Health Care to fail

[01solara]

Who said anything about taking away your gun?

In the scenario, the politician was pro-gun rights. The Second Amendment already clear states a citizen has the right to bear arms.

And since where on the topic of "rights" and the Constitution, what about the right to equality and the pursuit of happieness?

If an anti-gay politician bans gay marriage, gay adoption, and supports discrimination against gay workers, than "what's to stop [him] from taking any other right they want?"

It's okay to you to give up OTHER rights for one right? No, ALL rights are self-evident.

Please don't tell me you're another self-loathing gay/bisexual man who has no problem voting for a rabid anti-gay politician...

We have had gun rights from early on and there are many on the left that favor taking gun rights away. That is why the matter had to be settled by the supreme court.

Gays have never had the right to marry another person of the same sex. We could have civil unions very quickly if the marriage benefits were what was wanted. What the gay marriage issue is really about is forcing people to accept gay people. I would love for that to happen and in time it will but it will take longer if is forced against the will of the majority. The only way to get the desired outcome is to phase it in incrementally. Start with civil unions and as people see that there is no damage or ill effects to the traditional family we can then move to the title of marriage. We want the same thing we see the path to get it differently.

I fully support gay adoption my father was adopted as well as his brother. I have seen first hand the good that being put in a loving family can do.

I have not seen anyone on the right or the left campaigning on introducing legislation to encourage gay discrimination in the work place. Sexuality has no business in the work place hetero or homo it is not the place for it. What I do hear people saying and I don't necessarily agree with it is that the laws in place already afford that protection. If you will recall the ERA failed for the same reason.

I am not self loathing and I only hear that here. People that know me in the real world would not agree with that at all. I look at politics as more than about being gay. If the country isn't safe and prosperous first our life sucks no matter what the gay rights are or aren't at the time.

I wish that I could change things tomorrow so that we could be gay and be seen as just the same as everyone else except that we like to have sex with men instead of women. That isn't reality and it will take a long time. We in the mean time have to ensure that when that day comes we have a country left in which to enjoy those rights.

Short of wack jobs like Fred Phelps and Pat Roberson I don't see a lot of rabid antigay sentiment. There are pockets of uneducated red necks that still hold those views but things are loosening up and changing even there.

 

[Kulindahr]

You didn't "school" me on anything because I never said that

You are a master at attacking a straw man.

It's a symptom of the lazy thinking that results from labeling: no matter how hard someone works to make his actual position clear, all that is trumped by the label. Labeling leads to straw man arguments because the labeler literally cannot see the real man, only the straw man.

Again, nothing is more 'important' than gay rights to a gay person. One should not be compromised for another.

Many things are, and ought to be.

How about the right against self-incrimination? The way the "USA PATRIOT" Act is set up, and with some presidential orders and directives that are floating around, all it takes is "cause to believe" by the right people and you lose that. How can gay rights be more important than such a basic human right?

Or the right of protection against search without a warrant? The same set of items as above throw that out the window, too, besides a series of court rulings that basically say that if a police officer can see something, he has the authority to enter the area regardless of what he has to do to get there -- your locked car, your gated farm, your fenced yard, even your living room if he can see in the window from the street.

We fight to have our inalienable rights recognized, but at the same time ignore the steps being taken to make all such recognition irrelevant. With many of the laws currently in place and upheld by the courts, all a cop who wants to hurt you for being gay has to do is use something under one of those laws, and all questions about actual motive are void.

One of the most important rights, which is really a matter of gay rights, that many people in the Democratic Party don't care about is the right of self-defense. Historically, the Democrats stood strong on it, recognizing it as part and parcel of the Second Amendment, but many Democrats today are perfectly happy to vote for someone who prefers that they be prey for criminals, just to get someone who favors "gay rights" -- and, like as not, will give nothing more than lip service, while striving vigorously to get you disarmed so the gay bashers can have their way.

 

[Kulindahr]

As a gay person, NOTHING is more important than gay rights.

You can be anti-abortion, you can be pro-national defense, but when you say these issues are more 'important' you automatically say:

"I have no self-respect as a gay man. I think my rights aren't important and I'm okay with being a second-class citizen".

It's not Jingo. You don't have to stack gay rights under your other political values like it's a block or something....

Applying your methodology here.... what you;re saying is

"I don't care if the country is defenseless, so long as I can marry who I want."
"I don't care if gangs take over our cities, so long as I can visit my partner in the hospital."
"I don't care if our economy goes to hell, so long as my job application gets filed equally with the rest."


To someone with perspective, gay rights are irrelevant -- it's human rights that count. I have never, and will never, support something because it is a matter of "gay rights", but always if it's a matter of human rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gay rights shouldn't be more or less important than anything to a gay person.

It's ALWAYS at the top of the pile.

Using your approach here...

You'd vote for a candidate who supported gay marriage even if he wanted to:

strengthen the ability of the government to spy on Americans without warrant
increase the ability of the government to seize property on mere suspicion and not return it
deny the right of habeus corpus to anyone accused of a violent felony
enhance legislation which moves American jobs steadily out of the country


Right?

 

[Kulindahr]

I do not believe, in this day and age, that the way to improving the functions of a modern government is by stockpiling of private arms, nor is it a way to prevent the government from becoming more "tyrannical." I don't believe that either party of the United States is capable of breaching constitutional guarantees of freedom without due process of law before the Supreme court. The Constitution is more powerful than any gun. It wasn't so in 1765, because it didn't exist.

You mean that same Supreme Court that keeps giving away things guaranteed in the Constitution?

And the two parties whose members happily voted for the "USA PATRIOT" Act?


Yeah, those give me a lot of confidence in D.C. as a guarantor of rights.

 

[joshgld]

I think jockboy 87 is cute...

Health care won't fail...it's being run into the ground by the government will just slow down a bit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just as my primary protection from criminals is law enforcement who keep them from ever getting to my front door, but that gun is there just in case they get past. Either way, its there in the (unlikely) event that you ever need it.

According to various state and federal courts including SCOTUS, that isn't the job of law enforcement. They only "protect" in the aggregate, by posing consequences to those who violate the law... after the fact.

Your home firearm is your first line of defense.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gays have never had the right to marry another person of the same sex.

We have always had that right, just as Jehovah's Witnesses had the right not to say the Pledge of Allegiance even before the ACLU went to court for them and got that right recognized.

The problem is that other people have believed that it was in their power to decide whether we had such a right, just as there were people who believed they had the power to decide whether human beings could be treated as property.

To hold that we have to "obtain" our rights is to agree with those who think that they can deny them.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's hyperbole because we know the stakes aren't realistically that drastic.

The people of the Northeast, don't trend Democratic because they are poor, stupid, and crazy.

It's not hyperbole when it's doing exactly what the other guy is doing. All I'm doing is illustrating the methodology in order to show it for what it is.

 

[DiamondSkin]

Using your approach here...

You'd vote for a candidate who supported gay marriage even if he wanted to:

strengthen the ability of the government to spy on Americans without warrant
increase the ability of the government to seize property on mere suspicion and not return it
deny the right of habeus corpus to anyone accused of a violent felony
enhance legislation which moves American jobs steadily out of the country


Right?

No, darling, darling, darling.

Ugh. Lord give me patience....



That's PRECISELY the rhetoric I've been arguing against the other fellow.

I would never vote for a candidate just because they're pro-gay rights. There are OTHER issues to take at hand. If a candidate is pro-gay rights...but he wants to dney the right of habeus corpus as you said, I wouldn't vote for him?

Why? Because, unlike you, I won't compromise one right for another. If he's pro-gay rights, I applaud him. But if I don't agree with the majority of his other issues, than I won't vote him. Someone else can fight for gay rights. And I'll vote for a candidate who is pro-gay rights and aligned with my other issues as well.

However, I would never vote for a politician who is anti-gay in sentiment and political record regardless of his other issues. By doing so, I'm voting for his bigotry. I'm agreeing to discrimination. I'm openly giving up my rights to the government to take away in exchange for another. It's unacceptable

I would automatically give away one right to see other issues I agree with come to pass. Which is something I will not tolerate.

It's not a bloody trade and barter system, as you'd like it to be.

If you want to trade a piece of your soul for some issues, that's your chain and ball.

Such a black and white world you live in, darling.

 

[Telstra]

With a Democratic revolt in Massachusett, the Democrats in the house and senate will be afraid to vote for the failed health care bill or any bill proposed by Obama. Obama has lost his mandate (if he had one).

The bluest of blue state said "we do not like the direction Washington is taking, it is too leftist".

Brown campaigned saying that he will be the forty first vote against health care. Blue Mass. overwhelming voted for him and against this bad health care bill.

Massachusetts said clearly "Do not shove this bill down our throat".

wondering if you watched "Sicko".
Very fitting.

 

[construct]

I think health care reform (like it or not) is now (if it wasn't already) effectively dead.

 

[Ambrocious]

Everybody keeps up this false left/right fight and it makes me sick that you who continue this fight cannot see that both the Democrats and the Republicans are the same. What has truly changed here since Obama came into office other than the wars being continued and heightened and the continuation of all of the same tyranny of Bush? Health care or not, there is ALWAYS an alternative motive behind these new bills and it is your responsibility to look into what is happening.

Break the left right paradigm and see that both parties work for the same international banking cartel. Obama is a puppet just as Bush was. There are other things happening in the world that you need to see and know about.


ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement [Made In 2007]
The Obama Deception [Made In March 2009]
Fall of the Republic [Made In October 2009]

 

[Kulindahr]

N
That's PRECISELY the rhetoric I've been arguing against the other fellow.


It's not a bloody trade and barter system, as you'd like it to be.

If you want to trade a piece of your soul for some issues, that's your chain and ball.

Such a black and white world you live in, darling.

You contradict yourself.

That is precisely the rhetoric you've been arguing, but you don't like it when your own rhetoric is used against you. You want absolutism from him, but don't like it when you're shown to be an absolutist.

You've tried to box your opponents in with black-and-white demands, you've made the black-and white position that "gay rights has to be at the top of the list", but when that's shown to you, you abandon it and accuse those who disagree with you of what you say in the last three lines.

But those lines describe what you've been doing. You refuse to admit that you might actually have to make a choice sometime other than the mindless, simplistic "gay rights have to be on top".

Gay rights are a piece of the puzzle -- a piece of something called human rights. Yet when someone else tries to explain that, you offer him artificial choices and claim because of what you imagine his response to be that he doesn't really care about gay rights. All I did was show that by applying your own reasoning, you don't care about human rights.

Every issue I mentioned involves "a piece of your soul" -- yet you look at only one.

And BTW: if you've voted for any of the Democrats who supported the "USA PATRIOT" Act just because they happen to support gay rights as you narrowly define them, you've already sold out your soul. That legislation set us on a path where it won't matter what legislation is passed to protect our rights as a particular minority, because with it government officials will be able to persecute us as they please and not have to answer to anyone.

 

[JB3]

Voted to ban gay adoptions.


Voted for DOMA.


Voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


Voted against ENDA and for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


As you can see, you are quite mistaken.

These are the Republicans you are trumpeting for supporting gay rights?

You provided a list of no more than a handful (considering the total number in Congress) of Republican politicians. And even within this list, the support for gay rights is rather shamefully poor.

Your assertion that numerous Republicans support gay rights remains unfounded and vacuous. Believe it if that's what lets you sleep at night, but it simply is not true.

Believe what you want, but that list came DIRECTLY from the Human Rights Campaign, and was part of a list that was generated in 2006. I'd wager they're a fair bit more accurate than you are.

 

[JOUPER]

Kiss obama's Health care bill goodbye! ha ha !!! we won !!!!

 

[Spiff]

Addressing the title of this thread, hasn't health care already failed? Which is why everyone agrees it needs fixed. It's just that one side actually wants to do something about it and the other side does not.

Hooray. Let's all celebrate that something which everyone agrees is broken will remain broken.

 

[JOUPER]

Addressing the title of this thread, hasn't health care already failed? Which is why everyone agrees it needs fixed. It's just that one side actually wants to do something about it and the other side does not.

Hooray. Let's all celebrate that something which everyone agrees is broken will remain broken.

Yah!

 

[chuck10x]

It just seems that NO ONE wants to touch the subject and actually pass legislation for gay rights.

And that is the Sad fact of both Parties.
For the record Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter in a comitted relationship, And he supports gay rights.

 

[Kulindahr]

Addressing the title of this thread, hasn't health care already failed? Which is why everyone agrees it needs fixed. It's just that one side actually wants to do something about it and the other side does not.

Hooray. Let's all celebrate that something which everyone agrees is broken will remain broken.

No, the two sides want to do different things about it.

But with Obama's support, what they've come up with is a plan to make the insurance companies record profits. Seems that both parties are about enriching big corporations.