80% of Democrats are Politically Clueless

[yota691]

Marxist policies please!

“The Obama Care Health Care Reform Plan or Health Care For America Plan will cost the average American around $70.”–obamacarefacts.com

First of all, allow me to disabuse you of the notion that Obamacare has anything to do with “health” care. Obamacare is not about health. It’s not about lowering the cost of health insurance. And it’s not about ensuring that everyone is insured.

It is about locking more Americans into the clutches of the Big Pharma/Medical Industrial complex, providing more customers for Big Insurance and confiscating more wealth from individuals and businesses.

Read more:

[JoeB]

Moderators please, since this whole thread is based on one big fat republican lie, could you be so kind and delete it?

[yota691]

Moderators please, since this whole thread is based on one big fat republican lie, could you be so kind and delete it?

Avoiding the issue is what got American in this Mess..

[Shabibilicious]

Avoiding the issue is what got American in this Mess..

I respectfully disagree......lack of cooperation on both sides, got us in this mess. As always, just my opinion.

GO RV, then BV

[JoeB]

Avoiding the issue is what got American in this Mess..

Who is avoiding the issue that the first post was a lie? Not me.

[yota691]

I respectfully disagree......lack of cooperation on both sides, got us in this mess. As always, just my opinion.

GO RV, then BV

I hear ya shabib, but who was the one stating they were Driving the Bus in the Beginning..and the other party needed to get in the Back of the Bus.. I respect you Opinion,and your right about both sides, but it the democraps that have control of things, they have had a Majority for how long, and we now see it being extend for at least two more years.. and that is MO Moderators please, since this whole thread is based on one big fat republican lie, could you be so kind and delete it? that statement to me is to avoid!!

Read more:

[Shabibilicious]

I hear ya shabib, but who was the one stating they were Driving the Bus in the Beginning..and the other party needed to get in the Back of the Bus.. I respect you Opinion,and your right about both sides, but it the democraps that have control of things, they have had a Majority for how long, and we now see it being extend for at least two more years.. and that is MO Moderators please, since this whole thread is based on one big fat republican lie, could you be so kind and delete it? that statement to me is to avoid!!

Read more: http://dinarvets.com...0#ixzz2DQsA1RPM

The Democraps, as you so eloquently put it, control the Senate. The Republicans control the House of Representatives. It appears the gridlock starts here.

GO RV, then BV

[Liljohn]

The Democraps, as you so eloquently put it, control the Senate. The Republicans control the House of Representatives. It appears the gridlock starts here.

GO RV, then BV

True, however for the first two years of O's presidency the dems controlled the house and the senate and all that was accomplished was a health care bill that 70% of Americans were against got rammed down our throats. Nothing was done to help the debt or the deficit. Where was the gridlock then?

GOD BLESS!!! LORD SEND THE RAIN!!!

[dinar_stud]

True, however for the first two years of O's presidency the dems controlled the house and the senate and all that was accomplished was a health care bill that 70% of Americans were against got rammed down our throats. Nothing was done to help the debt or the deficit. Where was the gridlock then?

GOD BLESS!!! LORD SEND THE RAIN!!!

lil john it would be wise to look up the real numbers that Obama controlled the house and senate for 2 years bit. It makes republicans that reeat it seem and prove they are politically clueless.

Here are the facts: Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. With folks like Lieberman, Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Bayh the Democrats & Obama never had 60 votes! !

Here is the timeline...

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Edited November 27, 2012 by dinar_stud

[tigerstripes]

“The Obama Care Health Care Reform Plan or Health Care For America Plan will cost the average American around $70.”–obamacarefacts.com

First of all, allow me to disabuse you of the notion that Obamacare has anything to do with “health” care. Obamacare is not about health. It’s not about lowering the cost of health insurance. And it’s not about ensuring that everyone is insured.

It is about locking more Americans into the clutches of the Big Pharma/Medical Industrial complex, providing more customers for Big Insurance and confiscating more wealth from individuals and businesses.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com.../#ixzz2DQPeBfCp

So, your last sentence there means that the evil marxist Obama has instituted a marxist policy that provides more customers to the capitalist big insurers.

Would that not be a decidedly un-marxist policy??????

Still waiting for those ACTUAL marxist policies by the way.........................................

[dontlop]

wage setting ,, price setting to me is marxist .. the obama care to me is more in the line of facism .. where the govt is dictating you must buy something from insurance coroprations if you are alive..

i think of obamas administration as nationalist facist and marxism.. nationalizing a health care industry .. is no different than nationalizing a commodity like oil .. kinda like a castro or a chavez ..

come on he is definatly working on nationalizing the health care industry and forcing people to buy services so he can have commerce to regulate .. .. after all ya cant regulate it till ya generate cash from it .. the govt had no stake in the game so they forced it on america behind closed doors .. against a 70% disaproval of the citizens of america ,, its unconstitutional and against the oath of office the democrats in congress were sworn to uphold as well as the president being sworn to up hold in his oath of office by the supreme court chief justice roberts .. so the constitutional law professor sworn to uphold the constitution.. committed perjury upon his sworn oath of office

[dinar_stud]

wage setting ,, price setting to me is marxist .. the obama care to me is more in the line of facism .. where the govt is dictating you must buy something from insurance coroprations if you are alive..

i think of obamas administration as nationalist facist and marxism.. nationalizing a health care industry .. is no different than nationalizing a commodity like oil .. kinda like a castro or a chavez ..

come on he is definatly working on nationalizing the health care industry and forcing people to buy services so he can have commerce to regulate .. .. after all ya cant regulate it till ya generate cash from it .. the govt had no stake in the game so they forced it on america behind closed doors .. against a 70% disaproval of the citizens of america ,, its unconstitutional and against the oath of office the democrats in congress were sworn to uphold as well as the president being sworn to up hold in his oath of office by the supreme court chief justice roberts .. so the constitutional law professor sworn to uphold the constitution.. committed perjury upon his sworn oath of office

What do you know of our founding fathers??

I ask because your definition of fascism attacks the founders of this nation, since they also mandated healthcare.

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

In 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Does that sound similar?? How about fascism towards weapons makers and dealers??

In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Apparently Obama has been doing what our founding fathers did before him and before Mitt Romney in the mandate department. So tell me were the founding fathers fascist, Marxist or socialist???

Edited November 28, 2012 by dinar_stud

[dontlop]

oh they dindt have a choice i guess if that is true .. they e=were forced to be seaman .. obamas laws are if you are alive .. you must buy health care insurance .. im sorry you dindt know that .. no one said they had to buy their own insurance if they wre alive ..

lol you try to compare auto insurance to obamas facist health care bill ,, yes im forced to drive now .. because im alive . so i have to buy car insurance because im alive in america .. its not even close .. you have a choice ,,.. but obama gives no choice buy it or get fined .. fines are for when you break the law .. so its criminal if you dont obey obamas facist laws .. first he nationalized insurance and then he applys fascism to it .. he actually should be the one facing trial for treason... hes an anti constitutionalist ,, that what obama is ..

if your going to do something like employ as your example stated .. an employer was mandated to provide health insurance ..thats one thing

but simply because your alive .. come on ,, thats a .. facist dictator ,.es i think obama is a facist dictor for signing that law .. he took an oath to up hold the constitution . his signing that law is perjury to his oath of office he swore to on a bible infront of supreme court justice roberts ,, and america on national tv

[jonjon]

lil john it would be wise to look up the real numbers that Obama controlled the house and senate for 2 years bit. It makes republicans that reeat it seem and prove they are politically clueless.

Here are the facts: Democrats only had a filibuster proof majority for 133 days, from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. With folks like Lieberman, Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Bayh the Democrats & Obama never had 60 votes! !

Here is the timeline...

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Stud, your propagated rendition almost brought a tear to my eye.

Party standings in the Senate

(February 4, 2010 – June 28, 2010; and

July 16, 2010 – November 29, 2010.

From June 28 - July 16, there was one vacancy due to the death of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)

until the appointment of Senator Carte Goodwin (D-WV))

57 Democrats

2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats

41 Republicans

all that was accomplished was a health care bill that 70% of Americans were against got rammed down our throats. Nothing was done to help the debt or the deficit. Where was the gridlock then?

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?#ixzz2DUA6w6WD

This was the 111th United States Congress

Edited November 28, 2012 by jonjon

[dontlop]

What do you know of our founding fathers??

I ask because your definition of fascism attacks the founders of this nation, since they also mandated healthcare.

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

In 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Does that sound similar?? How about fascism towards weapons makers and dealers??

In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Apparently Obama has been doing what our founding fathers did before him and before Mitt Romney in the mandate department. So tell me were the founding fathers fascist, Marxist or socialist???

you left out the part that thats how our malitias were formed . they didnt just have to purchse a gun .. and some people were exempt .. any one over 40 years old and any one under 18 and govt employees as well as seamen .. its amazing they actually thought people should all participate in their countrys defense .. i hope you have your gun .. or is that over with .... i dont know maybe your not 18 yet sorry

[dinar_stud]

you left out the part that thats how our malitias were formed . they didnt just have to purchse a gun .. and some people were exempt .. any one over 40 years old and any one under 18 and govt employees as well as seamen .. its amazing they actually thought people should all participate in their countrys defense .. i hope you have your gun .. or is that over with .... i dont know maybe your not 18 yet sorry

So mandating healtchare to seamen started militias?? mandates are mandates.

Stud, your propagated rendition almost brought a tear to my eye.

Party standings in the Senate

(February 4, 2010 – June 28, 2010; and

July 16, 2010 – November 29, 2010.

From June 28 - July 16, there was one vacancy due to the death of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)

until the appointment of Senator Carte Goodwin (D-WV))

57 Democrats

2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats

41 Republicans

all that was accomplished was a health care bill that 70% of Americans were against got rammed down our throats. Nothing was done to help the debt or the deficit. Where was the gridlock then?

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?#ixzz2DUA6w6WD

This was the 111th United States Congress

yes it was and Obama did not have a filibuster majority, just as I stated, He had a basic majority for 133 days, Thanx for proving my case.

jonjon lets try again:

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Remember: But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

[dontlop]

So mandating healtchare to seamen started militias?? mandates are mandates.

yes it was and Obama did not have a filibuster majority, just as I stated, He had a basic majority for 133 days, Thanx for proving my case.

jonjon lets try again:

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Remember: But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

you disapeared ,, yes the guns were a part of our first malitias .. the seamen were not forced to buy anything .. you say if a person wanted to be in business and employ seaman they had to buy insurance for their employees .. ..how is that not a choice ..the only choice obama care gives you is to kill yourself ...or move out of the country .. then you dont have to by health care .. wheres the liberty that we have in the bill of rights in his law .. how lame can you get .. i got to get rid of you too . thers not many of you liberls left .. . i wonder how many i can fit in the bin ..

im sorry but i might get in trouble reading your posts .. my responses wont be tolerated here .. so i got to ignore you .. good luck with your authoritarian fascist buddy maybe he will be impeached soon who knows