Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 TheWildHost wrote:
Same gak, different donkey-cave

You got it, bro. Obama is nothing more than Nixon, reincarnated.

Nixon had a far sexier voice, and could wield nunchaku like a pro.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Nixon had a far sexier voice, and could wield nunchaku like a pro.

This is my night for this guy:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's comical... but are you actually suggesting that Obama shouldn't be held to account for this? Should we sweep this under the rug and chalk this up as, "pshah... dat what's politician do to us... dey liars, all of 'em".

Sure, Obama should absolutely be held to account for this. But we should also hold to account everyone who spent the last four years spreading lies about ACA, all of whom now seem to be offended on behalf of the American people because this time it's a Democrat who lied.

 TheWildHost wrote:
Same gak, different donkey-cave

If that were true then policies would be passed a lot faster as most politicians would always been in agreement.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's comical... but are you actually suggesting that Obama shouldn't be held to account for this? Should we sweep this under the rug and chalk this up as, "pshah... dat what's politician do to us... dey liars, all of 'em".

Sure, Obama should absolutely be held to account for this. But we should also hold to account everyone who spent the last four years spreading lies about ACA, all of whom now seem to be offended on behalf of the American people because this time it's a Democrat who lied.

Which lies are you talking about here? There have been so many it's hard to keep track.

 cincydooley wrote:
Which lies are you talking about here? There have been so many it's hard to keep track.

It would be all the lies wouldn't it? Socialist takeover, unconstitutionally passed, death panels, 3 trillion tax hike, 6 trillion deficit impact, all lies told by multiple Republicans, and none of which prompted any kind of faux moralistic outrage from the right wing.

And now we have Obama caught in a lie, and sure, it is good and important for him to be taken to task on that lie, but every right wing footsoldier who has suddenly decided that truth matters, well feth each and everyone of those hypocrits.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Which lies are you talking about here? There have been so many it's hard to keep track.

It would be all the lies wouldn't it? Socialist takeover, unconstitutionally passed, death panels, 3 trillion tax hike, 6 trillion deficit impact, all lies told by multiple Republicans, and none of which prompted any kind of faux moralistic outrage from the right wing.

And now we have Obama caught in a lie, and sure, it is good and important for him to be taken to task on that lie, but every right wing footsoldier who has suddenly decided that truth matters, well feth each and everyone of those hypocrits.

Sounds like neither side is better than the other.

I imagine you'll be by to tell us why the vast volume of Democratic lies is not nearly as bad as the vast volume of Republican lies, though.

I think both Dems and Repub's are to blame. Both lie and both do what they can to spy on citizens and take away rights to give power to the government. Its a neo-royalism and they have us at each others throats over ACA and gay marriage. Its not exactly bread and circuses, but its pretty close.

 Seaward wrote:
I imagine you'll be by to tell us why the vast volume of Democratic lies is not nearly as bad as the vast volume of Republican lies, though.

No, the Republicans are worse because many of their platform positions are insane, not because they lie any more less than the Democrats. But that's really beside the point.

The point is there are a lot of people, on both sides, who excuse or just straight up ignore the lies told by the other side, who all of a sudden get very high and mighty when the other side lies. Those people are hypocrits.

 sebster wrote:
The point is there are a lot of people, on both sides, who excuse or just straight up ignore the lies told by the other side, who all of a sudden get very high and mighty when the other side lies. Those people are hypocrits.

Do you feel yourself to be a hypocrite for only ever calling out supposed right-wing hypocrites?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Nixon had a far sexier voice, and could wield nunchaku like a pro.

He was no match for Black Dynamite.

Christie/Booker 2016!

 Seaward wrote:
Do you feel yourself to be a hypocrite for only ever calling out supposed right-wing hypocrites?

No, because I don't believe I limit myself purely to right wing lies. I mean, here I am, saying Obama told a lie.

What about yourself, think your position on Obama's lie over keeping healthcare plans is in keeping with your position on death panels, 3 trillion tax hike, socialisation of healthcare, and all the other lies told by the right wing?

Relapse wrote:
You got it, bro. Obama is nothing more than Nixon, reincarnated.

Obama wishes.Nixon was one of the greatest presidents of the modern era, certainly the most successful in advancing a progressive agenda.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You got it, bro. Obama is nothing more than Nixon, reincarnated.

Obama wishes.Nixon was one of the greatest presidents of the modern era, certainly the most successful in advancing a progressive agenda.

Yeah... Nixon wasn't called "Tricky Dicky" for nuth'in.

Left wingers in the democrats may well complain about Obama and likely did about his predecessors, but it seems to me that they remain a fringe rather than the steering force of the party, hence why the democrats get a more palatable candidate rather than someone out on the fringe. That, again, was my point, the furthest right is currently experiencing power in the GOP whilst the Democrats are seemingly fairly unified. I hear a lot of talk about parties within a party and civil war within the GOP, I hear nothing like that about the democrats.

Not for the moment. You missed the 00s though when the Democrats brought such stalwarts as Howard "the Scream" Dean, "Reporting for Surgery" Kerry; and the guy hiding his baby's mamma while on the campaign trail. For every Romney there is Michael Dukakis wearing a dorky tanker's helmet while trying to be tough.

Inversely, for every Bush I there is a Clinton, every Reagan there is a Truman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's comical... but are you actually suggesting that Obama shouldn't be held to account for this? Should we sweep this under the rug and chalk this up as, "pshah... dat what's politician do to us... dey liars, all of 'em".

Sure, Obama should absolutely be held to account for this. But we should also hold to account everyone who spent the last four years spreading lies about ACA, all of whom now seem to be offended on behalf of the American people because this time it's a Democrat who lied.

Not seeing any of the actual "lies" that have been not proven out to be the truth though.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not for the moment. You missed the 00s though when the Democrats brought such stalwarts as Howard "the Scream" Dean, "Reporting for Surgery" Kerry; and the guy hiding his baby's mamma while on the campaign trail. For every Romney there is Michael Dukakis wearing a dorky tanker's helmet while trying to be tough.

It's one of the many reasons I'm hoping Elizabeth "Kinda Native" Warren mounts a campaign.

Of course, given the Democrats' fondness for electing single-term senators with no other real work experience, she might actually win, which is terrifying.

Socialist takeover, unconstitutionally passed, death panels, 3 trillion tax hike, 6 trillion deficit impact, all lies told by multiple Republicans, and none of which prompted any kind of faux moralistic outrage from the right wing.

Socialist takeover: The Fed took over over 16% of the GDP of the USA.
Unconstitutionally passed: Its not a tax (when selling it) but it is a tax when trying to defend it in front of SCOTUS.
Death panels: Rationing panels exist.
3 trillion tax hike. Please show a reference for that. They did cut Medicare by $500bn to pay for it. Projections are that Medicare will be insolvent quite soon now.


You're going to have to do better than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You got it, bro. Obama is nothing more than Nixon, reincarnated.

Obama wishes.Nixon was one of the greatest presidents of the modern era, certainly the most successful in advancing a progressive agenda.

This is true. Plus he had a cool American mutt, not some elitist canine. Thanks Obama!

 Frazzled wrote:

Left wingers in the democrats may well complain about Obama and likely did about his predecessors, but it seems to me that they remain a fringe rather than the steering force of the party, hence why the democrats get a more palatable candidate rather than someone out on the fringe. That, again, was my point, the furthest right is currently experiencing power in the GOP whilst the Democrats are seemingly fairly unified. I hear a lot of talk about parties within a party and civil war within the GOP, I hear nothing like that about the democrats.

Not for the moment. You missed the 00s though when the Democrats brought such stalwarts as Howard "the Scream" Dean, "Reporting for Surgery" Kerry; and the guy hiding his baby's mamma while on the campaign trail. For every Romney there is Michael Dukakis wearing a dorky tanker's helmet while trying to be tough.

Inversely, for every Bush I there is a Clinton, every Reagan there is a Truman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Of course it's comical... but are you actually suggesting that Obama shouldn't be held to account for this? Should we sweep this under the rug and chalk this up as, "pshah... dat what's politician do to us... dey liars, all of 'em".

Sure, Obama should absolutely be held to account for this. But we should also hold to account everyone who spent the last four years spreading lies about ACA, all of whom now seem to be offended on behalf of the American people because this time it's a Democrat who lied.

Not seeing any of the actual "lies" that have been not proven out to be the truth though.

Well... the "rift" is starting to show in the Democrat caucus:

Democratic Unity On Obamacare Is Collapsing

Another non-red state Democrat — this time Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) [whembly: !!!] has signed on to become a co-sponsor on legislation from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that would require insurance companies to continue offering their existing health care plans.
Merkley joins Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) [whembly: !!!]as surprise, bright-blue state Democrats that have become co-sponsors of the bill over the past day. Together, they amount to the most high-profile non-red state Democrats to buck party lines on the Affordable Care Act.

Landrieu announced Merkley's co-sponsorship on Twitter:

BREAKING: @SenJeffMerkley joins growing coalition supporting my targeted bill to keep promise of #ACA & allow people to keep their insurance
— Senator Landrieu (@SenLandrieu) November 13, 2013
Among other things, the "Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act" would "grandfather" in all health insurance plans that existed as of Dec. 31, 2013, not March 23, 2010, and force insurance companies to continue to offer a number of plans that they have been forced to cancel under the Affordable Care Act.

Landrieu's bill goes even further than one proposed in the House by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), which would allow insurers to grandfather in plans that existed as of Jan. 1, 2013. The Landrieu bill would force insurance companies to grandfather in those plans.

Customers in the individual insurance market are finding they cannot keep their current policies if they have changed since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 and don't meet certain minimum requirements of the law. Insurers are even canceling some plans that they are legally entitled to continue offering because the law changes the economics of doing so.

The other co-sponsors of the bill are red-state Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Like those three (but not Feinstein) Merkley is up for re-election next year.

The White House and Senate Democratic leadership have not offered specific comment on Landrieu's bill.

I didn't think I'd see all this so soon.

I'd figure they'd all circle wagons and keep on trucking, thinking that this would go away along the same way as Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi....

 Frazzled wrote:
Not for the moment. You missed the 00s though when the Democrats brought such stalwarts as Howard "the Scream" Dean, "Reporting for Surgery" Kerry; and the guy hiding his baby's mamma while on the campaign trail. For every Romney there is Michael Dukakis wearing a dorky tanker's helmet while trying to be tough.

Inversely, for every Bush I there is a Clinton, every Reagan there is a Truman.

You're missing the big distinction between putting up a gakky candidate, which both political parties do from time to time, and the development in the Republican party of a double whammy of selection criteria - a series of conserviatve purity tests that all viable candidates must hold "you must be this conservative to enter", and a race to the bottom in which every candidate positions themselves to be more conservative than their opponents. Until that changes, the Republicans are going to be stuck repeating either 2008, where a strong candidate moves far right in the primary, then attempts to swing back to the centre while still throwing out bait to keep the far right happy, or 2012, where the field of acceptable primary candidates is limited to the far right crazy sphere, and largely unelectable even in very advantageous economic conditions.

This doesn't make Republicans unelectable, I think they'll still win their fair share of elections moving forward, but it gives them a considerable structural disadvantage that people shouldn't just ignore.

Not seeing any of the actual "lies" that have been not proven out to be the truth though.

Yeah, except that's just nonsense.

Your claim that government is 16% of GDP and therefore it's not a lie is just plain silly. First up, the claim was about healthcare, not the government as a whole. Second up, 16% of GDP isn't socialist... that's just fething nonsense by the basic definition of the word.

The unconstitutional passing refers to how it was passed, the reconciliation. Which was unusual, but a million miles from unconstitutional. And while you can claim something is unconstitutional and not be lying even when a court finds against you... Republicans never took the reconciliation process to court, because they know nothing about it was unconstitutional, because they were lying all along.

The death panel claim refers to claims made by that government would allocate healthcare based on the specific value of individuals - the idea that elderly people or the disabled would be denied healthcare because they were no longer productive, and the idea that elderly people would be mandated to have euthenasia discussions. Those claims was, of course, straight up 100% bs lies. And even if we look at your claim about rationing, it's straight up bs - "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, page 490: The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary costsharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

You believe and repeat lies, and you just don't give a gak that they're lies, because you love crusading for your side. Then Obama tells a lie, and you act like it's the great moral outrage of the 21st century.

You're going to have to do better than that.

I've done just fine. Those were all brazen lies, and your half baked efforts to pretend the lies were about other things changes none of that.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not for the moment. You missed the 00s though when the Democrats brought such stalwarts as Howard "the Scream" Dean, "Reporting for Surgery" Kerry; and the guy hiding his baby's mamma while on the campaign trail. For every Romney there is Michael Dukakis wearing a dorky tanker's helmet while trying to be tough.

Inversely, for every Bush I there is a Clinton, every Reagan there is a Truman.

You're missing the big distinction between putting up a gakky candidate, which both political parties do from time to time, and the development in the Republican party of a double whammy of selection criteria - a series of conserviatve purity tests that all viable candidates must hold "you must be this conservative to enter", and a race to the bottom in which every candidate positions themselves to be more conservative than their opponents. Until that changes, the Republicans are going to be stuck repeating either 2008, where a strong candidate moves far right in the primary, then attempts to swing back to the centre while still throwing out bait to keep the far right happy, or 2012, where the field of acceptable primary candidates is limited to the far right crazy sphere, and largely unelectable even in very advantageous economic conditions.

This doesn't make Republicans unelectable, I think they'll still win their fair share of elections moving forward, but it gives them a considerable structural disadvantage that people shouldn't just ignore.


[

Yup. We saw that a ton in the last election, most particularly in regards to abortion. Romney made it pretty clear that he personally opposed it, while at the same time stating that he'd never legislate against it. All super conservatives heard was "he'd never legislate against it" and all liberals heard was "I'm personally against it." It makes it very, very hard to be a moderate conservative.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yup. We saw that a ton in the last election, most particularly in regards to abortion. Romney made it pretty clear that he personally opposed it, while at the same time stating that he'd never legislate against it. All super conservatives heard was "he'd never legislate against it" and all liberals heard was "I'm personally against it." It makes it very, very hard to be a moderate conservative.

Well, the other side to is that Romney took both sides of every damn issue. It's one thing to say "he'd never legislate against it" but he also said, repeatedly, that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and that he would appoint supreme court justices that felt the same way so.... lets be honest, huh?

I agree moderation in the modern political enviroment is difficult, and more so for conservatives, but Romney is so deeply flawed he's only a good example of the perils of vacillating too much. By the election it was very hard to have any idea what Mr. Romney actually believed.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yup. We saw that a ton in the last election, most particularly in regards to abortion. Romney made it pretty clear that he personally opposed it, while at the same time stating that he'd never legislate against it. All super conservatives heard was "he'd never legislate against it" and all liberals heard was "I'm personally against it." It makes it very, very hard to be a moderate conservative.

I think Romney framed that issue fairly well. Conservatives who are committed to the issue know full well that legislation does nothing, what matters is Roe v Wade and that means getting sympathetic Supreme Court Justices nominated, so Romney said everything he had to tell them what they wanted to hear about the issue. And at the same he said everything he could to stop it being an issue that would be debated in public.

The problem he faced was the far right candidates running in other elections, that dragged the issue back in to national media attention, the anti-pregnancy rape defences and all that nonsense. From there Romney is basically on a hiding to nothing, he hasn't made a strong stance to win votes on, but he's associated with a party that's put up arguments so stupid that he's going to see people vote against him. The problem, on that issue, was the crazies that the Republicans put up in other elections.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Yup. We saw that a ton in the last election, most particularly in regards to abortion. Romney made it pretty clear that he personally opposed it, while at the same time stating that he'd never legislate against it. All super conservatives heard was "he'd never legislate against it" and all liberals heard was "I'm personally against it." It makes it very, very hard to be a moderate conservative.

I think Romney framed that issue fairly well. Conservatives who are committed to the issue know full well that legislation does nothing, what matters is Roe v Wade and that means getting sympathetic Supreme Court Justices nominated, so Romney said everything he had to tell them what they wanted to hear about the issue. And at the same he said everything he could to stop it being an issue that would be debated in public.

The problem he faced was the far right candidates running in other elections, that dragged the issue back in to national media attention, the anti-pregnancy rape defences and all that nonsense. From there Romney is basically on a hiding to nothing, he hasn't made a strong stance to win votes on, but he's associated with a party that's put up arguments so stupid that he's going to see people vote against him. The problem, on that issue, was the crazies that the Republicans put up in other elections.

Didn't we also have some Republicans making some pretty foolish statements on abortion around the same time too? They really can be their own worst enemies