Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 1, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 200

The Party of Bipolar Disorder - Observations of the Republican Party

:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
On numerous topics, I can't help but notice that Republicans have this habit of shifting positions based on how much the Democrats agree with it. Take for example, healthcare reform.

The majority of the American people love Obamacare. They just don't know it.

Parts of Obamacare people like (based on Reuters):
80% favor the creation of insurance pools and banning the lifetime healthcare cost cap.
70 percent supported regulating private insurance companies to make sure they offer comparable coverage.
82% supported a ban on denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.
86% agreed companies should not be allowed to cancel policies when the owners become ill.


The other provisions of the bill, such as the allowance of children to stay covered on parents plan, the extended life of Medicare, and the expansion of Medicaid to people with under 36,000 dollars, have all received overwhelming support amongst the general populous of the United States.

So what does this tell us?

It gets broken down to one part, the part most people disagree with. The mandate. Here's a slight history on the mandate. The first idea for a healthcare mandate came from Republican President Richard Nixon. It was further supported by G.H. Bush. It was implemented as law in MA by Mitt Romney. The bill's original provisions were thought up by the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think-tank. So what does this tell us? The part of the bill most people despise is the Republican part of it. Even Republicans despise it. Those of us educated people kind of go "wtf" about it. Those of you morons out there don't notice the provisions and arbitrarily hate the bill because of the "Obama" part in it. And thus, based on polls of the bill's provisions, we can conclude that the American people ultimately LOVE the bill, except for the Republican part of it. This tells me that Republicans are incredibly good at propaganda.

They can continually push through ideologies which are plain bad, yet get sold so well to the American people. Iraq is a threat to our nation? From a continent and an ocean away? There's a persecution of Christians in this country? Despite the fact that most of the country is controlled by people of a Christian religion? It's just retarded. Everything said is detached from reality or plain bad, yet the common people bite into it. Bravo Pubs. Your skills at propaganda are unmatched. If the Obama administration had your talents, the number of people supporting Obamacare would practically be doubled, especially considering the number of people who support each individual provision of the bill still hate the bill.



And immigration reform? The DREAM Act was originally thought up by Congressman Orrinn Hatch, a Republican. When the idea to add military service as a means of obtaining residency status was proposed, it had bipartisan support. Today, it doesn't. As we know, when the Democrats begun to favor it, and brought it up for passage, it failed in the Senate, and has continually failed, despite Republican-favored provisions being added to the bill. The spite is so great that Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to veto the DREAM Act should he become President.


Same thing applies to climate change. Republicans used to believe that climate change was a very real threat, one which Bush 41 sought to remedy by use of cap and trade on carbon emissions. Now that the Democrats have sided with the remedy of cap-and-trade for climate change, Republicans plain deny climate change exists. One could speculate that this has a lot to do with the fact that oil companies basically have the Republican party on their payroll.


And while we're on the subject of environmental concerns, the EPA was supported and created by Republican President Richard Nixon. Now it's called a job killer, and a waste. Some Republicans have even called to abolish the EPA altogether.




So the question is, what the fuck happened to you guys? Just take your medication and stop pretending Dems have germs every time they support the same thing you support. Discuss.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
"On numerous topics, I can't help but notice that Republicans have this habit of shifting positions based on how much the Democrats agree with it. Take for example, healthcare reform. "

Yeah, that's the way it goes. Democrats are the more 'central' party, right now, whereas Republicans are the 'opposition'.

"The majority of the American people love Obamacare. They just don't know it."

Well, why don't you get a survey about the things they don't like about Obamacare too. It does no good to just list supporting things.

"And while we're on the subject of environmental concerns, the EPA was supported and created by Republican President Richard Nixon. Now it's called a job killer, and a waste. Some Republicans have even called to abolish the EPA altogether."

Yeah, the EPA was created... wasn't it when Theodore Roosevelt was president (might need to double check that)? However, you need to remember, Theodore Roosevelt was pro-unions, which tends to conflict with the Republican party today. Just as at that time, the Democratic Party was pro-seperate-but-equal. Which tends to conflict with the Democratic party of today. Parties shift over time, and so they aren't always going to support things they used to support. It's also important to know people will be more moderate on issues they disagree with in their home part so that way they can assert stronger support with issues they agree with. So parties have a 'centralizing' effect, of sorts.

"So the question is, what the fuck happened to you guys? Just take your medication and stop pretending Dems have germs every time they support the same thing you support. Discuss."

Well, that's the way the Democratic Party was at one time. There usually is a 'center' party, and an 'opposition' party. It's just happened to switch over the last few decades.

Also, statements like 'take your medication and stop pretending Dems have germs' don't help you convey your position; they just make you look kinda... well... a bit like a jerk. So don't do those, and you'll have better input from Republicans, okay? =).

Best of Wishes,
-TAO
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Also, statements like 'take your medication and stop pretending Dems have germs' don't help you convey your position; they just make you look kinda... well... a bit like a jerk.
I'm a bit of a jerk anyways. What's the fun part of politics without the controversy?
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
"I'm a bit of a jerk anyways."

But you know how to not act like a jerk. So don't do it... People will like you more =D, and that most of the time a good thing!

"What's the fun part of politics without the controversy?"

You can have controversy, just don't be a jerk while doing it =). They aren't mutually inclusive =D.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Republicans are floppy, that's all there is too it! :dummy:
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
Republicans are politicians just like democrats, so it shouldn't be any surprise they flip-flop on things. However, this doesn't automatically make what they flip-flop on right.
Reply
:iconmaddalinamocanu:
MaddalinaMocanu Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Say wut? :confused:
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Climate change is a load of crap. When are you people going to get it through your heads that you're being cheated? What are the higher powers doing about climate change? Obama talked about how he's driven in more oil than the Bush term. Obama goes around in a helicopter that releases more CO2 than any one average American's car. Al Gore lives in a house with higher AC than anyone in his state. Global Warming? Climate Change? Open your eyes!
Reply
:iconviberunner:
viberunner Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
LOL... next you'll be telling me the Devil placed the fossils to test our faith and then wibble on about the "Hollohoax".
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Digital Artist
No, that would be ridiculous.
Reply
:iconviberunner:
viberunner Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
Yes. As ridiculous as a lone internet voice angrily denouncing any other scientific consensus...
Reply
:iconscnal:
Scnal Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
how old are you?
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Fill a cup with water. Put it in the freezer. When its ice, have it melt. It won't overflow.
Reply
:iconviberunner:
viberunner Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
You're missing the point about the Arctic and Antarctic. The Arctic is just, as you say, a big ice cube. The displacement of it melting will be negligible.

HOWEVER, the Antarctic isn't an ice cube. Like, say, Greenland, it's ice on rock</>, so if and when it melts the ice goes into the sea and adds to that volume.

Where did you get your education? Oxford? Cambridge? An evangelical Texan community college?
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
no, put a cup with some ice in it on the counter, then watch it melt. it will overflow
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Digital Artist
By putting ice in it, you're adding more than what you started. The ocean isn't being added water. The ice caps are just water from the ocean that froze over time.
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
no, that's not how it works

say you have a bowl of water, but 1/4 of the water is frozen. as long as some of the water is frozen, the water level does not reach the top of the bowl. if that frozen water melts, the water content increases and the ice content decreases. the water level will reach the top of the bowl and the ice will shrink

now imagine if this bowl was the oceans and outside the bowl was dry land. the ice is collected at the north and south poles. the ice is also stacked up on itself so that it takes up less space than liquid water would. if that ice melts, then the water will run off into the oceans, causing them to become more filled with water and overflow onto the dry land. the coasts of the dry land will become flooded because the oceans will have gained more water from the frozen ice that was originally packed together at the poles
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Digital Artist
But the water in the ice caps wasn't ALWAYS frozen. What you're saying is to add more than what was there. The dinosaurs had no ice caps, but there was still land, wasn't there. Obviously cause dinosaurs were land animals.
Reply
:iconscnal:
Scnal Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's absolutely terrible logic. You're making two assumptions (that there were no ice caps during when the dinosaurs were around, and as well that there was an equal amount of exposed land during those times) and using that as an answer to a grade 5 level math question, with that answer being literally impossible.
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
the land was there, but there was a lot less of it. only the areas around the coasts would get the most flooding. in today's society that would be a disaster because now that the ice has collected at the poles, there is more land to settle. we have cities containing millions of people in the flood zones, land that was underwater when the dinosaurs were still around
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
Hilarious. It's a load of crap yet you can't provide any evidence that it isn't happening?
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
What's a load of crap? Climate Change? Global Warming?
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
So you have no evidence?
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Yes, it's cold outside. Warming means, warm. It isn't warm. Where's your evidence?
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
So you have no evidence?
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I gave you mine, I'm asking for you.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
"Climate change is a load of crap. When are you people going to get it through your heads that you're being cheated? What are the higher powers doing about climate change? Obama talked about how he's driven in more oil than the Bush term. Obama goes around in a helicopter that releases more CO2 than any one average American's car. Al Gore lives in a house with higher AC than anyone in his state. Global Warming? Climate Change? Open your eyes!"

"What's a load of crap? Climate Change? Global Warming?"

"Yes, it's cold outside. Warming means, warm. It isn't warm. Where's your evidence?"

So you have no evidence?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
You believe evolution is lies and slander spread by Charles Darwin at the bidding of Lucifer, don't you?
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
That has absolutely nothing to do with climate change...oh I mean global warming...oh wait I mean climate change.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
I just have this habit of listening to what experts in that field have to say about the subject. Take for example, I don't break my arm and then predict that broken arms don't exist and I must have cancer.
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Those "experts" are partisan, clearly. And what you're saying does not have anything to do with what I was saying.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
What makes the experts partisan and you not? These people actually study it directly, you merely get fed second hand data and then make a conclusion without any study yourself.
Reply
:iconraidpirate52:
raidpirate52 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Yeah, I study by going outside my house and seeing it be cold outside. Global Warming? Well 40 degrees isn't warm to me. Also, with this hurricane the liberals are screaming "PROOF". It was a category 1 hurricane, proof of what? Category 1 hurricanes happen all the time, Sandy was pretty weak for a category 1 and in many phases, was just a tropical storm. There was flooding because that's what happen to the coastlines during a storm like this and the moon was full when the storm hit New York so that didn't help. Nothing to do with climate change or global warming.
Reply
:iconragerancher:
Ragerancher Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
Are you honestly stupid enough to claim that the fact your local weather and climate is cold proves climate change isn't happening?

In other words, YOU are partisan. You already had a conclusion in your head and now you are simply looking for evidence to confirm your already held views. You are one of the last people to accuse others of being partisan.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Yeah, I study by going outside my house and seeing it be cold outside.
Oh. My. God. *faints*

I can't believe I've encountered somebody so stupid...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
Well, if you are goings have an honest discussion on the stance of a party stretching across decades, you need to honestly evaluate the particulars of the policy and the makeup of the party at the time.

The individual mandate as you are quoting as having conservative support a few decades ago, and was proposed as a conceptual idea by the Heritage Foundation is not the same idea for the mandate tax as it exists in Obamacare. The mandate btw that Obama was against when running against Hillary in 2008.

And the party makeup is not the same either. As Libertarians started abandoning the ever left-pushing Democrats, they were folded into the republicans, making them more aware of personal liberty as opposed to strictly personally responsible. Libertarians are against mandates in general.

Now if you want to link the plan for healthcare that the Heritage Foundation suggested to Obamacare, good luck. You would be much more creative than I. But you can't look at people that supported a lemonade stand for cancer research and call them hypocrites because they don't support taking money from neighbors to build a lemonade stand for marijuana activism.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
The mandate btw that Obama was against when running against Hillary in 2008.
I'd have preferred a single payer system personally. The point remains though, the mandate is Republican, and had been supported by Republicans up until President Obama's healthcare law.

Libertarians are against mandates in general.
Most people are against the mandate. That's not the point. I was pointing out how it was a Republican idea, with Republican support up until it became part of a Democratic healthcare law. The idea of ridding the system of free riders is purely Republican, whereas a liberal idea would have been a public option.

But you can't look at people that supported a lemonade stand for cancer research and call them hypocrites because they don't support taking money from neighbors to build a lemonade stand for marijuana activism.
I don't see how this analogy works. The ACA basically makes people use their own money to build their own lemonade stand. Unless one is poor, elderly, or disabled, they are not supported by tax payer dollars. Thus, you could couldn't say "taking money from neighbors" since it doesn't do that at all.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
It works because the lemonade stands are not comparable. If you understand this, then we could have an honest discussion on differences in health care approaches.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Tell me why the ACA is unfavorable, and contrast the differences between other healthcare systems (such as Single Payer, which I and many favor).
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
Write for you a dissertation that you won't read nor comprehend? No thanks kid.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Great contribution. Remind me why I don't have you blocked again?
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
Why would you? You are the one that didn't address anything in my thoughtful response.

Of course, join your liberal peers and block away if that suits you.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2012
*applauds*
Reply
:icontehbigd:
tehbigd Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012
If we are to go through the private sector in order to get health insurance, then there must be a mandate. The mandate not only helps hospitals control costs, because the primary reason given for the sky-high costs we pay is that the uninsured are a huge burden on the hospital system that needs to be paid for; but it also throws the insurance companies a bone in the form of new, high-profit-margin customers (in return for some strict regulation).
This is also exactly why repealing Obamacare and privatizing medicare, the new Republican plan, is so goddamn crazy.

See, medicare is primarily for the elderly and disabled. These would be the biggest drains on the medical insurance companies, if they covered them. So, in order to drive down healthcare costs for everyone (that was the idea, y'know), you toss the most expensive liabilities to the insurance agencies who now have to cover the costs? How would that lower costs? So, err, how is this a good idea? The insurance companies have to pay for these people, so they're going to raise premiums. All it can, conceivably, do is raise the rates people pay on their insurance. I mean, Obamacare is not perfect, but at least it doesn't add two and two together and get potato.
Reply
:icondebit:
Debit Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yes, a mandate must be in place. Even Switzerland, among the most 'free-market' of the European countries who relies on private insurance providers, has exactly that. Universal coverage is next to impossible unless, among other things, people are not turned down due to preexisting medical conditions. Another interesting pattern is that basic coverage is not considered as for-profit operation; for-profit operation comes into play for wealthy people seeking coverages in excess of those included in the basic coverage.

One of the things that I have been fed up with has been the lack of media coverage in surveying heasthcare coverages of other wealthy countries. It is as if America has intentionally decided to become a moron.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Me personally, I don't favor the mandate. I'd much rather have a single payer system. I believe healthcare is a human right, and the idea of "I'll heal you if you pay" is plain disgusting and greedy. Despite that, I'm not going to be oblivious to the benefits of a mandate, or the realities of the healthcare system. I was addressing the party of bipolar disorder (the same party who hates free riders) being upset when people are actually forced to pay for the services they receive.


The insurance companies have to pay for these people, so they're going to raise premiums.
This is actually why I favor the idea of caps. Besides, unless one actually uses his insurance, the insurance company has to issue him a check refunding a bulk of his spending. That keeps insurance companies on a leash, which is good because prior to the ACA, they basically price gouged.
Reply
:icongalacticgoat:
GalacticGoat Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
also in before republican textwalls that doesn't prove their position is actually one that isn't childish most likely filled with childish comparisons and insults against democrats which means nothing to me since I'm not a democrat. I'm not even American.
Reply
:icongalacticgoat:
GalacticGoat Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I think its less they're not medicated then they're trying too hard to stick it to the democrats since they're stuck in an endless "us vs. them" mindset. They aren't crazy, they're childish as fuck, that's their problem.

Also I should note bipolar disorder is an emotional instability not being disagreeable. People with bipolar disorder are well capable of being logical with their political decisions unlike these manchildren. I know what you were going for but still just pointing that out nicely before someone rips into you for the comparison.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
Cheers mate.
Reply
:icongalacticgoat:
GalacticGoat Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
:3.
Reply
Add a Comment: