Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Where's the outrage?

Huh? Not on Fox, I guess. But I am hearing plenty of frustration.

As for outrage, as distasteful as I find the position they are advancing to be, I can see why they are reluctant to concede the policy making role to the courts.

That said, I am disappointed on this particular issue that they don't just let it go.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Congress should make the laws governing the grounds for discharge from the military

I'm not so sure why that is Congress's role.

Eta: seriously. I haven't read any of the briefing, but why does congress have any constitutional authority to legislate here?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the thing i think weird, or actually promising, was DADT was a nod by clinton to gay rights. that was what he "gave" as payback for gay support. now it's an evil.

Your recollection is quite shaky. The people Clinton "gave" DADT were not at all happy with the gift.

But I agree with your happiness that we have moved even further past it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but clinton stuck his neck out to do dadt

No, Clinton stuck his neck out to allow gay people to serve openly in the military, got whacked politically, and settled for DADT, which was entirely an ass-saving measure.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They did, and still do. When you look at the people who say they're unhappy with it, a lot of them are unhappy because they say it didn't go far enough. I've said this before and it gets tedious to point it out again and again, so I mostly don't bother to respond when you make this point.

Obviously, the people who don't like it at all got really energized to vote in this election, and the people who do like it don't seem to feel so strongly, perhaps because many of the benefits won't kick in for a while. There's a lot one could say on this subject, but you seem to prefer expressing the same single idea over and over again instead.

People who have health care they like don't like HC reform. People who don't have HC, or don't have enough, like it. Some employers who think they're going to be able to dump workers on the govt like it.

300 million people.
40 mil w/o HC insurance.

That leaves roughly 260 million people in the US who have insurance.

You're telling me of those 260 million, most like HC reform? That's not true.

The only people who really like it are those who'll be getting something from it. The rest don't need it and so don't like it. The calculation is simple. Why would I like something that could cause my costs to rise? I care about me. Not the guy down the street. Sounds mean, but that's the formula people employ in real, non-chat board life.

You can call me a dick. What you can't call me is the minority.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Ty, really, I have a dream that one day, just one day, you will take off the blinders.

Your view, then, is that the administration that "rammed" death panels down our throats is too afraid of the political backlash against choosing not to litigate in support of a federal statute, the repeal of which is has repeatedly and publicly advocated?

You think the electorate thinks, "it's okay for you to say you want to allow the gays to serve openly in the military as long as you don't quietly step aside and let the courts make the change for you?"

In other words, there is clearly some careful calculation going on here, but it is primarily procedural rather than political.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Ty, really, I have a dream that one day, just one day, you will take off the blinders.

If it was such a big political hit, why did they take a vote on it in the Senate shortly before mid-term elections?

Anyway, although I'd like to see them be more aggressive on it, Atticus's point about the executive's obligation to enforce the laws that Congress passes is well taken.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People who have health care they like don't like HC reform. People who don't have HC, or don't have enough, like it. Some employers who think they're going to be able to dump workers on the govt like it.

300 million people.
40 mil w/o HC insurance.

That leaves roughly 260 million people in the US who have insurance.

You're telling me of those 260 million, most like HC reform? That's not true.

How many of those 260 million don't like their current health insurance (50%? more?) or worry about losing their job and their coverage or worry that the insurance company will refuse to pay for something that is labeled a pre-existing condition after the fact?

But really, it doesn't really matter what people think now, when very little of the bill has actually taken effect. Let's talk in 2015.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yeah, I know. I had friends that were gay then too.

but clinton stuck his neck out to do dadt, and while some idealist may have been bothered by it, it did give cover for a number of years compared to what proceeded it. I mean I don't normally suggest reading stories people post but anyone wondering where the country was then, read the story rt linked to before.

the real shame is that clinton invested in dadt and we are all arguing about it now, but a gay couple has no right to quiet enjoyment of their home. no president has ever invested in the expansion of the rights that extend to everyone based upon sex and religion and race and IQ (hi ggg!) but people can still give gay couples shit in their homes.

Why isn't that the battleground? I don't get it and I didn't get it in 93.

You're parsing forms of the same discrimination. Sure, interfering with the personal lives of gays is particularly egregious. But denying them the right to serve openly is one of the soft forms of bigotry that allows policies you're alluding to to persist. You can't unwind the broad discrimination against them selectively, in fits and stops. Let them serve openly and you'll show a level of acceptance that will crush all other forms of intolerance. In that regard, it's a time saver.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

How many of those 260 million don't like their current health insurance (50%? more?) or worry about losing their job and their coverage or worry that the insurance company will refuse to pay for something that is labeled a pre-existing condition after the fact?

But really, it doesn't really matter what people think now, when very little of the bill has actually taken effect. Let's talk in 2015.

By 2015 the damn thing will be defunded. Hell, the whole discussion may be largely academic already. I was at an election night party for a GOP senator and was surprised to hear, at this early stage, how organized the legislative attack on the bill was going to be. What I never heard was the word repeal. It was all about tying up spending approvals indefinitely in committees.

(They served shitty well liquor. I may have to vote Democratic again soon.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, Clinton stuck his neck out to allow gay people to serve openly in the military, got whacked politically, and settled for DADT, which was entirely an ass-saving measure.

A perfect companion to smoking, but not inhaling.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not so sure why that is Congress's role.

Eta: seriously. I haven't read any of the briefing, but why does congress have any constitutional authority to legislate here?

Uh, for the same reason Congress had the power to enact 5 U.S.C. Section 1 to bajillion -- because Congress sets the terms of federal employment.

The fact that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military doesn't mean he writes the laws for them. Shit, it hasn't even meant he had the power to decide when and where they died, until (ahem) Congress gave it to him.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. ... It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that [the power] of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all [of] which ... would appertain to the legislature.

The Federalist No. 69 (Hamilton).

Are Ty and I the only people here who have consistently believed the powers of the Presidency are limited in the same way for both 43 and 44?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Ty, really, I have a dream that one day, just one day, you will take off the blinders.

That's not a dream, but rather a drug-induced delusional hallucination. Peyote?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A perfect companion to smoking, but not inhaling.

Exactly. A leader would have stood on principal. Clinton's just another sheeple.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Uh, for the same reason Congress had the power to enact 5 U.S.C. Section 1 to bajillion -- because Congress sets the terms of federal employment.

The fact that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military doesn't mean he writes the laws for them. Shit, it hasn't even meant he had the power to decide when and where they died, until (ahem) Congress gave it to him.



The Federalist No. 69 (Hamilton).

Are Ty and I the only people here who have consistently believed the powers of the Presidency are limited in the same way for both 43 and 44?

Not to mention Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;