More Obamacare fuckups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

So you approve of oppressing minorities.

---

I approve of not giving a gosh darn about what some honkies from 250 years ago thought, especially when it comes to oppressing minorities, which they collectively delighted in.

I also approve of coherent thought, which does not allow for both Founder-worship and hand-wringing over elitism, as the Founders were big, big, big-time on elitism.

Finally, I approve of enfranchising the electorate on the federal level. In the post-war era, minorities have seen great success in appealing to common decency. The Civil Rights Act did not require a majority black caucus, or filibusters by said caucus until such an act was passed. The repeal of DOMA did not require a gay President, or whining obstructionism until such repeal was enacted. We're talking about peoples who were quite literally lynched and murdered. Doesn't it make you feel a little embarrassed that your cause celebre is subjected to pittances, yet you have absolutely no qualms about conflating yourself with minorities?

Or oh wait, sometimes gun owners are subjected to two thousands of dollars in fines. Swing looooow, sweet chaaaariot...

Quote:

---

Nobody is opposing it because it's being put forth by Obama

---

I laughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

I like how you're ignoring the fact that the ACA is one of the most poorly written, unnecessarily complicated pieces of garbage that Congress has ever spit forth. If it was as simple as you say, and was in fact just legislation stolen from Republicans, it would have passed with flying colors. Nobody is opposing it because it's being put forth by Obama, they're opposing it because it's almost a thousand pages of idiotic regulations and red tape. They're opposing it because it's terribly executed and is falling flat on it's face, as expected.

---

I have a bridge to sell you. In both Alaska and Florida. It could have been one page and been opposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I approve of not giving a gosh darn about what some honkies from 250 years ago thought, especially when it comes to oppressing minorities, which they collectively delighted in.

---

This is simply not true. Slavery was the norm back then, and you'll find that most Founders were against it, but it's just how things were done.

Quote:

---

I also approve of coherent thought, which does not allow for both Founder-worship and hand-wringing over elitism, as the Founders were big, big, big-time on elitism.

---

Also not true.

Quote:

---

Finally, I approve of enfranchising the electorate on the federal level. In the post-war era, minorities have seen great success in appealing to common decency. The Civil Rights Act did not require a majority black caucus, or filibusters by said caucus until such an act was passed. The repeal of DOMA did not require a gay President, or whining obstructionism until such repeal was enacted. We're talking about peoples who were quite literally lynched and murdered. Doesn't it make you feel a little embarrassed that your cause celebre is subjected to pittances, yet you have absolutely no qualms about conflating yourself with minorities?

Or oh wait, sometimes gun owners are subjected to two thousands of dollars in fines. Swing looooow, sweet chaaaariot...

---

Usually I just stop responding to you when you get to this stage of the discussion, but I felt the first two parts needed refutation.

Quote:

---

I laughed.

---

Because it's funny how right it was, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I have a bridge to sell you. In both Alaska and Florida. It could have been one page and been opposed.

---

It could have been, but it wasn't. If all it was was an individual mandate on catastrophic coverage it would have passed with probably 0 nays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

It could have been, but it wasn't. If all it was was an individual mandate on catastrophic coverage it would have passed with probably 0 nays.

---

Given as the Republican Party made their course of action "Make Obama a one term President!" before his term even started and was rooting for him to fail that'd be a mighty hard sell. Just watching the Lucy and Charlie Brown act that happened where Obama would give a concession and then Republicans (Particularly Olympia Snowe) would say no was kind of pathetic. He really believed in the same bullshit you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Given as the Republican Party made their course of action "Make Obama a one term President!" before his term even started and was rooting for him to fail that'd be a mighty hard sell. Just watching the Lucy and Charlie Brown act that happened where Obama would give a concession and then Republicans (Particularly Olympia Snowe) would say no was kind of pathetic. He really believed in the same bullshit you do.

---

So he believed that both parties are made up of lying scumbags that only care about pleasing the special interests that get them elected and could give a flying fuck about what's actually best for the country? Operating strictly on party lines is no better when you're for something than when you're against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

So he believed that both parties are made up of lying scumbags that only care about pleasing the special interests that get them elected and could give a flying fuck about what's actually best for the country? Operating strictly on party lines is no better when you're for something than when you're against it.

---

So who said this?

Quote:

---

Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society."

---

Wouldn't that suggest you don't want them to give a damn about anybody but themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

This is simply not true. Slavery was the norm back then,

---

This I have found.

Quote:

---

and you'll find that most Founders were against it,

---

This is not what I have found.

Quote:

---

but it's just how things were done.

---

This, once again, I have found.

Quote:

---

Also not true.

---

Alright, let's hear you offer an explanation for the many parts of our federal government that were intended to ignore the popular vote.

Quote:

---

Because it's funny how right it was, right?

---

That is not at all why!!!

Attachment 5912

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

If you're looking for a conservative circle jerk there's always Red State.

---

Hey, WB, what's that on your chin? Yeah, right there, on your chin plain as day. Oh yeah, it's Obama's balls.