Thread: Am I missing something here?
#1 Am I missing something here?09-29-2013, 01:24 AM
I was for defunding Obamacare and fighting it tooth and nail but what good does it do a year before an election to postpone it's implementation until after the election.
Won't this get the dems off the hook before the election by delaying the rage people will feel when this is quite literally forced up our asses?
I'm with Ody and think that bills should be sought that force this on everyone in political office as well as us, why are we always doing the opposite of what we should, what the dammed hell is wrong with these people.
09-29-2013, 01:42 AM
The gut reaction is to just get rid of the damned thing. But shouldn't we get rid of the damned politicians that brought this piece of shit on America by making them vote for funding it? Then let them go through elections in November, '14.
We need to regain the Senate while keeping the House.
Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
09-29-2013, 02:21 AM
09-29-2013, 02:26 AM
The Dems would have to be complete fools to turn down a year delay, they would have to be brain dead and I don't believe they are. They will make like this is a fight and then supposedly reluctantly give in and then ride their good fortune all the way to reelection. We are screwed, totally fucked, the fat lady is singing.
09-29-2013, 09:10 AM
More and more I'm of the opinion that we assume our side wants to protect our conservative
values and practices, it's getting harder and harder to believe that.May the FORCE be with you!
09-29-2013, 06:43 PM
Isn't it companies that are getting off the hook. They're funders for the GOP.
I say go ahead and implement it all so we can figure out if we really do like green eggs and ham or not.I'm so happy! Hugs for everybody! Or not.
09-29-2013, 09:23 PM
I don't see the GOP's point in delaying it a year either, all that does is move the point pain is inflicted by it off until AFTER the mid-term elections, which is a very stupid plan for the GOP. More pain, sooner, with clear responsibility to the Dems for it is the sound strategy, but the GOP doesn't want to do that (I'm sure after the fact that McCain and his kind will claim that was their plan all along, but the Conservatives just don't trust his lying ass anymore, so even if that were possibly true, the base isn't putting any stock in him).
There are only two ways it makes any sense, and only the first one makes sense in terms of probability of outcome -
1. They are so convinced that Reid will never, ever agree to it, and that they themselves will ultimately have to acquiesce in it, that they believe when Reid is seen to have the way he insisted on after a hard fight, the GOP leadership thinks the public will blame the Dems wholeheartedly after living under the ACA's oppressive cost (And skinflint benefit) regime for a year...which might work, except that too many Conservative Congresspeople are honestly committed to fighting it tooth and nail, so the 'Eventually being forced to acquiesce' part of the plan sets up a huge emotional schism in the GOP itself that likely won't heal before said election. OR -
2. They think that this is an attractive-enough carrot to dangle in front of the endangered Democrat Senators up for re-election in reddish States in 2014, who (The GOP thinks) will be desperate enough to break Reid's stranglehold on the Dem Caucus and swing over to vote for the delay with Senate Republicans, giving them enough Senate votes to pass it and confronting Obama with a fait accompli and thus have to back down from his veto pledge. This is actually an especially stupid idea, because the bill can't even come up for a vote in the Senate unless Reid lets it, which isn't going to happen, with the sole exception of it being a conference committee result, however Reid will pick the Senate Dems on the conference committee, so THAT won't happen, either.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|