The GOP's new tactic in destroying Obamacare: Suing Obama
50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45366741]...before dropping the mic and swaggering off stage.[/QUOTE]
this but walking off stage
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hod0WtYE4SA[/media]
Good article example for teaching deceptive rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45371822]Do you think it's okay for congressional Republicans to be wasting their collective time and our tax dollars with frivolous lawsuits, for political purposes?
Let's just cut through the bullshit and one-up CNN's useless reporting by getting two facts out there
1) Republicans raged against the business mandate and demanded it be delayed. I'm sure they meant through Congressional approval but the end result was the same: They got what they wanted
2) Boehner is only doing this to gin up support for establishment Republicans in an election year. He knows this suit has absolutely no standing and there is no way it's going to pass in the House. Other Republicans are already disagreeing with him.
So please, don't whine about "happy liberal circle jerking" because people rightfully find this to be an absurd story.
[editline]12th July 2014[/editline]
Seriously if there was ever one piece that broke down what is wrong with CNN's "Well Republicans say this and Democrats say that so we will just give you both their talking points because we have no idea what journalism means" style of reporting, it's this one. Disgraceful.[/QUOTE]
So I guess you don't actually have anything to say.
Your argument amounts to something akin to, "But the other kids did bad stuff too!" What the republicans wanted in the past or want now is literally irrelevant to whether what the president is doing is acceptable.
So you're saying give them a pass for their offenses but not the president?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45371822]Do you think it's okay for congressional Republicans to be wasting their collective time and our tax dollars with frivolous lawsuits, for political purposes?
Let's just cut through the bullshit and one-up CNN's useless reporting by getting two facts out there
1) Republicans raged against the business mandate and demanded it be delayed. I'm sure they meant through Congressional approval but the end result was the same: They got what they wanted
2) Boehner is only doing this to gin up support for establishment Republicans in an election year. He knows this suit has absolutely no standing and there is no way it's going to pass in the House. Other Republicans are already disagreeing with him.
So please, don't whine about "happy liberal circle jerking" because people rightfully find this to be an absurd story.
[editline]12th July 2014[/editline]
Seriously if there was ever one piece that broke down what is wrong with CNN's "Well Republicans say this and Democrats say that so we will just give you both their talking points because we have no idea what journalism means" style of reporting, it's this one. Disgraceful.[/QUOTE]
The literal definition of a strawman argument right here.
But then again, most of this thread has been like this too.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45367785]I think that would actually be People v. Obama if I have it right.[/QUOTE]
Bible Belt vs. Obama
[QUOTE=sgman91;45372317]So I guess you don't actually have anything to say.
[/QUOTE]
Answer this question, with the knowledge that this suit falls well short of standing.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45371822]Do you think it's okay for congressional Republicans to be wasting their collective time and our tax dollars with frivolous lawsuits, for political purposes? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45372489]The literal definition of a strawman argument right here.[/QUOTE]
Simply saying something is a "strawman" is useless, explain your reasoning.
Boehner needs to quit being such a child about this. The fact that he wants to present a bill to allow himself to sue the President over something like the healthcare law is selfish and outlandish to say the least. Not to mention I greatly question his integrity as a person, especially with these sorts of things going on. Not to mention his most recent golfing adventure.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/opinion/dowd-the-speakers-sand-trap.html?_r=0]“This is a Tee Party I can live with,” he grins, as he puts a tee emblazoned with “Speaker Boehner” into the turf.[/url]
I'm glad people can pay tens of thousands of dollars to play golf with someone who is willing to throw this country under the bus for his own personal gain. I'll just leave the last part of the article right here to drive the point home.
[quote]Boehner putts and misses his 20-footer for par.
“Did you notice that broke way too much to the right?” he sighs. “That’s our problem.”[/quote]
I don't care for Obama as a president (he has a cool personality though), but these Republicans are just being retarded.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45372608]Boehner needs to quit being such a child about this. The fact that he wants to present a bill to allow himself to sue the President over something like the healthcare law is selfish and outlandish to say the least. [/QUOTE]
He's not being a child. He is trying to win conservative voters to the Republican party and away from possible Tea Party candidates after what happened to Cantor. So he throws out some red meat that he knows, and Republicans know, and Democrats know, and we know won't fly but people will hear the news about Boehner suing Obama and praise him for finally bringing him in line. It's frivolous political bullshit that is particularly distasteful as we near the end of the least productive congressional session in US history and in the middle of an immigration (read: humanitarian) crisis.
[editline]12th July 2014[/editline]
The "children" in this case are the conservatives who support a party that prioritizes sticking it to the president over basically everything else. Stop voting Republican. You don't have to vote Democrat, but just stop giving these people power.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45372351]So you're saying give them a pass for their offenses but not the president?[/QUOTE]
You want to make a thread about that, then go ahead. I'll be happy to comment on it there, but this thread is about the president's decision to change the healthcare bill.
So they're suing him for using executive orders that he's fully within the legal right of the president to do?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45372608]Boehner needs to quit being such a child about this. The fact that he wants to present a bill to allow himself to sue the President over something like the healthcare law is selfish and outlandish to say the least. Not to mention I greatly question his integrity as a person, especially with these sorts of things going on. Not to mention his most recent golfing adventure.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/opinion/dowd-the-speakers-sand-trap.html?_r=0]“This is a Tee Party I can live with,” he grins, as he puts a tee emblazoned with “Speaker Boehner” into the turf.[/url]
I'm glad people can pay tens of thousands of dollars to play golf with someone who is willing to throw this country under the bus for his own personal gain. I'll just leave the last part of the article right here to drive the point home.[/QUOTE]
Go ahead and add to the circle jerk... because you sure aren't presenting any actual position other than, "Boehner is dumb."
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45372546]
Simply saying something is a "strawman" is useless, explain your reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Instead of addressing his issue with what Obama did, you simply say, "Yeah, well, look what the Republicans did! Much worse!" instead of actually rebutting about Obama.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45372745]You want to make a thread about that, then go ahead. I'll be happy to comment on it there, but this thread is about the president's decision to change the healthcare bill.[/QUOTE]
He didn't change the bill. The executive branch doesn't write legislation.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45372757]Go ahead and add to the circle jerk... because you sure aren't presenting any actual position other than, "Boehner is dumb."[/QUOTE]
And you aren't adding much more with your empty "circle jerk" posts. And Boehner isn't dumb. He is just a really bad person who is really bad at the job he is elected to do.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45372842]Instead of addressing his issue with what Obama did, you simply say, "Yeah, well, look what the Republicans did! Much worse!" instead of actually rebutting about Obama.[/QUOTE]
Except I didn't? Where did I say anything about what Republicans did? The point of my post was that Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate until Obama actually does it then sue him for overreaching.
What rebuttal do you want? The lawsuit is pointless. Obama is clearly within his executive privilege to delay implementation of policy.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45372910]Except I didn't? Where did I say anything about what Republicans did? The point of my post was that Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate until Obama actually does it then sue him for overreaching.[/QUOTE]
You literally answered your own question in the next sentence.
Question: "Where did I say anything about what Republicans did?"
Answer: "The point of my post was that Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate."
[QUOTE=sgman91;45373025]You literally answered your own question in the next sentence.
Question: "Where did I say anything about what Republicans did?"
Answer: "The point of my post was that Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate."[/QUOTE]
Did you not read the post I was replying to? I'll quote it for you
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45372842]"Yeah, well, look what the Republicans did! Much worse!"[/QUOTE]
Saying that the Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate isn't something they "did", it's a position they had. Obama acquiesced when he realized that most businesses and some Democrats wanted it as well so businesses could easily transition to the new employer health care model. There is nothing the Republicans "did" that was "much worse" and I don't understand how either of you can possibly be pulling that from my posts.
Pointing out that Republicans wanted a delayed mandate until the President uses executive privilege to do it [I]only to sue him for using his executive privilege to do the thing they wanted him to do[/I] isn't a "strawman", it's an accurate illustration of events. I've already covered why what Obama did is perfectly within the legal bounds of the Presidency.
Also you still haven't answered the question I asked before.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45371822]Do you think it's okay for congressional Republicans to be wasting their collective time and our tax dollars with frivolous lawsuits, for political purposes?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;45373151]Also you still haven't answered the question I asked before.[/QUOTE]
Possibly because your question starts with the assumption that the lawsuit is frivolous and the time is wasted. Either that isn't yet agreed upon and question is ridiculous or it is agreed upon and the question is useless.
[Quote]Saying that the Republicans wanted to push back the business mandate isn't something they "did", it's a position they had. Obama acquiesced when he realized that most businesses and some Democrats wanted it as well so businesses could easily transition to the new employer health care model. There is nothing the Republicans "did" that was "much worse" and I don't understand how either of you can possibly be pulling that from my posts. [/Quote]
My original question that you responded to was: "Do you think that it's appropriate for a president to delay a single part of a bill, completely against what the bill actually says, for political purposes?"
If your argument is that it was in fact not for political purposes, but to actually help the situation, can you please tell me what new information led to his changing of belief on the subject?
If you agree that it was for political reasons, whatever they may be, then the question stands regardless of whether the Republicans agree with it or not.
[QUOTE]Pointing out that Republicans wanted a delayed mandate until the President uses executive privilege to do it [I]only to sue him for using his executive privilege to do the thing they wanted him to do isn't a "strawman", it's an accurate illustration of events. I've already covered why what Obama did is perfectly within the legal bounds of the Presidency.[/I][/QUOTE]Agreeing with the ends is not the same thing as agreeing with the means. To argue that they got their desired conclusions is irrelevant when the issue at hand is the means, not the ends.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45373223]Possibly because your question starts with the assumption that the lawsuit is frivolous and the time is wasted. Either that isn't yet agreed upon and question is ridiculous or it is agreed upon and the question is useless.[/QUOTE]
It's not an assumption, there is absolutely no legal standing for a lawsuit to go through on the charges Boehner wants. Maybe in your imagination there is no agreement but historical precedent says otherwise. The question isn't ridiculous or useless.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45373223]My original question that you responded to was: "Do you think that it's appropriate for a president to delay a single part of a bill, completely against what the bill actually says, for political purposes?"
If your argument is that it was in fact not for political purposes, but to actually help the situation, can you please tell me what new information led to his changing of belief on the subject?
If you agree that it was for political reasons, whatever they may be, then the question stands regardless of whether the Republicans agree with it or not.[/QUOTE]
I think it's appropriate to subtly adjust time tables when Republicans, Democrats, and businesses ask for it. "Completely against what the bill actually says"? Are you sure you are talking about the ACA?
[QUOTE=sgman91;45373223]Agreeing with the ends is not the same thing as agreeing with the means. To argue that they got their desired conclusions is irrelevant when the issue at hand is the means, not the ends.[/QUOTE]
It's actually completely relevant and the point about means and ends is pointless, as if we would even be having that discussion if a Republican president selectively enforced ACA legislation. It illustrates the broader problem with the Republican party: That their focus for the past 6 years and especially for his second term is primarily to prevent Obama from accomplishing practically anything, and secondarily to actually legislate. If he doesn't do what Republicans ask he is overreaching. If he does what Republicans ask he is overreaching. This may not seem relevent in your world where Republicans have never done anything wrong and every problem in American history can be linked either directly to Obama or indirectly through Democrats, but it's perfectly valid to point out the hypocrisy of asking the president to do something then suing the president for doing what he wanted you to do. Because it goes against your world view and is inconvenient doesn't make it irrelevant.
You've more or less already answered the question just by your replies: Yes, it's entirely valid for Boehner to hold up actual legislation at the tail end of the least productive sessions of Congress [B][I]ever [/I][/B]so he can try to sue the President on grounds that hold no legal standing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.