SDS Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 It was setup to prevent passing BAD laws. That is why it is inefficient. That is why there are so many obstacles. It was supposed to be that way from day 1. and this is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the congressional historians on capitol hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Ya, Austan Goolsbee said exactly that on the Daily Show last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Your idea of bad may be my idea of good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 It was setup to prevent passing BAD laws. That is why it is inefficient. That is why there are so many obstacles. It was supposed to be that way from day 1. and this is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the congressional historians on capitol hill. And that design failed badly with Health Care and Spendulous. WTF happened? Oh that's right, corruption and paying off political constituencies happened. So, is it that the rules are bad, or, is it that the rules were broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 And that design failed badly with Health Care and Spendulous. WTF happened? Ya, I guess 80 years of Dems trying to pass health care reforms was too short of a period of time? Seriously man, get a grip on reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Ya, I guess 80 years of Dems trying to pass health care reforms was too short of a period of time? Seriously man, get a grip on reality. 80 years? What 80 years? What the !@#$ are you talking about? What were they doing 80 years ago, trying to make sure bleeding with leeches was accessible to all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Rooney Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Ya, I guess 80 years of Dems trying to pass health care reforms was too short of a period of time? Seriously man, get a grip on reality. And they still got it wrong. You'd have thought that with 80 years of working on it they would have got it right much less read it too before slamming it down the American peoples throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Ya, I guess 80 years of Dems trying to pass health care reforms was too short of a period of time? Seriously man, get a grip on reality. Even if there WERE trying for that long, you'd think after 80 years of trying they would have ultimately delivered health care reform that actually had a chance of reforming health care for the better. But no. That's asking too much. But wait! Your 26-year-old child can stay on your program, so that's progress, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 80 years? What 80 years? What the !@#$ are you talking about? What were they doing 80 years ago, trying to make sure bleeding with leeches was accessible to all? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/barack-obama/Obama-goes-back-to-his-Republican-roots-on-health-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/barack-obama/Obama-goes-back-to-his-Republican-roots-on-health-/ So you're right...80 years ago they were trying to make sure that bleeding with leeches was accessible to all. (And actually, that was income replacement insurance, not medical procedure insurance...because medical treatment still basically came down to "quarantine the sick". The idea that they're even remotely equivalent is ludicrous.) (AND...it wasn't a Democratic platform, you bloody monkey.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 (AND...it wasn't a Democratic platform, you bloody monkey.) Probably true. The parties change platforms so often that it's easy to lose track. It was a progressive platform though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Probably true. The parties change platforms so often that it's easy to lose track. It was a progressive platform though. I swear to God, if you start trotting out the sorry-assed "Lincoln would be a Democrat today" or lay claim to both Jefferson and Adams, at the same time ....I will start dogging you worse than Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 ....I will start dogging you worse than Tom. Is that even possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 I swear to God, if you start trotting out the sorry-assed "Lincoln would be a Democrat today" or lay claim to both Jefferson and Adams, at the same time ....I will start dogging you worse than Tom. A few years back a bunch of Libtards started cruising around with bumber stickers claiming "Jefferson was a Democrat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 (AND...it wasn't a Democratic platform, you bloody monkey.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Is that even possible? Im trying to get him to off himself....I got you BOTH beat. BTW...conner.....its November....PLEASE go hiking in a brown fur coat with antlers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Im trying to get him to off himself....I got you BOTH beat. BTW...conner.....its November....PLEASE go hiking in a brown fur coat with antlers. Yeah, but the problem with that is: it's funny, until it's not, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Yeah, but the problem with that is: it's funny, until it's not, if you know what I mean. Oh wow, we agree again, this is getting creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 6, 2010 Share Posted November 6, 2010 Probably true. The parties change platforms so often that it's easy to lose track. It was a progressive platform though. What are you advocating "progressing" toward? What does "progressive" mean? What are the virtues of "progressivism" that make it so desirable and alluring to you? Many today think the term means a relentless drive to centralized governmental control over all aspects of human life. Fess up Conner, even YOU wouldn't want a bureaucrat in Washington - say, someone like DC Tom hovering over you day and night telling you what you can and can't do with your body, money, time, personal possessions, what you can or can't own or sell, where you can go and when, what kind of job you can have, how much of your money you can earn and can keep, what kind of investments you can or can't make, where you can or can't live. Actually, that would be mildly amusing to see - you being led around on a short chain by a government watchdog, no - a team of government watchdogs with all-seeing-eyes and ears. It's the end of daylight saving time this weekend. Time to set the clocks back to 1984 and turn up the heat to around 451° Montag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts