Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Elections have consequences, but only when they advance Holy Progress 45

Journal by smittyoneeach

The Affordable Care Act: The president can stop repeal of Obamacare, but a determined congressional majority can wreak havoc by using the initial budget process, known as reconciliation, which allows major changes to be made with only a majority Senate vote that isn't subject to filibusters.

A GOP Congress is going to have to lead. While we can gripe that it was sold as pure rectal sunshine, Obama's agenda HAS, in fact, been more audacious than any in memory. Attempts at GOP leadership in the Paul/Cruz vein are vilified.
Anybody who thinks that the GOP is going to do anything dramatic 2014-6, or even upon regaining the White House, must be anticipating much more regular gluteal stimulation from the boot of the people to the GOP backside than is likely to be delivered.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elections have consequences, but only when they advance Holy Progress More

Elections have consequences, but only when they advance Holy Progress

Comments Filter:
  • Obama did have a very audacious agenda. He was promising all kinds of social reforms and liberal changes.

    Fortunately for you he hasn't accomplished a single item from that list. He has either
    • Caved in to the conservative agenda completely
      • OR
    • Never had any intention of doing what he promised at all

    You can favor whichever option you want, but you would have a hard time making an argument for any other possibility (though i would be disappointed if you didn't try!).

    • Focus on (a) the actual results of the last five years, and (b) actions taken in light of those results.

      • Focus on (a) the actual results of the last five years

        Is this your April Fool's joke? You have pretty well never paid attention to the actual executive results of the past five years. You have instead consistently chosen to focus on a combination of what you believe him to be wanting to do, and whatever the latest sexiest conspiracy theory is that has been passed down to you.

        I would love to actually have a discussion with you about what the executive has actually signed and done but you want to focus instead on hyperpartisan hyperbole and how you believe

        • Is this your April Fool's joke?

          No

          Actions by whom?

          #OccupyResoluteDesk

          • Actions by whom?

            #EvilSocialistEvilAtheistEvilMuslimEvilFascistEvilAnarchistEvilEvilEvilEmperor

            So then you're saying that you want to focus on http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]">(a) the actual results of the last five years, and (b) actions taken in light of those results.
            What actions, then, do you feel he has taken in response to "actual results of the last five years"? You openly and plainly blame everything wrong in the world today on him, so what actions do you think he has taken?

            • In the case of ObamaCare, #OccupyResoluteDesk has systematically ignored inconvenient portions of his own signature law. Do you think that is inaccurate?
              • What, exactly, is your point with this? I previously stated [slashdot.org]:

                Obama did have a very audacious agenda. He was promising all kinds of social reforms and liberal changes.

                Fortunately for you he hasn't accomplished a single item from that list. He has either

                • Caved in to the conservative agenda completely
                  • OR
                • Never had any intention of doing what he promised at all

                And now for some reason you are talking about what you believe he is doing in regards to the deeply conservative Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. That is a pretty dramatic non sequitur, there.

                If you are trying to make an argument for

                Obama's agenda HAS, in fact, been more audacious than any in memory.

                You are still an incredibly long ways away. Like, further than the mean distance between earth and the horsehead nebula. Unless for some reason you believe he had an agenda to pass deeply conservat

                • You're the one trotting out the non sequitur. It's one thing to have an audacious agenda, and win an election; it's quite another to blow up the idea of the Rule of Law while trying to bolster an agenda with falsehoods.

                  • You're the one trotting out the non sequitur.

                    Umm, what? I just repeated directly a line from this very JE, and then quoted what I wrote in this JE in response to that line. I was trying to get us back to the discussion that you started here. Apparently you want to have a different discussion, but as usual you aren't going to tell me what that discussion is about.

                    It's one thing to have an audacious agenda, and win an election;

                    And another thing to abandon that agenda completely and yet manage to win re-election anyways.

                    it's quite another to blow up the idea of the Rule of Law while trying to bolster an agenda

                    You can lob whatever allegations you want (and obviously, you will) but to claim that The He

                    • There is nothing alleged about the destruction of the rule of law [bloomberg.com] under this administration. It's real; it's happening; it's wrong. But, as the title of this JE lays it out, as long as we're "advancing Holy Progress", any pragmatic deceits are just some little unfortunate necessity foisted upon our moral superiors by petty little conservative hobgoblins, are they not?
                    • Well, it certainly didn't take long for you to derail your own JE into a bullhorn for another of your conspiracy theories, now did it?
                    • Are you saying the plain text of the Affordable Care Act is a conspiracy? I admit that this theory has a great deal of explanatory power, but I'm fairly confident the legislation was mostly sold through a kind of satisfactory process, and then signed into law by some putz cluttering the Oval Office. If you want to claim otherwise, go ahead.

                    • Are you saying the plain text of the Affordable Care Act is a conspiracy?

                      No. Every sensible person knows it was just another giant handout to the corporations that own the government.

                      I used the word conspiracy to point out that you abandoned the discussion that you pretended to be interested in starting in this JE and replaced it with another of your conspiracy theories.

                    • Every sensible person knows it was just another giant handout to the corporations that own the government.

                      You watch your tongue, young man! You speak as a conservative, full of H8 at the idea that the uninsured should somehow get coverage. Report to Room 101.

  • yeah, debtors prisons and literacy testing for voting cards...

    Ted Cruz - Let's see who owns this guy, who yanks his leash [opensecrets.org]...

    Rand Paul? please [opensecrets.org]...

    And you're telling me that I find this acceptable... How does that work exactly? I am truly fascinated by the thought process that can resolve this conflict. I mean, aside from it being almost April 1st...

  • A GOP Congress is going to have to lead.
     
    On pro-life issues alone, I've been jilted so often that I'll believe that when pigs fly. The GOP talks a good game, but when it comes to actually stopping the genocide, it's far too politically valuable to them to stop.
     
    And as for Obama following the conservative line- I don't see him doing that on pro-life issues, in fact, he broke his promise to Burt Stupak and Obamacare is now actively promoting abortion.

    • Obamacare is now actively promoting abortion.

      So does Hobby Lobby, through its hedge funds [motherjones.com]... When there's money to made, they cover all the angles. Playing both sides has its benefits.

      • Yeah, but that's at least two levels of redirection, unlike the Federal Government's direct investment in Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics AND encouragement of marketing to teenagers.

        • I suppose you're right. We could play the Kevin Bacon game and show that all money is blood money. But a couple of layers of abstraction does not make these people any less hypocritical. With them, like so many other businesses, their phony morals are easily replaced with the urge for profit. You can't say you're against abortion just because you put a couple of middlemen between yourself and the pharmacists that you profit from and doctors that provide the service. As far as I'm concerned, if they don't di

          • a couple of layers of abstraction does not make these people any less hypocritical. With them, like so many other businesses, their phony morals are easily replaced with the urge for profit.

            You claim to be a mere observer, but your mask slips a little when you use pretexts to encourage both worse immediate thuggery, in the Hobby Lobby case, and the worse evils that will build on this precedent. Bravo.

            • There is no thuggery in protecting the rights of the mother.

              • Said Gosnell.

                • "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

                  • [barfs]

                    • Yeah, I feel the same. But if you want to use some quack to represent my thoughts, I figure a little turn around is fair play on yours.

                    • If you support the truth, and not the pleasnt lies of men, it is all relatively easier.

                    • Yeah, you would think that would be true, but there they are, spouting off bigotry as "liberty"...

                    • Or, referring to the simple, obvious truth of existence as "bigotry". It's almost as though there is no winning under the sun.

                    • Existence is not the issue. The mother's right to choose and respect for that choice is what I am discussing.

                    • Oh, existence IS the issue, as you dutifully attempt to sweep away the existence of a human life in support of a godforsaken lie. The farce is strong in you, yes.

                    • Regardless, the mother's choice of disposition until it is born is hers alone to make, and nobody is to sanction her for it. Your fantastic ideologies do not apply. The idea of life beginning at conception is just as arbitrary as any other definition. Life began many millions of years ago.

                    • You've swallowed that Progressive fishhook.

                      The idea of life beginning at conception is just as arbitrary as any other definition.

                      Actually, it's quite simple, repeatable, defensible, and correct in the eyes of anyone interested in keeping their soul clean.

                    • You've swallowed that Progressive fishhook.

                      Why do you hate women? Denying them their rights does not cleanse the soul, quite the contrary in fact. Asserting authority, and claiming you're doing god's work, mucks it up pretty bad. You are worshiping the golden calf of power.

                    • Denying them their rights

                      Where, pray tell, are women granted the right to murder their children?

                    • Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Where are you granted the right to force her to carry?

                    • Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.
                      Goes for you, too.

                      Abortion is the killing of a human life.

                      Life begins at conception, this is a biological fact. Why do you hate science?

                    • Abortion is the killing of a human life.

                      So is war. What's yer point? Why should we let you decide when it's okay to kill a human life? What, pray tell, gives you that right?

                      Regardless if it is alive, while inside the mother, it is part of the mother. And neither you or anyone else has any right to sanction her for whatever choice she makes. Your attempts to assert your authority over her will not fly with me. If you have faith in your deity and your religion and all your heaven/hell brouhaha, then it will t

                    • Regardless if it is alive

                      The child is unquestionably alive

                      , while inside the mother, it is part of the mother.

                      Incorrect. The child has a human DNA that is half mother, half father, and therefore a unique human organism.

                      There is a completely scientific reason to be opposed to abortion. It's a shame you're willfully ignorant on the matter.

                    • The child has a human DNA that is half mother, half father, and therefore a unique human organism.

                      Great! Then grab an egg and grow one yourself. You still have no right to tell the mother what she can or cannot do.

                      I think I see what's happening here. You can't stand being dependent on women in any way. So you strike back with all this chest thumping alpha male BS whenever she disobeys. And you figure the religion angle (which is as phony as a three dollar bill), being an authoritarian male thing, will work

                    • Of course I am pro-life. You are merely a liberal troll.

                    • No, you are only reacting to women who won't submit to your authority. If you were pro-life, you would including the living after they are born. You just can't stand the thought of losing control. It's biting at you from every direction. The demographics are just not in your favor. You're running scared from the inevitable, and you're lashing out. It will turn out to be your Waterloo, and you're mad as hell about the very idea.

                    • You're projecting again. Stop acting like you know me, you don't.

                      You're running scared from the inevitable, and you're lashing out.

                      Now that's just stupid. I'm not lashing out against anything other than the obvious fascism.

                      and you're mad as hell

                      Wrong again. Anger is not the emotion at all.

                      In some ways, as fast as the world is deteriorating gives me some relief, knowing the one true King will probably return soon.

                    • You're projecting again.

                      There ya go! I'm rubber you're glue That always works

                      Stop acting like you know me, you don't.

                      If what you post is for real, then I know exactly. You're more transparent than the vacuum of space. If it's an act, then, haha.. very funny.

                      ...as fast as the world is deteriorating gives me some relief, knowing the one true King will probably return soon.

                      Ahhh, one of those... Okay then... You want to fulfill the prophesy. Definitely don't want your finger on the button. obviously s

                    • Why do you hate women?

                      I think that the females doing the killing should be educated about the evil, and the females getting killed should be spared. How do you twist this into hatred?

Slashdot Top Deals

"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon." -- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985

Close