"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? .
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?
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!
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
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.
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.
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
"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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerNov 1, 2012Hobbyist 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.
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerNov 1, 2012Hobbyist 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.