Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:21 pm

I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:27 pm

romothesavior wrote:I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.

User avatar
DoktorZaius
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:21 am

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby DoktorZaius » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 pm

rayiner wrote:
DoktorZaius wrote:
Drake014 wrote:That's exactly what the debate is about. Pro-choice=its not murder, Pro-life=it is murder. Honestly speaking though, neither side actually wants to scientifically figure out when life begins. The right wants to say it begins where their church says it begins, and the left wants to say it begins where its legally convenient to begin... neither opinion has anything to do with science and a rational view of things.

I would tend to agree with this. As a baseline, it seems like once a fetus has reached the point of viability it should be considered a living being with rights. Pinning down what the point of viability is can be tricky, but the last trimester seems appropriate. Of course, as you point out, the debate is too muddled in rhetoric for the science to get much play.


With the advance of medical technology that makes for a slippery and complicated definition. Around five and a half months the fetus is more likely than not to survive. If we develop the technology to allow the fetus to develop outside the womb entirely, which seems probable, then abortion under your definition would effectively be illegal.

Fair enough, but I didn't really mean to suggest that the above criteria is in any way exhaustive. We'd need to get really philosophical up in here, and arrive at what personhood really is, determine the value of sentience etc

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 pm

Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:34 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.

Yeah, it's pretty nauseating. To be honest, partisanship makes me want to throw up. I may oppose this bill, but it's not because it's coming from Obama. The way it should have been done is have a committee of people with knowledge on the subject evenly made up of people from both parties and have them produce SOMETHING. I know that's probably an unlikely solution, but it would help assuage some of the annoyance the american public has with politicians right now. Maybe not. I don't know.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:14 pm

Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.


:| You're right... presidents and politicians wouldn't do anything for purely political reasons. :roll:

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:20 pm

Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I've been confused about this whole Bart Stupak "abortion language" thing. I saw on a TV talk show last week (admittedly, a rather liberal one) that there isn't any language authorizing funds to be spent on abortion. There is even a line in the HC bill stating that if an organization or clinic receives funds, they must not use them for abortion. I've just been really confused by this entire episode. Seems like a bunch of grandstanding to me.

If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.

Yeah, it's pretty nauseating. To be honest, partisanship makes me want to throw up. I may oppose this bill, but it's not because it's coming from Obama. The way it should have been done is have a committee of people with knowledge on the subject evenly made up of people from both parties and have them produce SOMETHING. I know that's probably an unlikely solution, but it would help assuage some of the annoyance the american public has with politicians right now. Maybe not. I don't know.


The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.

Edit: Its like one parent wanting an abortion and the other parent wanting a child and asking them to split the difference.

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:
Kim617 wrote:If Obama agreed to issue an executive order, then that's tacit acknowledgment that it is in the bill.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.

Yeah, it's pretty nauseating. To be honest, partisanship makes me want to throw up. I may oppose this bill, but it's not because it's coming from Obama. The way it should have been done is have a committee of people with knowledge on the subject evenly made up of people from both parties and have them produce SOMETHING. I know that's probably an unlikely solution, but it would help assuage some of the annoyance the american public has with politicians right now. Maybe not. I don't know.


The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.

FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.

Neelio
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Neelio » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:28 pm

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.[/quote]
Yeah, it's pretty nauseating. To be honest, partisanship makes me want to throw up. I may oppose this bill, but it's not because it's coming from Obama. The way it should have been done is have a committee of people with knowledge on the subject evenly made up of people from both parties and have them produce SOMETHING. I know that's probably an unlikely solution, but it would help assuage some of the annoyance the american public has with politicians right now. Maybe not. I don't know.[/quote]

The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.
[/quote]
FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.[/quote]

We heard their idea- it didn't end pre-existing conditions and it only covered an additional 3 million people. It all took place at the 7 hour healthcare summit. They had an idea- it was just garbage.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:29 pm

Kim617 wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Perhaps. Or perhaps it is his way of telling all the whiners to "STFU." Haha... I dunno. I used to be really into politics, but I just find it all so disgusting anymore that I don't make enough of an effort to keep up with it.

Yeah, it's pretty nauseating. To be honest, partisanship makes me want to throw up. I may oppose this bill, but it's not because it's coming from Obama. The way it should have been done is have a committee of people with knowledge on the subject evenly made up of people from both parties and have them produce SOMETHING. I know that's probably an unlikely solution, but it would help assuage some of the annoyance the american public has with politicians right now. Maybe not. I don't know.


The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.

FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.


You're assuming that talk indicates intentions. The Republicans put forth a proposal or two that they knew wouldn't get approval by the dems and they refused to meet in the middle

How do I know they're all talk? They controlled both houses and the presidency and did nothing on the subject. They don't want anything done.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:30 pm

Kim617 wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.

FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.


I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Neelio
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Neelio » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:32 pm

Kim - be honest. Are you really Paul Ryan? You've been pretty much campaigning for him on TLS all day?

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:33 pm

romothesavior wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
The problem with your proposal is that the people on the right want nothing to pass.

FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.


I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:34 pm

Neelio wrote:Kim - be honest. Are you really Paul Ryan? You've been pretty much campaigning for him on TLS all day?

Yes, yes I am. Confession!

Ha, no I just wish people would at least look at what he is saying. He's just one of the people to look out for, mostly because he has an economics background.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kohinoor » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:35 pm

Pro-Deather here. We're obviously depressed that our attempts to bring the birth rate to zero are being thwarted, but we've held meetings at the highest level and guarantee you that even in the absence of federal funding, our leadership will not rest while babies continue to be carried to term alive.
Last edited by Kohinoor on Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:37 pm

Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kohinoor » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:39 pm

Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

immigrants.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:40 pm

Kohinoor wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

immigrants.


Touche

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:43 pm

Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:I'm with Drake on this one, and I'm actually pretty conservative. Republicans made very, very little effort to do anything but derail Obama's healthcare reform plans.

The bill that just passed is NOT that radical or groundbreaking. It still leaves millions uninsured and if you ask most people in the liberal base, they will tell you that this bill does not do enough. Quite frankly, this is a pretty moderate bill. And how many Republicans voted for it?

Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

Yeah, he pretended to compromise by throwing a couple of bones that meant absolutely nothing so he could say he compromised. That's nonsense.

Health care has never been as much of an issue as it is now, so to ask why they didn't do it before, it's because they never had any pressure to do so, as bad as that sounds. Truth be told, the majority of their constituents didn't want a bill like this, so why pass something that's notoriously unpopular? It wouldn't make political sense. No one was denying that reform is necessary, but this bill isn't the answer, in my opinion. I'm not getting into this again, if you want my feelings on it, go to the litmus test thread.

User avatar
Belili
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Belili » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:45 pm

This is a legitimate question - can we stop with this pro-death nonsense?

The question isn't if this bill changes the law as written, but what effect it may have on judicial interpretation of legislative intent AND agency discretion.

#1 - It can act like a signing statement, telling judges that Obama intends this legislation not to overrule the Hyde rule by implication. But signing statements are largely ignored anyway (the colloquially will have more effect), and so are repeals by implication... and I'm trying hard but failing to come up with a hypo of who would bring such a claim anyway. Who would have standing? A pro-life father? Any interested party in a hypo proposed agency rule? Idk...

#2 - It informs the agencies that will implement the bill of their priorities. They are to keep in mind to separate funding from the process of abortion. Given the great power of our 4th branch of government - I don't think this can be overstated. Sure, the bill wouldn't change this either way - but it never hurts to have an order come directly from your boss (Obama) rather than Congress. Agencies tend to listen to the President over the will of both Congress and SCOTUS (See Bush's EPA).

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Drake014 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:47 pm

Kim617 wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

Yeah, he pretended to compromise by throwing a couple of bones that meant absolutely nothing so he could say he compromised. That's nonsense.

Health care has never been as much of an issue as it is now, so to ask why they didn't do it before, it's because they never had any pressure to do so, as bad as that sounds. Truth be told, the majority of their constituents didn't want a bill like this, so why pass something that's notoriously unpopular? It wouldn't make political sense. No one was denying that reform is necessary, but this bill isn't the answer, in my opinion. I'm not getting into this again, if you want my feelings on it, go to the litmus test thread.


Bullshit to the bolded. Universal health coverage has been up for discussion since Nixon and rising healthcare costs were a concern during Bush's entire time in office. If you think that just suddenly this came up in the last year you're living in denile so that you can continue supporting a point of view that isn't viable.

Eazy E
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:24 am

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Eazy E » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:48 pm

First off, the Executive Order only reaffirms current law. So nothing changed there.
existenz wrote:Um, plenty of pro-choice people don't think that a blastocyst or embryo is a "baby". Third trimester, sure. First trimester, no. I also don't think abortion is evil, sorry.

Might as well write that many men are "pro-killing millions of babies" because they choose to masturbate and leave all those spermatazoa to die. You might think that's ludicrous, but there are plenty of right winger nuts who think the morning after pill is murder. Not much difference imo.

I do find it funny that the same people screaming "keep the govt off my back" are the same ones that want to tell women they have no control over their bodies and lives.


+1 Women's bodies constantly abort fertilized eggs and pass them through their systems (read: menstruation). So by the logic of extreme pro-lifers, we should ban a basic and natural bodily function and prosecute every woman in the country for multiple homicides.

I love the similarities between "keep gov't out of my healthcare" and "keep your laws off my body". Same idea + different idealogies = drastically different bumper sticker politics.

Kim617 wrote:FALSE. They didn't want THIS bill to pass. In fact, there have been proposals from the right, including a really good one from Paul Ryan. They were all ignored completely.


This just isn't supported by reality. Did some Republicans offer an alternative? Sure. Did the vast majority of Republicans offer anything except "no"? Absolutely not. So don't tell me that the Dems just "ignored" all the good ideas that the GOP was offering, because they weren't offering anything but "no". And that was a calculated political risk: kill the bill and hope to regain popularity going into the next election. Do you honestly think that EVERY House Republican voted against this bill purely because they thought it was bad legislation?

The GOP let radicals hijack this issue and, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum put it, they tried to give the President his Waterloo. So instead of recognizing that many of the ideas in this bill are the exact same ideas that conservatives have supported, Republicans chose to cry, "Start over!" and incited their constituents to anger and frustration. This is Waterloo, alright, but not for the President.
Last edited by Eazy E on Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:49 pm

Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:
Drake014 wrote:
Kim617 wrote:Then why were they consistently ignored? Republicans weren't even the ones holding up this bill, btw. People fail to realize that Dems only need Dems to vote yes for it to pass. Moderate dems held this bill up for so long, NOT republicans. They had zero power to stop this. Seems like only the really liberal dems wanted this bill. The entire moderate/right-wing base was excluded in any planning of the bill. Why would republicans vote for something that is neither part their ideology, nor something that they had any input in?


What you described is the normal bill passing process. This was a huge undertaking and it took a year. That's quite a reasonable period of time considering what was at stake. Please explain to me why the Republicans passed nothing, nor attempted to pass anything regarding increased health care why they were in office for several years.

If you can reach any other conclusion besides that they really didn't want anything done, please share it.

Edit: BTW, several conservative proposals were implemented in the bill, no republicans signed on.

Yeah, he pretended to compromise by throwing a couple of bones that meant absolutely nothing so he could say he compromised. That's nonsense.

Health care has never been as much of an issue as it is now, so to ask why they didn't do it before, it's because they never had any pressure to do so, as bad as that sounds. Truth be told, the majority of their constituents didn't want a bill like this, so why pass something that's notoriously unpopular? It wouldn't make political sense. No one was denying that reform is necessary, but this bill isn't the answer, in my opinion. I'm not getting into this again, if you want my feelings on it, go to the litmus test thread.


Bullshit to the bolded. Universal health coverage has been up for discussion since Nixon and rising healthcare costs were a concern during Bush's entire time in office. If you think that just suddenly this came up in the last year you're living in denile so that you can continue supporting a point of view that isn't viable.

I'm hardly saying it just came up. I mean, Hillarycare was defeated in the early 90s. Maybe I phrased that wrong. What I'm saying is, they don't believe in universal healthcare, so why would they pass it?

User avatar
Kim617
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby Kim617 » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:51 pm

Eazy E wrote:
+1 Women's bodies constantly abort fertilized eggs and pass them through their systems (read: menstruation). So by the logic of extreme pro-lifers, we should ban a basic and natural bodily function and prosecute every woman in the country for multiple homicides.

Um no, menstruation is when a non-fertilized egg is passed. Otherwise, it's a miscarriage, not menstruation. It's also unintentional.

User avatar
NayBoer
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Does BO's Executive Order mean anything?

Postby NayBoer » Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:53 pm

rayiner wrote:If we develop the technology to allow the fetus to develop outside the womb entirely, which seems probable, then abortion under your definition would effectively be illegal.
This has long been one of my ideas for a charity if I ever became a zillionaire. Find some scientists willing to test pig and monkey fetuses or embryos, figure out a way to extract them way before term and grow them in an incubator, then find abortion-seeking women to be the test cases for human trials. If you could find a way to make removal and incubation (or implantation into a waiting surrogate mother) remotely affordable, abortion could be rendered moot.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, lawschoolapp1987, zeglo and 17 guests