The Back Alley Archives

In the latest in a series of EPIC FAILURES for the Republican Party, Senator Arlen Specter today switched parties to become a Democrat. This makes the Senate Filibuster Proof and further relegates the Republican Party to irrelevance.

To which I laughingly say:




http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090428/us_time/08599189439400

Well at least you have your priorities straight. arcasm:

yay! you won!

You're right - and I am laughing my mother fucking ass off! :dance:

The only downside is that I am not on GC anymore so I can't rub it in some people's faces over there.

Dude wanted a chance to keep his seat come 2010. Can't blame him. Gotta be in the right people's pockets.

He knew he was going to lose in the primary. The Republican Party left him. Hopefully Snowe and Collins in Maine will follow his lead. The ironic thing is that the so called head of the Republican Party wants to punish those three for voting for the stimulus package, and that very vote was what put Specter over to switch parties.

According to the Blogs, Biden met with him over 14 times in the past several weeks. Way to go Joe!

And another irony - the real head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, was encouraging Republicans in PA to register as Democrats to vote in the primary. He called it Operation Chaos, and it was supposed to split the Democratic Party (how'd that work out, Rush?). So now there are something like 500,000 more registered Democrats that Republicans in PA - yet another fact ignored by the corporate owned media. So Rush played a role too.

Rush Limbaugh - the gift that keeps on giving. ;D

So your happy to get a turn coat? Personally if the switch were the other way I'd say keep him. Don't want a guy who can just drop core beliefs and run with the other team. I can understand not agreeing with the pubs anymore, they've deviated from what I would call core pub values. In that case become an indy, don't flip completely to the other side. As far as I'm concerned you can have the traitorous little bitch. Rather than try and fix what he disagrees with, he took the easy way out, because you can't tell me he all the sudden backs all things Dem.

You are absolutely right that he took the easy way out because he knew he was going to be primaried out. And considering how much Republicans have enjoyed Democratic turncoats in the past, I will take Specter. Considering that the only guiding philosophy the Republican Party has now is to completely oppose everything Obama wants to do and obstruct everything with no compromising, its now a numbers game. The Party of No has made themselves irrelevant - and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of idiots.

I'm disappointed that your values seem to be determined by a lowest common denominator calculation. "I'll take a turncoat since the Pubs took them" :words: :words: :words: :words:

To each his own, I guess.

Don't even think about fucking challenging me on my values. I think I have made them plain here over and over.

I am also a realist - 60 votes are needed to get around Republican obstructionism. Therefore Specter is needed, and if his defection will get things like universal health care through, then so be it. And truth be told for the most part, switching to the Democratic Party wasn't a big leap for him since his is pro-choice and has enjoyed union support.

And again, I ask you, why do you care since you think this country is fucked anyway?

Because I believe that there's a chance we have a small window to save ourselves from destruction if only enough sheeple would wake up. That's why your (seeming) nonsense bothers me. And that's why I care.

Of course, I don't know the future. I just know that it seems like you care quite a bit about some things for strange reasons while you ignore major fundamental risks that we're unnecessarily assuming outside the rule of law.

I would not use the term my seeming nonsense, my friend, as it puts the contents of your posts in question.

Which posts of mine have seemed like nonsense? Please point out the fallacies in my arguments. If I'm missing something it needs to be corrected.

I used to be an optimist. I'm now in Tip's camp. If Universal healthcare gets passed we will be a socialist country and there will be no turning back. It's a dark time, a destructive time for our country and the democrats are leading the charge. What's sickening is they take pleasure in it.

Yeah, having health care for all of our citizens is really a shitty thing. It's not like we are the only industrialized democracy not to have health care for all of our citizens or anything like that........

1. Not a democracy.

2. We have health care for our citizens...we just don't require the government to foot the bill. Nor should we.

1. Not a democracy.

2. We have health care for our citizens...we just don't require the government to foot the bill. Nor should we.

It cracks me up that there are well-educated adults in this country who never stop calling the republic a democracy.

1. Not a democracy.

2. We have health care for our citizens...we just don't require the government to foot the bill. Nor should we.

Yeah, nevermind the inconvenient facts that about 50 Million Americans don't have access to health care or that growing health care costs are bringing down our economy.

Please, argue against national health care and nominate candidates who are against it. That will guarantee the continue irrelevance and impotence of the Republican Party.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Please direct our attention to the enumerated power that gives Congress even the mere ability to provide universal healthcare. Thanks in advance.

"Proposals for socialized medicine are worse than the disease. These plans would increase costs, destroy jobs, impose broad new taxes on the American people, and lead to the rationing of care. The only health care reforms that are likely to have a significant impact on America’s health care problems are those that draw on the strength of the free market and individual responsibility. As with virtually everything in this country, the health care industry has suffered from centralization.

Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own health, with families responsible for family members unable or unwilling to take care of their own health. The community is next in line for taking care of the health concerns of its citizens. State government should be involved only to the extent that the citizens want it to be involved, and the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

Essentially government policies have been responsible for rising health costs and the unavailability of health care services. America can help lower health care costs and expand health care access by taking immediate steps to deregulate the health care industry, including elimination of mandated benefits, repeal of the Certificate-of-Need program, and expansion of the scope of practice for nonphysician health professionals."
-COMMON SENSE; Revisited
http://www.commonsenserevisited.org/

Well lets see AA - regarding the Constitution, I know that UHC is not in there. But I also know that the Constitution is a living breathing document, and these strict constructionist idiots are simply fools. You and I also know that there is a lot in the government that is not in the Constitution, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, and the President's Cabinet for example. Please, go ahead and campaign against any one of those things.

See here is exactly where your wet behind the ears opinions resonate. There is such a thing as political reality, which you don't seem to get or choose not to get. The American People want it, and they will get it. For too long it has been a political football and it will now be resolved.

Regarding your second post, it is pure speculation and one person's opinion. Again, you don't seem to understand that the current approach doesn't work. If we had UHC for example, the automakers woul dbe in better shaps as they wouldn't have to pay health care costs for their emplotees for example. All businesses would be in that boat.

So live in your world if you wish. I choose to live in the real world. You are completely and totally entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And I want to see this happen.

There's nothing about my positions that ignores reality. I simply choose to think about and focus my energy on what our reality should be rather than merely what it currently is.

I cannot understand your hatred for respecting the explicit limitations placed upon the surrogate power we gave the government. How can you ignore the common sense fact that enhancing the surrogate's power necessarily impinges upon the indigenous and inalienable sovereignty of the individual? The health of other citizens is no concern of the federal government. How can you ignore the simple fact that the federal government HAS NO POWER in this realm?

Now, if you're saying we should give the federal government that power, then that's an entirely different conversation that would include discussion of a Constitutional Amendment. I have no problem amending our Constitution so long as it is done legally according to the rules we have agreed upon. But to suggest that simply because the people have now decided the feds should provide healthcare necessarily means that healthcare is now to be included in the specifically enumerated powers of Congress is some scary hubris.

It's not your job to provide for my healthcare. It's mine. That doesn't make me a bad person. It makes me a self-actualized person, employing the ideas that this country was based on: rule of the individual by the individual, followed by the family (if the individual fails to care for himself), then the community (if the family fails), then the state (if the community fails and the state citizens feel they should step in). Until we amend the Constitution, the federal government simply cannot be the national healthcare provider. They don't have the authority.

The Constitution certainly lives and breathes, in that our practices within certain fields will change dramatically over time and our surrogate (the government) needs to be able to adapt to carry out its citizen-based charter. For example, as our understanding of diverse fields of science expands, our concept of land management may be fundamentally altered. What we considered land management 75 years ago is vastly different than our current perspective, to the point that it is scarcely recognizable.

And certainly, the presidential cabinet is not mentioned by name in the Constitution. However, I direct you to Article 2, Section 2 which reads in part: ". . .and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Further evidence that the framers contemplated the cabinet is found in Article 2, Section 1 which, please note, includes specific and explicit reference to "executive Departments": ". . .he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices. . ."

Those instances, however, present starkly different results than a search of the supreme law for any cognizable reference to healthcare provision by the government.

Oh, and I understand completely that the current approach doesn't work. You don't seem to understand that the government doesn't have the authority to provide UHC. You also don't seem to understand that UHC is not the only possible solution. I know that you feel bad for all the people who don't have healthcare out there. It's a bad situation. But it's not a situation for the federal government. It's for individuals, families, and communities to solve.

If we try to solve it with the federal government, the entire program will end up as a spectacular failure.

If we try to solve it with the federal government, the entire program will end up as a spectacular failure.

That is my main sticking point. There isn't much that the federal gov can do well. They don't need to take on more tasks. They should down size like GM...ie, the fed needs to get rid of Pontiac, not buy Fiat.

I'm in 100% total agreement with both Todd and AA (and AA and I certainly do not agree on everything).

I will gladly campaign against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...I do it all the time.

Just because the American "public" wants it does not make it right. The damn public doesn't know any better. They're ignorant and stupid.

Though, I do think you're right, slider. The American people want socialism...and by god, they will get it.

I just hope everyone is prepared to wait months to get your mammograms, colonospopys and such. Not that I enjoy them all that much but I do like to have my preventative maintenance. My husband on the other hand will be thrilled with yet another reason to NOT go to the doctor. I'm just sad and worried.

Slider I really wish you could make me feel better. I always read your posts hoping to see something that will put my mind at ease about this administration's plans for the country. Instead I realize that you are like many in this country who just think the gov't should be taking care of everyone for everything because however bad they run it, it's better than the big bad greedy rich people (who are mostly Republicans) running everything.

What I think you fail to see is no matter WHO is running everything in this country you will always have leaders (whether it's political or business leaders) making bad and selfish decisions...the only difference is the way it's headed it will be politicians making these mistakes and there will be NOTHING we can do about it. With free enterprise those Madoff type idiots who are selfish and greedy can be prosecuted and go to jail.

I'm just sad.