Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, profound impact might turn out to be the case, but the question of whether for better or worse would remain. Technology (if it is the gremlin) has not seemingly spurred very much interest at all in "exactly what laws our legislators are passing". Instead, it has spurred rabid interest in opposing the provisions of entirely imaginary laws that no lawmaker has proposed or would ever vote for. Dealing with the problems that we confront as a society will be difficult enough. Prospects only darken if we are expected to deal with random hordes of hyper-ventilating delusional people at the same time.
You know what they say about opinions. And you are displaying all the aspects of one.
Resort to straw men much? You whine over there being target dates, and when it's pointed out that target dates are a normal, if not ubiquitous, part of project planning at every level of society, you wander off into whiney dictatorship talk. If you can't do better than that, maybe it's time to adopt the old railroad-crossing strategy -- stop, look, and listen.
Funny how you see straw men only when they differ from your dictates.
BTW, these so called target dates have been declared deadlines by your idiotic leaders. It is not normal to rush through legislation of the proportions being discussed here.
Maybe you should make an attempt to look outside what your masters are telling you to see what is really happening. No? Didn't receive permission?
california's problems stem from inept running of the state, at all levels. they made bad decisions and ran their pension funds poorly, which are probably going to lose even more money. you can't blame the voters for this, since they had limited say in what the california legislature did.
Another example of the problems in Californias' mentality towards politics: they keep electing Pelosi and Boxer. Is that the best representation that they can come up with?
Calling the opposition thugs, wingnuts, bigots and racist is reasonable discussion? Answering only selected (planted) questions is reasonable?
Has it occurred to you that is because it is true? The majority party now is openly discussing bulling through this bill without compromise because they can. They have no intention of seeking input. This is compromise?
No, not a fair observation. Re-read my posts. I have agreed that reform needs to occur, that there should be an open discussion and that it should be bi-partisan. If you feel that is not compromise, what would you consider it? Is it only compromise if there is total capitulation to the liberal side?
To my knowledge, I've never called anyone a wingnut or even a thug. And many of the posters here also avoid such perjorative terms. When you pick the worst examples of rhetoric from any school of thought, and then try to portray that worst as the normal or average, then either you are showing bias, or you are trying to create an agenda. I will say that I do see many racist comments on this forum. I certainly don't think that the average conservative is racist, though I have contended that all of us have prejudices and biases. I don't think that because you are conservative that you are racist, or involved in some of the threads that are blatantly spreading misinformation or propaganda. But it seems that you think that just because someone is a liberal, that they have simply have to have a set of assumptions about conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Having watched numerous town meetings on C-SPAN, I can't help but wonder if people's perspectives can cause them to see things this differently. All the people voicing antagonisms about healthcare and other issues I hear speaking out. I hear and see Congressmen listening and responding. Sometimes when someone calls you a coward or some other name, there is no response. I've said in other posts, this is not a final bill, this is a rough draft. Which means there are still some things unresolved. You cannot answer a question about a matter that is unresolved until that matter gets resolved. But I do think the town meetings were all about seeking input. You don't see that, obviously, but can you accept that maybe it was possible that that was the original intent. Having town meetings isn't a logical part of ramming a piece of legislation through Congress. When Bush was pushing TARP, there weren't any town meetings then. Just the fact that town meetings were ever scheduled, town meetings which by their very public nature are open to conflict and argument, suggests that at least on some level some public input was being asked for.
Clearly, you see things in one particular way, and I see things in another. But I'm willing to listen to your arguments and consider them enough to the point of challenging them when I think the argument is weak. And I try to challenge the argument on its merits, rather than on your political position. But when I've read your posts, and I do think you have a reasonable voice, I also think that sometimes you challenge people not on the merit of the argument, but on the basis of their political identity. Like the first line in the post I'm responding to. You attach my political positions to an identity that would call conservatives names, but I don't do that. My political identity is more complex than just my political stands. And I think that that's true for everyone. What people think about abortion or illegal immigration or healthcare or taxes are just entry points. Everyone of us is far more complex, and certainly it's of value to get beyond those entry points in getting to know a person and what they stand for.
To my knowledge, I've never called anyone a wingnut or even a thug.
I apologize if it was stated so that you read it to mean that. I have gone back and edited the post.
Quote:
But it seems that you think that just because someone is a liberal, that they have simply have to have a set of assumptions about conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Judging by the majority of comments made here (not all but a majority) the liberals have made a set of assumptions and most will not engage in true discussion to confirm or deny these assumptions. Read some of the comments made. I have seen you disagree with some, but there are many more to contend with.
Quote:
I've said in other posts, this is not a final bill, this is a rough draft. Which means there are still some things unresolved. You cannot answer a question about a matter that is unresolved until that matter gets resolved.
This is true, but conversely how can you push for something that is unresolved and call it the solution?
Quote:
But I do think the town meetings were all about seeking input. You don't see that, obviously, but can you accept that maybe it was possible that that was the original intent.
The original intent, as stated by the administration, was to educate the people on why Obamas' version of change was the only method to consider. If there had not been a huge backlash in July, the August townhall meetings would never have taken place.
Instead of the "input" (approval) that they sought, they found questions for which they either had no answers or were unprepared to answer.
I apologize if it was stated so that you read it to mean that. I have gone back and edited the post.
Judging by the majority of comments made here (not all but a majority) the liberals have made a set of assumptions and most will not engage in true discussion to confirm or deny these assumptions. Read some of the comments made. I have seen you disagree with some, but there are many more to contend with.
This is true, but conversely how can you push for something that is unresolved and call it the solution?
The original intent, as stated by the administration, was to educate the people on why Obamas' version of change was the only method to consider. If there had not been a huge backlash in July, the August townhall meetings would never have taken place.
Instead of the "input" (approval) that they sought, they found questions for which they either had no answers or were unprepared to answer.
I agree that in large part the original intent was to educate people on the pending legislation. I don't think it was to sell it as the only method to consider. But I do think it was to sell it. And that backlash in July actually threatened the August townhall meetings from being held, since that backlash contained a lot of threats to legislators and threats of violence. Security has been a standing issue for the townhall meetings, a state of affairs I think is very sad.
And in terms of the input, it usually turns out that the people have a lot of questions for which a bill's supporters have no answers or are unprepared to answer. This is one of the things that usually comes out of town hall meetings, whether those town hall meetings are on local issues or on national ones. The people in Congress and the administration are well aware of this fact, they knew that there would be dissension. But that dissension is actually constructive. It is about input. Because when you're dealing with a rough draft, this input will be used in crafting a final bill. People want the illegal immigration issue to be addressed in terms of healthcare. The Representatives didn't know how important that issue was when they excluded such a provision. Now it's quite possible, even likely, that such a provision will be included. People want abortion to be addressed. People want more emphasis on tort reform. People are generally supportive of the revision of patent limits on pharmaceuticals. When you are dealing with a rough draft, it's not an all or nothing. It's a work in progress, that can be changed as members of Congress see the need. And they are having their awareness raised at these town hall meetings. Which was always the original intent of town hall meetings, even if the government would like to use them to "educate" the people. More often than not, the people end up educating the government.
I agree that in large part the original intent was to educate people on the pending legislation. I don't think it was to sell it as the only method to consider. But I do think it was to sell it. And that backlash in July actually threatened the August townhall meetings from being held, since that backlash contained a lot of threats to legislators and threats of violence. Security has been a standing issue for the townhall meetings, a state of affairs I think is very sad.
And in terms of the input, it usually turns out that the people have a lot of questions for which a bill's supporters have no answers or are unprepared to answer. This is one of the things that usually comes out of town hall meetings, whether those town hall meetings are on local issues or on national ones. The people in Congress and the administration are well aware of this fact, they knew that there would be dissension. But that dissension is actually constructive. It is about input. Because when you're dealing with a rough draft, this input will be used in crafting a final bill. People want the illegal immigration issue to be addressed in terms of healthcare. The Representatives didn't know how important that issue was when they excluded such a provision. Now it's quite possible, even likely, that such a provision will be included. People want abortion to be addressed. People want more emphasis on tort reform. People are generally supportive of the revision of patent limits on pharmaceuticals. When you are dealing with a rough draft, it's not an all or nothing. It's a work in progress, that can be changed as members of Congress see the need. And they are having their awareness raised at these town hall meetings. Which was always the original intent of town hall meetings, even if the government would like to use them to "educate" the people. More often than not, the people end up educating the government.
All of which once again begs the question, why the original rush? It would have avoided input from the people but, as you state, that is not a good thing.
All of which once again begs the question, why the original rush? It would have avoided input from the people but, as you state, that is not a good thing.
It should be pretty obvious. This has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare or insurance, and everything to do with control. Government control of the masses. If they were actually trying to fix something, there would have been numerous public committee and subcommittee hearings even before there were townhall meetings. But that has not been the case. There have been no public hearings of any kind on the subject.
Do not be fooled into believing that this has anything to do with the health of the people. It is all about controlling the masses.
All of which once again begs the question, why the original rush? It would have avoided input from the people but, as you state, that is not a good thing.
First of all, every freshman President know that he has a window of opportunity when he first enters office to get the causes he campaigned on before the legislature. He's riding on momentum that has limits. That's why you always see a flurry of legislation right after a President takes office.
Secondly, it's been explained to you repeatedly, that deadlines are built into projects, and those are GOALS, and not indicative of some unseemly rush. It's prudent and rational to set timelines up in order to maintain a certain level of progress. The deadline you keep harping on was in reference to Congress having some sort of bill, rough or not, put together within a certain time period. That bill then gets passed to the Senate. Which usually takes it apart and puts together a Senate version of the bill. And then the two houses hammer together a compromise bill. President Obama showcased healthcare reform as part of the platform upon which he was elected. It is logical and rational, therefor, that he would want healthcare reform to be addressed by Congress the first year he was in office. If it was important to the people during the campaign, which every poll during that period so stated, then it's important to the President's credibility to act on that issue. The timeline for Congress wasn't to rush this legislation through, the timeline was an acknowledgment of the importance of the issue and the need to get to work on it.
First of all, every freshman President know that he has a window of opportunity when he first enters office to get the causes he campaigned on before the legislature. He's riding on momentum that has limits. That's why you always see a flurry of legislation right after a President takes office.
Secondly, it's been explained to you repeatedly, that deadlines are built into projects, and those are GOALS, and not indicative of some unseemly rush. It's prudent and rational to set timeliness up in order to maintain a certain level of progress. The deadline you keep harping on was in reference to Congress having some sort of bill, rough or not, put together within a certain time period. That bill then gets passed to the Senate. Which usually takes it apart and puts together a Senate version of the bill. And then the two houses hammer together a compromise bill. President Obama showcased healthcare reform as part of the platform upon which he was elected. It is logical and rational, therefor, that he would want healthcare reform to be addressed by Congress the first year he was in office. If it was important to the people during the campaign, which every poll during that period so stated, then it's important to the President's credibility to act on that issue. The timeline for Congress wasn't to rush this legislation through, the timeline was an acknowledgment of the importance of the issue and the need to get to work on it.
I disagree. Yes, there is a honeymoon period for a new president in which to pass legislation. The problem is that something of this size is going to have many problems built into it, regardless of the haste. That, along with a certain skepticism of how well the government (regardless of party) runs any program and the amount of waste that they always seem to have would indicate a slower, more thoughtful process would be more appropriate. At least in my opinion.
As to your second point, I think that primarily it is the president trying to quickly pass something that he campaigned on to bolster his credibility. This may be unfair, but it is how it appears to me.
Just in passing, remember the first timeline was requested by the president and promised by the speaker of the house. With that failure, the senate set its own deadline with the promise to pass a bill by that time.
It would seem to be more than an acknowledgment of the importance of this bill, whatever its final version. It appears to be an attempt to prop up the president.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
