Fiscal Cliff ... Who is Compromising? (Guess who is NOT)

Posted 680 day(s) ago by ltsooner9651 Views 273 Replies
Results 251 to 274 of 274
Page 6 of 6 4 5 6
  1. #251
    nolesooner's Avatar
    Posts
    7,444
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Panama City, Fl

    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    Yes, yes, I'm sure you're brilliant, have a net worth that would make Mitt Romney envious and are cited regularly in the New England Journal of Medicine as an authority on all things medical. Even with all of your impressive accomplishments, however, you stated earlier in this thread that the ACA "didn't actually pass" and that its manner of passage was "borderline illegal." Could you please now display your amazing legal skills you obtained when you graduated at the top of your class at Yale Law School, clerked for former Chief Justice Rehnquist and then became a partner in the New York office of Skadden Arps and cite the relevant law or laws that confirm that (i) the ACA "didn't actually pass" and (ii) its manner of passage was either "illegal" or "borderline illegal?"
    could you explain how the different member of the supreme court get the same supporting evidence for "Obamacare" and half find it constitutional and the other half don't? They are all very well educated and see things differently. Law, is only as clear as people want to make it out to be.

  2. #252
    Originally Posted by Sinatra View Post
    Yes, yes, I'm sure you're brilliant, have a net worth that would make Mitt Romney envious and are cited regularly in the New England Journal of Medicine as an authority on all things medical. Even with all of your impressive accomplishments, however, you stated earlier in this thread that the ACA "didn't actually pass" and that its manner of passage was "borderline illegal." Could you please now display your amazing legal skills you obtained when you graduated at the top of your class at Yale Law School, clerked for former Chief Justice Rehnquist and then became a partner in the New York office of Skadden Arps and cite the relevant law or laws that confirm that (i) the ACA "didn't actually pass" and (ii) its manner of passage was either "illegal" or "borderline illegal?"
    I'm not sure where your level of hostility and sarcasm is coming from, but it is unbecoming. Sarcasm is for fools, and I don't think you are a fool, so leave that for someone else. As for your "request," I already have in a preceding post. I am in the healthcare business, notably the business aspect of it. I work for a consortium of hospital chains and have neen charged with adapting us to the new changes which have and will occur, and I also work closely with a couple of our lawyers who take on the legal aspects of the bill, which is neither here nor there. My background has nothing to do with my opinion of the bill and is not a legal background, and only noted as a response to your "different reality" zinger, as if somehow I wasn't aware the ACA isn't law. My problem with the passage and assuaging such an opinion is not part of my job nor is it ever mentioned. My beef with the pseudo passage of the bill was not Constitutional legality, although as an aside I don't agree with Roberts and the majority opinion.

    The Constitutional legality of the mandate and the Medicaid expansion/requirements is debatable for many and many law minds will differ and seems to essentially come down to ones interpretation of the tax and spend clause. (Edited after Sinatra noted the typo, originally stated Commerce Clause) But again, that's not my issue. My issue is how it was passed. It was way too important of a bill with way too large a scope to be considered for reconciliation. Reconciliation has been stretched way past its intent by Congress by both parties. I think I'm entitled to that opinion and my mental capacity or reality doesn't need to be put into question by you. In addition, I would have thought preceding posts would have revealed my issue, so perhaps if you weren't so quick to breathlessly get into rant mode, you would have acquired this information and saved yourself the effort.
    3 users like playmakr's post: KCRuf/Nek, oucub23, ThievingMagpie

    Last edited by playmakr; January 5th, 2013 at 05:54 AM.

  3. #253
    Originally Posted by soonerintn View Post
    Yep. Caved on this. If he caves on guns, the repubs are done. Hell, if he the repubs cave on guns, you will see some new blood running against them. As it is, there are already 2 repubs throwing their hat in the ring to run against my current repub rep. We will see some indies and libertarians, as well.
    If 'Pubs cave on guns my guess is that a state or multiple states will begin to seriously discuss secession...just a thought...

  4. #254
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by soonercoop1 View Post
    If 'Pubs cave on guns my guess is that a state or multiple states will begin to seriously discuss secession...just a thought...
    You mean the usual conservative states who routinely talk of succession when they don't get their way?
    The following users like this post: Yatahaze


  5. #255
    Originally Posted by IcanzIIravor View Post
    You mean the usual conservative states who routinely talk of succession when they don't get their way?
    When did we get our way?

  6. #256
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,924
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by soonercoop1 View Post
    When did we get our way?
    If governor Bush can't make you happy no one can.

  7. #257
    SarasotaSooner's Avatar
    Posts
    5,975
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Sarasota, FL

    Re: Fiscal Cliff ... Who is Compromising? (Guess who is NOT)

    Careful guys, green sooner will threaten you if you his Messiah

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  8. #258
    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    I'm not sure where your level of hostility and sarcasm is coming from, but it is unbecoming.
    Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm." Maybe if I had replied with something along the lines of the following, you would not have been offended and felt that it is not unbecoming:

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    I've forgotten more than you will ever know about the bill and its effect on the Heathcare industry, particularly for hospitals.
    Now on to your observation about the Court's opinion:

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    The Constitutional legality of the mandate and the Medicaid expansion/requirements is debatable for many and many law minds will differ and seems to essentially come down to ones interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
    Not sure why you think the constitutionality of the ACA "comes down to one's interpretation of the commerce clause" when the majority held that the ACA is constitutional under the taxing clause of the Constitution.

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    I think I'm entitled to that opinion and my mental capacity or reality doesn't need to be put into question by you.
    When you make statements indicating that the ACA "didn't actually pass", do you expect to be taken seriously?
    The following users like this post: Yatahaze


  9. #259
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by soonercoop1 View Post
    When did we get our way?
    I keep forgetting Democrats have held the House, Senate and White House since the bygone radical republican days of reconstruction. I apologize.

  10. #260
    Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm."
    Alleged sarcasm? That's rich.

    Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm." Maybe if I had replied with something along the lines of the following, you would not have been offended and felt that it is not unbecoming:

    Originally Posted by playmakr
    I've forgotten more than you will ever know about the bill and its effect on the Heathcare industry, particularly for hospitals.
    First of all, that's a statement of fact, I'm not sure it's meant to be or any way appears offensive. I imagine you have forgotten more about your professional specialty than I'll ever know. Secondly, as has already been noted, you are the one who came with the reality comments before that post. Lastly, I wasn't offended. C'mon, get real here, you're anonymous. How could you offend?

    Not sure why you think the constitutionality of the ACA "comes down to one's interpretation of the commerce clause" when the majority held that the ACA is constitutional under the taxing clause of the Constitution.
    Thanks for clarifying the momentary loss of brain function. Indeed, the tax and spend clause. Edit: interpretation of tax and spend clause in the bill's context

    Wait, you're not suggesting since the SCOTUS ruled, all debate/discussion is over are you? Damn, why the hell are all those people still trying to ban handguns? Didn't they read the Heller ruling?

    Why do we even have minority opinions written?

    But again, you're still getting away from the actual passage of the bill. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising or as egregious as the passage.

    When you make statements indicating that the ACA "didn't actually pass", do you expect to be taken seriously?
    A bill of this magnitude was never intended for reconciliation. They tried to pass it using traditional rules. It didn't. Not the first Congress to do it, won't be the last. I'm serious as a heart attack.
    The following users like this post: soonercoop1


  11. #261
    Originally Posted by IcanzIIravor View Post
    I keep forgetting Democrats have held the House, Senate and White House since the bygone radical republican days of reconstruction. I apologize.
    There is a difference between a conservative and most of the 'Pubs in office (especially in the Senate)...when did conservatives get their way?

  12. #262
    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    That's rich.
    Hey! That's sarcastic!

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    But again, you're still getting away from the actual passage of the bill. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising or as egregious as the passage.
    You must not have paid any attention whatsoever to the oral argument at the Court or all of the press coverage afterwards. Before oral argument, the conventional wisdom was that the ACA would be held to be constitutional based on the interstate commerce clause and some analysis at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals level in the opinion authored by Senior Judge Lawrence Silberman, a staunch and highly-respected conservative judge who sits on the "junior" Supreme Court. After oral argument, however, most experts who cover the Court expressed significant surprise, did a 180 and predicted that the ACA would be found to be unconstitutional based on the commerce clause. What then took so many by surprise once the Court issued its opinion were the facts that (i) the majority held that the ACA is constitutional in the first place (for any reason); (ii) the majority found the ACA to be constitutional by relying upon the "taxing authority" provision and (iii) Justice Roberts sided with the majority. To say that the "SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising", as you did above, is factually incorrect.

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    A bill of this magnitude was never intended for reconciliation.
    Can you provide some proof of that? A link to legislative intent of any statute, perhaps? A preamble to a proposed, temporary or final regulation? Anything of an authoritative legal nature at all?

  13. #263
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by soonercoop1 View Post
    There is a difference between a conservative and most of the 'Pubs in office (especially in the Senate)...when did conservatives get their way?
    I take it you didn't vote for romney, mccain, president bush, etc? You didn't vote for any of the current all gop Senators/Rep's from Oklahoma? Losing sides always seem to have this mantra. I remember for a time during the Bush years how Democrats ran from being called liberal's, so it is funny to see staunch GOP voters run from being associated with their voting histories.

  14. #264
    Hey! That's sarcastic!
    Allegedly.

    You must not have paid any attention whatsoever to the oral argument at the Court or all of the press coverage afterwards.
    False.

    What then took so many by surprise once the Court issued its opinion were the facts that (i) the majority held that the ACA is constitutional in the first place (for any reason); (ii) the majority found the ACA to be constitutional by relying upon the "taxing authority" provision and (iii) Justice Roberts sided with the majority. To say that the "SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising", as you did above, is factually incorrect.
    I don't consider expectations and surprise as being the same thing. Surprise is an emotion. After Verrilli got grilled in the arguments by Kennedy and Roberts, I expected the mandate to be struck down. But I wasn't surprised Roberts found a way to side with the more liberal judges to rule it constitutional, while also including restrictions for the future. Roberts has always struck me as a guy very interested in his legacy as Chief. So again, I expected it to be ruled down, but wasn't surprised it was upheld. Just like I expected OU's defense to perform well last night, but wasn't surprised when they got humiliated.

    Can you provide some proof of that? A link to legislative intent of any statute, perhaps? A preamble to a proposed, temporary or final regulation? Anything of an authoritative legal nature at all?
    The Byrd Rule.




    You have to ask yourself why if Obama had a big majority in the House, 60/59 Democrats/caucusing Independents in the Senate, could they not pass a final bill with a majority in the House and a supermajority (avoiding filibuster) in the Senate. Maybe more debate should have been had?

  15. #265
    Originally Posted by IcanzIIravor View Post
    I take it you didn't vote for romney, mccain, president bush, etc? You didn't vote for any of the current all gop Senators/Rep's from Oklahoma? Losing sides always seem to have this mantra. I remember for a time during the Bush years how Democrats ran from being called liberal's, so it is funny to see staunch GOP voters run from being associated with their voting histories.
    Who was the voting alternative to Romney, for staunch GOP voters?

  16. #266
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    Who was the voting alternative to Romney, for staunch GOP voters?
    Well they could always write in or sit out. I mean are these conservative's Republican's or independents who will only vote for GOP people who are strict conservative's? If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?

  17. #267
    Originally Posted by IcanzIIravor View Post
    Well they could always write in or sit out. I mean are these conservative's Republican's or independents who will only vote for GOP people who are strict conservative's? If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?
    And they did, and it allowed Obama to win. Is Obama better for them then Romney?

    If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?
    They can more easily make themselves heard in a primary election. In an election pitting a "RINO" and a liberal Democrat, what choice do they have?

  18. #268
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,924
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    And they did, and it allowed Obama to win. Is Obama better for them then Romney?


    They can more easily make themselves heard in a primary election. In an election pitting a "RINO" and a liberal Democrat, what choice do they have?
    Ah, poor victims.

  19. #269
    Originally Posted by Yatahaze View Post
    Ah, poor victims.
    Please translate/explain this post for me.

  20. #270
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,924
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    Please translate/explain this post for me.
    Really just playing dumb now huh? Nice new trick.

  21. #271
    Originally Posted by Yatahaze View Post
    Really just playing dumb now huh? Nice new trick.
    Maybe you are just a lot smarter than I am and I can't keep up? Your one line posts are so brilliantly worded, sometimes it's difficult to figure them out for someone with as much cognitive dissonance as myself. If you could for no other reason expand on your responses to help me, I would appreciate it.

    I'm wondering who the victims are in this scenario? I simply said it's easier to make your voice heard in a primary than it is an actual election, because the primary way to make your voice heard in say a national election is to not vote, which can end up with the consequence of someone far away from your political beliefs winning. That's true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, whoever. I remember in 2004 a lot of my friends were very anti-bush but weren't happy with Kerry as a choice, lamenting the fact they didn't exercise their right to vote in the primary to keep the nominee from being Kerry. I guess you could mean they are the victims of the political system? I don't know. I don't know what victims you are pointing out or even what the point of your response is. Thusly, I asked you to expand on your response.

    In addition, did you mean aww instead of, ah?

    I think your problem, well one of them, is you see every post as being radically partisan and formulate a rapid response on that basis. But I could be off base.
    2 users like playmakr's post: nolesooner, ThievingMagpie


  22. #272
    IcanzIIravor's Avatar
    Posts
    1,362
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    And they did, and it allowed Obama to win. Is Obama better for them then Romney?


    They can more easily make themselves heard in a primary election. In an election pitting a "RINO" and a liberal Democrat, what choice do they have?
    So you're saying they are just like the majority of voters. Principles don't matter as long as you try to beat the other team's guy? For all the dislike of RINO's I see on this board and other conservative leaning boards it's interesting to see how shallow the dislike is.

  23. #273
    Originally Posted by IcanzIIravor View Post
    So you're saying they are just like the majority of voters. Principles don't matter as long as you try to beat the other team's guy? For all the dislike of RINO's I see on this board and other conservative leaning boards it's interesting to see how shallow the dislike is.
    I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what one is supposed to do when it comes down to an election. What do Goldwater conservatives do when it's Romney vs. Obama? What do Sanders socialists do when it's Obama vs. Romney? What do Kucinich liberals do when it's Obama vs. Romney? These are questions I really don't have an answer for, but I can't agree in saying if they (let's say Goldwater conservatives vote for Romney) vote a certain way, even if they don't have high opinions of either candidate, they can't then be critical of the candidate they voted for. You are saying they can write in or sit out, that's good and all, but by sitting out they end up with a politician even worse politically then the person they were originally boycotting/protesting against. I haven't ever thought that way, personally.

    Can an Obama voter be upset he hasn't closed GITMO? Has Janet N working in his administration, shredding liberties? I know many that are and grew up with them in Obama's hometown. Who did they vote for in November?

    Until there is a viable third party candidate in a national election, you're A) essentially voting for the status quo and B) cringing while you select your candidate
    The following users like this post: nolesooner


  24. #274

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 100
    Last Post: January 4th, 2013, 11:30 AM
  2. White House offer on avoiding fiscal cliff
    By pphilfran in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: December 9th, 2012, 11:17 AM
  3. The Fiscal Cliff and the Grand Bargain
    By Sooner5030 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 29th, 2012, 12:40 AM
  4. Let's Get Fiscal
    By Julz in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 16th, 2012, 04:09 PM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 25th, 2012, 12:21 AM