marley said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
marley said:
spurgeonryan said:
He would rather have the country collapse than make concessions about his baby. |
Why should he have to make concessions about a law that has already passed through congress years ago, has survived MANY repeal attempts, and was held up by the SCOTUS? It is wrong for the Republicans to hold the countries funding hostage by attaching it to the healthcare act. They created this situation. It's extortion and it's going to hurt a lot of regular people.
|
Its wrong to hold a gun to my head telling to buy health insurence.
|
1. Who's holding a gun to your head? Did Obama personally drive to your house and pull a gun on you? If you don't want insurance then don't get insurance and pay the tax. Why should everyone else pay higher insurance premiums to cover your uninsured hospital visits?
2. Regardless of your opinion of the bill, using an otherwise routine budget process to try to delay or kill the new health care law is extortion and wrong.
Let's also remember that much of ObamaCare actually came from the Republican party. Individual mandate was the Republican alternative to HillaryCare's single payer system. Individual mandate was at the heart of the Republican plan for 2 decades, but now it's bad? That's right, the thing they're so up in arms about was THEIR idea to begin with. Democrats only adopted the mandate because they thought it would help them win Republican support (how ironic). The Republicans voted NO on EVERYTHING, including the healthcare bill that they've been pushing for decades, simply to try to make Obama a one term president. They've even admitted to this strategy. Their opposition to this bill is ENTIRELY political and nothing more. They're going to hurt real people over some childish politics.
Here's some interesting reading for you:
The Republican plot to obstruct President Obama began before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”
^ That sums up their opposition to a bill that they've been pushing for decades. They're obsession with stopping Obama at any cost is going to hurt them in the next election.
|
Gerrymandering means that it won't hurt most of them. The Senate, perhaps, is going to see some big hits, but most current GOP congressmen are quite secure in their districts, though it could be enough to be an even split if every competitive currently-red district goes blue in 2014.
That's why they're acting as they are: for most Republican congressmen who aren't tea-party faithful, the tea party is the only threat, not their actual opponent in the general election. In those who come from districts that are already solidly tea party, there is no threat at all.
