The big thing for me is that this is a single issue. The Republican filibuster was repeatedly used. It wasn’t a last ditch tactic, it was the tactic.
I also believe you should do what is right over following the law. The Republicans were following the law but doing wrong. The Democrats may be breaking the law, but they are right. There is no reason to take away collective bargaining unless you are planning to screw people.
It’s also dumb: everybody I know values teachers and thinks they are underpaid, even if they are conservative or Republican. That’s why so many people I know picked a job that would make them more money.
No, that’s exactly what we understand, and exactly why we fight. Of course they are not actively trying to hurt people. They just don’t care that their personal gain hurts other people. People who think like that are bad for society, since society exists to try to hurt the least number of people. So we fight back.
Of course, there are tons of conservatives who apparently have a problem with the poor, and some of those people are rich, so it does happen.
Making it a fight destroys any idea of a society, it entrenches the separation. In some circumstances it may be necessary, although most of the battles have been won, but it’s not good to make fighting the first resort.
I work in a low paid job in the UK, so my experience is perhaps somewhat different to yours, but I’ve never noticed any hatred or sadism from richer people.
Thing is that the Democrats aren’t. For two reasons.
Union busting was NOT a campaign issue anywhere. So when you speak about the will of the people, you can get behind the idea of “Wisconsin wanted to elect Republicans” but that doesn’t translate to “Wisconsin wanted to destroy all the unions except the three that supported Walker’s campaign”
I defy you to find even one single unbiased poll from Wisconsin or elsewhere, where public opinion isn’t on the side of the Democrats. Just one. Hell, I’ll spot you 5 percentage points just to see what you can come up with.
:rolleyes: The rich don’t regard themselves as part of the same society as the rest of us anyway, and never have. They feel no obligation, empathy or moral restraint towards the rest of humanity; we are expendable, exploitable resources at best in their eyes. The “separation” is already there. The rich are and always have been the enemy of the rest of us, whether or not the rest of us are willing to admit it.
You’re really a despicable little weasel. You certainly know that the contents of the bill were overwhelmingly favored by the majority of the American people.
But never let an opportunity for obfuscation in the sake of serving your political agenda go by the boards.
Do you ever step back and ask yourself why you play these deceitful little games on an internet message board? I myself do wonder what someone would get from it.
Thanks comrade, but that’s utter bollocks. The rich are no more a monolithic group with one set of characteristics than any other group of people - replace “the rich” with “the Jews” or “the gays” and you’ll see what i mean. Sure, there are some rich people who’ll hate the poor, just as there’s some poor people who hate the rich. I assume you’re in the latter group. But not everyone’s the same.
Your narrow tribalism will not work.
I wasn’t aware there were that many people here voting a strict party line. I mean, how many people voted for Obama because he was a Democrat and not a Republican? The Rep’s cut their own throat with their choices. Same thing in CA. Some Rep witch thought she could buy the Governor’s office, leaving only one (arguably) viable choice, who happened to be a Dem.
I’m a registered Democrat, but I promise you, if my party chose someone like Sarah to run, I’d be looking for alternatives.
There are books and news sources I can read if I want the facts. I read the political threads at SDMB mainly to understand how “erudite” right-wingers reason … or pretend to reason.
Many or most of the Americans who oppose the health care bill oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough. It is impossible to follow American politics at a sixth-grade level or higher without knowing that. (Since many Americans thought it wasn’t enough while some thought it too much, one could argue – though I wouldn’t – that it was a “Goldilocks” bill. )
Sam, we want to understand how you argue. Can you pick one of the following:
(A) Of course I knew my comment was a non sequitur, but I hoped others would fall for it.
(B) I’ve shown utter disregard for facts in other threads; why would you expect anything different from me now?
(C) Cite? Americans don’t want public health care. Americans who can’t afford insurance understand that they’re inferior creatures and are happy to sacrifice themselves for their superiors.
(D) Other.
The rich don’t ignore the poor, they need their votes. That’s why they pay so much to conservatives so they can run ads about fags, and guns, and atheists so the poor will vote against their own self interest.
Or you could vote on the issues and not on what a bunch of idiots on a message board say. Just an idea. You know, in case you want to grow the fuck up.
“'Course it’s a bit hard to see much at all, what with all this coal dust in my eyes, nor hear with my ears stuffed with weevils such as they are, but that’s neither here nor there…”
It’s not entirely clear why getting a larger share of a smaller pot is better for poor people - that’s what happens with hardcore socialism. All else being equal, increasing the wealth of the country as a whole is in everyone’s interest. Of course, everything is very rarely equal…
That’s actually a valid analogy, except that it analogizes pretty much everybody as having at least a rowboat (pretty disastrous to be without some sort of floatation device). Such has not been demonstrated to be the case.
It isn’t all that hard, you know. He’s had the facts pointed out to him about public support for health care often enough.
You left out “I repeat Republican / Fox / Teabagger talking points like a parrot, with no interest whatsoever in their factuality”. That covers, well, pretty much everything he “contributes” here. Saves the rest of us from watching Beck, anyway.
But you know what actually happens in American under the typical political parties that we have when you look at the actual evidence?
People in all income groups do better economically under Democrats than Republicans. In fact, every economic indicator has performed better under Democrats than Republicans for all data available. It’s all there.
So if you are voting for Republicans based on economic reasons, you’re voting for a fantasy of the type often sold by Sam Stone and his ilk. Inform your conscience with actual empirical evidence and then vote it. It’s liberating.
You liberals really take the cake. It’s obvious that the previous GOP administrations set the stage. Just like it was obvious that the passage of the tax cut extension led to an immediate jump in employment.
)