreed. It's really stunning how many provisions of the Constitution it violates. More even than the PATRIOT Act.


    I'm only aware of one area that the HCR bill violates....

    Nowhere in the Constitution is authority given to the Federal government to allow it to compel a citizen to purchase a good or service.

    Now, what are all parts of the Constitution that the PATRIOT Act violates?


    The health care bill violates the Tenth Amendment because Congress is acting outside of its enumerated powers, one could even argue it violates the Ninth Amendment because of this.

    It's remarkable that many supporters of abortion rights support health care reform. The foundation of Roe v. Wade (erroneous as the decision may be), rests upon a right to "privacy" over control of one's body. If that right extends to murdering a baby, then why doesn't it also protect the right to "choose" whether or not they can be insured. Therefore it could be said that this bill violates the Fourteenth Amendment, unless Roe would be overruled.

    The PATRIOT Act violates at best the Fourth and Fifth Amendments due to the enhanced surveillance powers given to the government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 2:51 AM GMT
    Here we go again with the posts of Republican agents, some of whom masquerade as "Independents." Discussion is one thing, disruption quite another.

    The Constitutionality of universal health care will likely be decided by the courts based on the undoubted Federal authority to tax, which is the basis for Social Security. Something, BTW, which Republicans over 70 years ago also vehemently opposed, and which many would still like to see repealed, or privatized, as we saw during the Bush Administration. (Thank gawd it didn't happen, or the Bush Recession would have bankrupted the program and left millions of senior citizens in total poverty)

    I'm also amused how quickly these RJ "Independents" spout Republican talking points, as soon as they're published. They usually can't discuss or debate them intelligently or in detail, but they can quote them verbatim. As Arte Johnson's character on the old Laugh In comedy show used to say in a mock German accent:

    "Veh-ree interesting!" LOL!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    Actually, the law is Constitutional because it fits in with the Commerce clause and Congress' powers enumerated within it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:02 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidHere we go again with the posts of Republican agents, some of whom masquerade as "Independents." Discussion is one thing, disruption quite another.

    The Constitutionality of universal health care will likely be decided by the courts based on the undoubted Federal authority to tax, which is the basis for Social Security. Something, BTW, which Republicans over 70 years ago also vehemently opposed, and which many would still like to see repealed, or privatized, as we saw during the Bush Administration. (Thank gawd it didn't happen, or the Bush Recession would have bankrupted the program and left millions of senior citizens in total poverty)

    I'm also amused how quickly these RJ "Independents" spout Republican talking points, as soon as they're published. They usually can't discuss or debate them intelligently or in detail, but they can quote them verbatim. As Arte Johnson's character on the old Laugh In comedy show used to say in a mock German accent:

    "Veh-ree interesting!" LOL!


    The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to levy an income tax. This is not a license to SPEND that money in ways that violate the Constitution. If Congress wanted to use your tax money to fund national burnings of books discussing homosexuality it would be no more legitimate than this is.

    Social Security, when passed in the 1930s, was supported by a large majority of Republicans. You are incorrect. The program is already bankrupt because it has been raided by Congress over the years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:06 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Red_Vespa saidHere we go again with the posts of Republican agents, some of whom masquerade as "Independents." Discussion is one thing, disruption quite another.


    Ah yes, the Republican "agents" that have been dispatched to disrupt the liberal / socialist harmony of RJ... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Hah! If you want to see the "harmony" that liberalism and socialism cause take a drive through the boarded up and burned out neighborhoods in Detroit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:14 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TheIStrat saidActually, the law is Constitutional because it fits in with the Commerce clause and Congress' powers enumerated within it


    Please elaborate how.

    I'll get you started.

    The Federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. Commerce being the sale of goods or services.

    The Constitution doesn't allow the Federal government to compel a purchase by citizens.

    So go ahead... prove your side of the argument.


    As far as I'm concerned, that's one way to regulate it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    HCR Protesters,

    Please be consistent and refuse to renew your current Auto Insurance policy.

    I'd like to have you fools off the road too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    cbdtw79 saidSocial Security, when passed in the 1930s, was supported by a large majority of Republicans. You are incorrect. The program is already bankrupt because it has been raided by Congress over the years.

    In 1935, actually. And Republicans didn't have a "large majority" but the smallest minority in Congress in their history, following their defeat when Roosevelt was elected. Nevertheless, they attempted various Congressional ploys to defeat Social Security, and a national PR campaign, not unlike today, but when it came down to a vote, their minority position was hopeless. The majority of them did vote for the act in the end, but it would have made no difference if they hadn't, so they voted with the overwhelming majority, in that era's quaint concept of "bipartisanship."

    The "raiding" (actually a form of borrowing) of the Social Security fund was largely done during Republican Administrations and Congresses. It is not bankrupt at the moment, but could theoretically become bankrupt in the future. It would certainly have failed already if Bush schemes for privatizing it, and linking it to the stock market icon_exclaim.gif had succeeded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:28 AM GMT
    PowerRunner saidHCR Protesters,

    Please be consistent and refuse to renew your current Auto Insurance policy.

    I'd like to have you fools off the road too.


    That is complete sophistry.

    I am not a believer in STATES (emphasis on STATES and not FEDERAL here) requiring its citizens to purchase auto insurance. However, trying to use such laws to support a federal hijacking of health care is unsupportable.

    First, the federal government has no general police power. That was left to the states.

    Second, from start to finish driving a car is a privilege. You must obtain a license to drive from the state in which you reside, drive that car on a road paid for by public money and obey the rules of the road passed by the state legislature. So, one must actually drive a car to be required to have auto insurance. One must EXIST now to be required to have health insurance. Big difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:34 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    cbdtw79 saidSocial Security, when passed in the 1930s, was supported by a large majority of Republicans. You are incorrect. The program is already bankrupt because it has been raided by Congress over the years.

    In 1935, actually. And Republicans didn't have a "large majority" but the smallest minority in Congress in their history, following their defeat when Roosevelt was elected. Nevertheless, they attempted various Congressional ploys to defeat Social Security, but when it came down to a vote, their minority position was hopeless. The majority of them did vote for the act in the end, but it would have made no difference if they hadn't, so they voted with the overwhelming majority, in that era's quaint concept of "bipartisanship."

    The "raiding" (actually a form of borrowing) of the Social Security fund was largely done during Republican Administrations and Congresses. It is not bankrupt at the moment, but could theoretically become bankrupt in the future. It would certainly have failed already if Bush schemes for privatizing it, and linking it to the stock market icon_exclaim.gif had succeeded.


    I am aware that the Republicans were very much the minority party. That doesn't change the fact that a majority of THOSE Republicans supported Social Security, and it was wrong of them to do so.

    You can spew the tired, liberal rhetoric about Bush at me all you want. I really don't care. Bush made a lot of mistakes and I called him out on them just like I have Obama.

    However, if you want to be blindly partisan it was Lyndon Johnson (you were alive then, wasn't he a Democrat?) and the Democrat controlled Congress that first moved Social Security into a General fund so Congress could spend it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:41 AM GMT
    cbdtw79 saidFirst, the federal government has no general police power. That was left to the states.

    In the US Constitution, yes. In Republican minds, and during the previous Bush Administration, no.

    Legal arguments were prepared for the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the Federal government from using the military as a domestic police force. The justification was to be the threat of terrorism, in conjunction with the powers granted the President under the Patriot Act, and the Bush concept of the Unitary Presidency, which states the President is the supreme authority in the country in all cases, overriding the other 2 branches of government as he may decide.

    http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:44 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    cbdtw79 saidFirst, the federal government has no general police power. That was left to the states.

    In the US Constitution, yes. In Republican minds, and during the previous Bush Administration, no.

    Legal arguments were prepared for the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the Federal government from using the military as a domestic police force. The justification was to be the threat of terrorism, in conjunction with the powers granted the President under the Patriot Act, and the Bush concept of the Unitary Presidency, which states the President is the supreme authority in the country in all cases, overriding the other 2 branches of government as he may decide.

    http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act


    I do not support the military being a domestic police force.

    However, you admit that the federal government lacks general police power under the Constitution. So...how then can the federal government put a person in jail for not having health insurance?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:45 AM GMT
    cbdtw79 said...That doesn't change the fact that a majority of THOSE Republicans supported Social Security, and it was wrong of them to do so.

    WHOA!!! Let's pause here. Did I read that correctly? Supporting Social Security was wrong? Is that the mindset we are dealing with here? If that's the case, I think this is game, set, match. Do we not all agree? Any others here who think Social Security is "wrong"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:48 AM GMT
    I think there are good points made on both sides here. I'm glad the post is happening because I haven't looked into the HCR as much as I would have liked to.

    I feel like this bill doesn't make everyone happy. But will anything? What's the answer? Our old system has flaws, but this new HCR is flawed too. But I think it's time for change. Maybe this will turn out good. Maybe it won't. But I think either way there's gonna be a lot of changes made over the next 10-25 years.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 24, 2010 3:49 AM GMT
    southbeach,

    So what does healthcare reform mean to you? What changes, if any, did you want to see before the passage of the recent legislation?

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

    Mar 24, 2010 3:53 AM GMT
    cbdtw79 saidI do not support the military being a domestic police force.

    However, you admit that the federal government lacks general police power under the Constitution. So...how then can the federal government put a person in jail for not having health insurance?

    Ummm... then how does the Federal government prosecute people for avoiding their Federal income taxes? How did the Federal government prosecute Bernie Madoff for violating Federal SEC regulations? And the police arm of the Federal government is the US Marshal Service. You really are remarkably deficient in your knowledge of the operations of the US government. Maybe if you taught the subject, along with history as I did, you might know these things.

    Oh, and were you aware that the FBI, the DEA, the Immigration Service, and other Federal agencies also have policing authorities, under certain circumstances? It's just the US military that Posse Comitatus restricts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:55 AM GMT
    cbdtw79 saidI am aware that the Republicans were very much the minority party. That doesn't change the fact that a majority of THOSE Republicans supported Social Security, and it was wrong of them to do so.

    You can spew the tired, liberal rhetoric about Bush at me all you want. I really don't care. Bush made a lot of mistakes and I called him out on them just like I have Obama.

    However, if you want to be blindly partisan it was Lyndon Johnson (you were alive then, wasn't he a Democrat?) and the Democrat controlled Congress that first moved Social Security into a General fund so Congress could spend it.


    Hey. At least your consistent in your beliefs. And, I'm willing to take your word (since you didn't do it on here) that you blasted Bush as you're doing Obama.

    That said, What you refer to as "tired, liberal rhetoric about Bush" is more commonly referred to as history. A history that, perhaps not you, but many Republicans would greatly prefer the American people forget as soon as possible.

    The reality is that the bill has passed, It won't be repealed, because no politician is going to vote to reopen the donut hole, or to remove health care from children, or to reinstate "preexisting conditions" etc. All that you're seeing now is fire and music signifying nothing.

    And, please stop with the BS that Social Security is insolvent or is going bankrupt, blah, blah, blah. The federal government and it's program cannot become insolvent or bankrupt since we create our own money. Certainly, inflation could happen, but that's the extent of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2010 3:56 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    cbdtw79 said...That doesn't change the fact that a majority of THOSE Republicans supported Social Security, and it was wrong of them to do so.

    WHOA!!! Let's pause here. Did I read that correctly? Supporting Social Security was wrong? Is that the mindset we are dealing with here? If that's the case, I think this is game, set, match. Do we not all agree? Any others here who think Social Security is "wrong"?


    You heard me correctly. Social Security was a horrible idea from conception and has only proven to be unsustainable. It's a Madoff-like scheme.

    Other that politicians spending people's hard-earned Social Security money the retirement of the Baby Boomers is showing what a pyramid scheme it really is.