PDA

View Full Version : Conservative D.C. Appeals Ct.Upholds Obama H.C.Act



Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 06:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law


WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.



The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.





</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The White House said Tuesday it is confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, as the DC circuit did. Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter said in a White House blog post that opponents who say the individual mandate provision exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce "are simply wrong."

"People who make a decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market," she wrote. "Their action is not felt by themselves alone. Instead, when they become ill or injured and cannot pay their bills, their costs are shifted to others. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation."

The liberal interest group Constitutional Accountability Center said the ruling from a solid conservative like Silberman, as the Supreme Court prepares to take up the issue, is a "devastating blow" to opponents of the law.

"With two prominent conservatives, this panel was thought to be a dream come true for conservative challengers of the act," said the center's president, Doug Kendall. "Today that dream became a nightmare, as the panel unanimously rejected the challenges to the act, disagreeing only about why those challenges failed."



</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/obama-health-care-reform-_n_1081865.html

eg8r
11-08-2011, 09:24 PM
Let's get this straight...The rest of the country thinks this is non-Constitutional and the courts in DC disagree. LOL, no coincidence there. LOL, I laugh every time a lefty talks about how great this HC bill is going to be helping poor people get insurance but then these same lefties forget the poor still don't want to pay for it. However, no thanks to their supreme leader, it is about to become the law to pay for it. Some argue this is not a new tax but that is just semantics as far as I am concerned. For those poor people that cannot afford HC now, they still will not be able to afford it in 2014 but at least they will finally be paying some taxes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 03:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's get this straight...The rest of the country thinks this is non-Constitutional and the courts in DC disagree. LOL, no coincidence there. LOL, I laugh every time a lefty talks about how great this HC bill is going to be helping poor people get insurance but then these same lefties forget the poor still don't want to pay for it. However, no thanks to their supreme leader, it is about to become the law to pay for it. Some argue this is not a new tax but that is just semantics as far as I am concerned. For those poor people that cannot afford HC now, they still will not be able to afford it in 2014 but at least they will finally be paying some taxes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

You don't speak for the rest of the country, any more than you speak for this forum.

Additionally, more than one appeals court has ruled the same way, not just in D.C., althought the D.C. Court IS a conservative court, and it is probably the most important and powerful ruling to date....but found the Affordable Health Care mandate, to be Constitutional.

So I take it you approve of the free loaders who either refuse to take responsibility for their own health care insurance, or can't afford to pay for it, which is paid by all those of us who do pay for our Health Care and H.C. Insurance.

I suppose you must be fine as well with health care corporations which dropped people, often using bogus assertions when their policy holders most needed their coverage, after said policy holders had paid for their coverage.

I suppose you are also all for the Wall St. CEO's, as well, who stole from the whole country, and the world, and walked away withh their multi-million dollar bonuses for being thieves.

I laugh every time you write anything on this forum, and particularly when you prove your extemely limited knowledge and gross misinformation about everything.

Like for example, the FACT that everyone pays taxes, except for corporations, of course, many of which pay absolutely nothing, and in fact, get money back from the Federal Government, and get subsidies, our tax dollars, although they make millions upon millions in profits, while they outsource our jobs, pollute our environment, and make us sick.

Additionally, anny issues youo might have with the Affordable Health Care Act, exist because of Repiglican Obstructionism...other wiase we'd have a single payer system, which would have driven down Health Care costs overall, by inserting the principle of competition, where monopolies have price fixed costs.

No one denied that our Health Care costs were the highest in the world, but the actual quality of care was very low, comparatively speaking, to many other countries.

Additionally, virtually every respected economist stated that our Health Care System was broken, a huge factor in our economic problems, given the number of foreclosures linked to people who went bankrupt, even though they actually had Health Care Insurance, because they were dropped by the corrupt Health Care Insurance Industry, when they became ill..... and additionally represented 62% of the foreclosures from 03 through whole first year of the Bush Recession.

You should turn off Rush and Fux and read a book once in a while.

You're always pitifully uninformed, which makes your arrogance and obnoxious attack mode M.O., even more obnoxious.
G.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 08:40 AM
You can suppose all you want, which really is just your way of putting words into other peoples mouths. You have nothing of value to add so why not just start making stuff up. Typical gayle.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 09:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can suppose all you want, which really is just your way of putting words into other peoples mouths. You have nothing of value to add so why not just start making stuff up. Typical gayle.

eg8r </div></div>

You do it all the time. In fact, that's ALL that you do.

I'll leave the making things up part to you....

Asking questions isn't making things up.

You really have a problem with the language, or maybe the problem is just all about what is missing between your ears.....

NOthing new.

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 11:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's get this straight...The rest of the country thinks this is non-Constitutional and the courts in DC disagree. LOL, no coincidence there. LOL, I laugh every time a lefty talks about how great this HC bill is going to be helping poor people get insurance but then these same lefties forget the poor still don't want to pay for it. However, no thanks to their supreme leader, it is about to become the law to pay for it. Some argue this is not a new tax but that is just semantics as far as I am concerned. For those poor people that cannot afford HC now, they still will not be able to afford it in 2014 but at least they will finally be paying some taxes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

The GOP was sure this was Constitutional when the individual mandate to buy insurance was their plan in the Clinton '90s, a plan created by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and supported by the leading Republicans in Congress, in the half dozen or so alternative health care reform bills they themselves sponsored.

The GOP was sure this was Constitutional as late as mid-'09, when Sen. Charles Grassley confirmed that 'there's a general consensus in this body (the Senate, and including the GOP in the Senate)' that the individual mandate 'is the way to go.'

THEN, SUDDENLY, they 'discovered' that this must be unConstitutional, some 20 years into the debate, after they'd taken the opposite position up until about May or June of 2009? When asked how they missed that up until this time, the answer was, 'I guess we really didn't think about that too much.'

BS. They were right before they changed in the past year or so.

As this ruling concludes. Silberman is a right wing judge of great reputation as a smart conservative. He's great friends with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, and of a common view with them on Constitutional issues.

He slaps the 'unConstitutional' argument silly in his opinion. He shows they have no grounding in the Constitution to say this doesn't meet that bar, and instead go to two weak arguments that have nothing to do with the language of the Constitution:

1) That this is a novel mechanism, not seen before. (True, perhaps, but the Constitution does not bar novelty, per se.) 2) The slippery slope argument, that if this is allowed, who can limn a bright line of what CAN'T be done? An interesting point, but one that fails by Silberman's detailing of what has been held already is allowed under the Constitution.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP was sure this was Constitutional when the individual mandate to buy insurance was their plan in the Clinton '90s, a plan created by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and supported by the leading Republicans in Congress, in the half dozen or so alternative health care reform bills they themselves sponsored.

The GOP was sure this was Constitutional as late as mid-'09, when Sen. Charles Grassley confirmed that 'there's a general consensus in this body (the Senate, and including the GOP in the Senate)' that the individual mandate 'is the way to go.'

THEN, SUDDENLY, they 'discovered' that this must be unConstitutional, some 20 years into the debate,</div></div>Hallelujah!!! Finally their eyes are opened. However, isn't it the lefties that say the Reps are always trying to "stick it" to the poor. That would be in agreement with the GOP as you have mentioned in the quote. Quite hilariously it is also in agreement with the lefties in support of the HC bill. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif The poor are too blinded to see that the people they elected are going to continue to make sure the poor stays poor.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-09-2011, 02:05 PM
There are bad ideas that should be opposed as legislation, that still meet Constitutional muster as not forbidden (just bad policy).

I imagine no one would willingly have an arm cut off, but perhaps we all can imagine dire circumstances where that becomes a medical necessity.

We are in exactly such a dire circumstance with our unsustainable cancer-like growth of medical costs. It's among the leading reasons why wages haven't gone up for several decades (as the cost of the benefit package, mainly in terms of the companies' costs for their health care part of it, has soared at double-digit rates of increase).

The main reason that the health reform is crappy is the compromises with the very same bad actors in this play (Big Pharma, Big Insurance) demanded to allow it to be passed.

Now that it has been passed, crossing this first hurdle, those crippling compromises need to be removed to make the law more efficient.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The main reason that the health reform is crappy is the compromises with the very same bad actors in this play (Big Pharma, Big Insurance) demanded to allow it to be passed.
</div></div>I do agree it is crappy. Whatever it takes to make it better, cheaper and less of a penalty to those that wish to not participate would be welcomed.

eg8r

Qtec
11-09-2011, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are in exactly such a dire circumstance with our unsustainable cancer-like growth of medical costs. It's among the leading reasons why wages haven't gone up for several decades (as the cost of the benefit package, mainly in terms of the companies' costs for their health care part of it, has soared at double-digit rates of increase). </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cost of health insurance has more than doubled

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>From the beginning of the Bush presidency in 2001, the cost to families and individuals for health insurance has doubled and is going up again. Some believe insurance companies are upping their profits in anticipation of the impact of the Affordable Care Act next year.</span>

A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.</span>

“The open question is whether that’s a one-time spike or the start of a period of higher increases,” said Drew Altman, the chief executive of the Kaiser foundation.

The steep increase in rates is particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is still sputtering and unemployment continues to hover at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the high cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. Over all, the cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, when premiums averaged $7,061, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages over the same period. </div></div>

Some would call this extortion. What you have in the USA is a HC cartel that squeezes more money from the country every year, just because they can. Giving people vouchers for a set amount of money is not going to address that problem, it will only make it worse.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-10-2011, 06:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are in exactly such a dire circumstance with our unsustainable cancer-like growth of medical costs. It's among the leading reasons why wages haven't gone up for several decades (as the cost of the benefit package, mainly in terms of the companies' costs for their health care part of it, has soared at double-digit rates of increase). </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cost of health insurance has more than doubled

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>From the beginning of the Bush presidency in 2001, the cost to families and individuals for health insurance has doubled and is going up again. Some believe insurance companies are upping their profits in anticipation of the impact of the Affordable Care Act next year.</span>

A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year.</span>

“The open question is whether that’s a one-time spike or the start of a period of higher increases,” said Drew Altman, the chief executive of the Kaiser foundation.

The steep increase in rates is particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is still sputtering and unemployment continues to hover at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the high cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. Over all, the cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, when premiums averaged $7,061, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages over the same period. </div></div>

Some would call this extortion. What you have in the USA is a HC cartel that squeezes more money from the country every year, just because they can. Giving people vouchers for a set amount of money is not going to address that problem, it will only make it worse.

Q </div></div>

Hilarious that so many righties confirm the need to solve our Health care crisis, the outrageous costs of care and health insurance, poor medical performance, yet they simultaneously keep bitching about enforcing the solutions to solving the main causes of our rising costs.

People who refuse to pay for health care, and health insurance, but choose to pass the costs on to the rest of us with expensive emergency room costs, when they suddenly find that they need medical care, a huge contributing factor.

The Republican Party sabotages every effort to solve the rising costs of living for our citizens, owned lock stock and barrel by big pharma, the health care and health insurance industries, the polluting energy industry and corrupt banking industry, yet Republicans block every attempt at legislation that could prevent further extortion by the corporate pigs.

You can't solve the problem, without addressing all of the causes. Repiglicans won't have any of THAT!

G.

Gayle in MD
11-11-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's get this straight...The rest of the country thinks this is non-Constitutional and the courts in DC disagree. LOL, no coincidence there. LOL, I laugh every time a lefty talks about how great this HC bill is going to be helping poor people get insurance but then these same lefties forget the poor still don't want to pay for it. However, no thanks to their supreme leader, it is about to become the law to pay for it. Some argue this is not a new tax but that is just semantics as far as I am concerned. For those poor people that cannot afford HC now, they still will not be able to afford it in 2014 but at least they will finally be paying some taxes. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Again, you highjack my thread, so that you can throw up all over it with your nasty insults.

This thread is about The Constitutional correctness of the mandate in the AHCA.

Additionally, there are manny who have no health coverage, who will be covered, thanks to the Obama, AHCA.

The court which just made this ruling, is the most conservative court you could find, and probably the most powerful other than the SC.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Judges should never decide a case based on personal beliefs or political preferences. Yet as challenges to the health-care law made their way through the courts, a disturbing pattern emerged: Democratic-appointed trial judges were more likely to uphold the law than their Republican-appointed counterparts were. Although judges on the courts of appeals were less predictable, the pattern remained. The conclusion drawn by some: Judges were nothing more than politicians in robes. Judge Silberman’s principled ruling is an emphatic and laudable repudiation of that notion.

The opinion applies long-standing Supreme Court precedent to conclude that the Constitution gives the federal government broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. It rightly concludes that the national health-care market and the individual mandate fit within this authority. Judge Silberman was joined in the majority by Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards, a Carter appointee. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was named to the bench by President George W. Bush, dissented.

It would be hard to imagine a Sen. Silberman voting for a sweeping government health-care mandate. But Judge Silberman took seriously his obligation to allow only the Constitution and case law to dictate the result — even if it clashes with his personal political views.
</div></div>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i...pm_opinions_pop (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-health-care-ruling-precedent-trumped-politics/2011/11/09/gIQAwkTt9M_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop)

eg8r
11-11-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you highjack my thread, so that you can throw up all over it with your nasty insults.
</div></div>Is your piss poor memory failing you or did you forget you have already been responding to me in this thread for a couple days? Hello, earth to gaylio. I bet it is just you trying to start yet another pissing contest.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, there are manny who have no health coverage, who will be covered, thanks to the Obama, AHCA.
</div></div>You have had 5 minutes to correct this sentence to make more sense. Are you going to try?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-11-2011, 02:46 PM
Some would call this extortion. What you have in the USA is a HC cartel that squeezes more money from the country every year, just because they can. Giving people vouchers for a set amount of money is not going to address that problem, it will only make it worse.

They've gamed the system thoroughly, and are extracting monopoly rents unjustified by competition or results.

Big Pharma leads all business sectors as to its profitability (not necessarily as much PROFIT as Big Oil, but a higher percentage of profit to gross revenues than them or anyone else). How do they get away with it?

Buy the Congress and write the laws with their willing employees, the best Congress that money can buy.

Definition of an 'honest' Congressperson: one, who once bought, stays bought.

eg8r
11-11-2011, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do they get away with it?

Buy the Congress and write the laws with their willing employees, the best Congress that money can buy.
</div></div>Sounds like the same thing Wall St was doing with Obama.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-12-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, you highjack my thread, so that you can throw up all over it with your nasty insults.
</div></div>Is your piss poor memory failing you or did you forget you have already been responding to me in this thread for a couple days? Hello, earth to gaylio. I bet it is just you trying to start yet another pissing contest.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Additionally, there are manny who have no health coverage, who will be covered, thanks to the Obama, AHCA.
</div></div>You have had 5 minutes to correct this sentence to make more sense. Are you going to try?

eg8r </div></div>

More pointless BS from Eg.

Stuff it.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-12-2011, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do they get away with it?

Buy the Congress and write the laws with their willing employees, the best Congress that money can buy.
</div></div>Sounds like the same thing Wall St was doing with Obama.

eg8r </div></div>

It's the Repiglicans who have protected Wall St., by and large, all along.

Alan Greenspan, another Free Market Repiglican zealot, like all of the current Repiglicans, was the biggest Wizard behind the curtian of the entire ultimate Global Wall St. Ponzi Scheme.

If he had been doing his job, all along, none of this Wall St. Mess could have happened.

By the time he left, the map was already in place for everything.

He stepped back and let it happen, and made it even worse when he joined Bush's "Ownership Society" and provided the most irrational interest rate numbers ever seen in history, for years, as he totally ignored the warnings, and worse, threatened and blocked all those who were trying to prevent the Crash throughout the run up.

He mislead and scammed the whistle blowers....making them think he had seen the light, but then did othing, and they have gone on the record. He refuses to comment.

G.

Soflasnapper
11-12-2011, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do they get away with it?

Buy the Congress and write the laws with their willing employees, the best Congress that money can buy.
</div></div>Sounds like the same thing Wall St was doing with Obama.

eg8r </div></div>

TRYING to do, yes, perhaps that's right. ACHIEVING IT, however? Not so much.

How did Obama get the TARP monies repaid? By making moves to limit the CEO pay for institutions supported by those loans. That wasn't what Wall Street wanted.

Then he helped get through into law the Wall Street reform act (Dodd/Frank), again, something they opposed and didn't want to see enacted into law.

eg8r
11-12-2011, 04:35 PM
LOL, I show you your hypocritical ways and you get all pissy. Typical gayle.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2011, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRYING to do, yes, perhaps that's right. ACHIEVING IT, however? Not so much.
</div></div>What do you mean "not so much"? Many of the lefties on this board are all pissed off about the high salaries and money these Wall St tycoons have been able to keep and continue to extort. If they were not getting what they want from Obama I am sure this continued activity would have been cut short. I think they are getting exactly what they wanted from Obama. They paid him to act soft. Act like he is being tough but still allow business to continue as usual. If there were not any road blocks, like the couple you mentioned, then Obama's true colors would have come out a lot quicker. These guys are not wealthy and powerful by being stupid and transparent. They know what they are doing and they are getting what they paid for.

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2011, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's the Repiglicans who have protected Wall St., by and large, all along.
</div></div>LOL, it is so nice to discuss this stuff with sofla. He is a man of intelligence. You on the other hand have become just someone who blatantly displays hypocrisy and idiocy. Your 10 year old rants aren't worth printing out to use as toilet paper.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-13-2011, 01:28 PM
Thanks for the kind remarks, even as opinions on that topic vary widely on this forum.

However, what do you make of the fact that I estimate I agree at a 90%+ rate with G's or Q's substantive positions, however much I strive to keep my rhetoric low key and not so aggressively in attack/name-calling mode? That is, other than as to STYLE of presentation, use of personal or group name calling, there's hardly any daylight between our various positions?

eg8r
11-13-2011, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, what do you make of the fact that I estimate I agree at a 90%+ rate with G's or Q's substantive positions, however much I strive to keep my rhetoric low key and not so aggressively in attack/name-calling mode? That is, other than as to STYLE of presentation, use of personal or group name calling, there's hardly any daylight between our various positions? </div></div>Hardly any daylight? 10% is hardly any daylight? Or are you shifting around the numbers as you go?

Your style is completely opposite of hers, and admittedly mine, and it is much easier to have dialogue with. I never see the attacking style in your posts, you present what you want to present. The other difference between what I have been able to gather is that you seem to understand what you are reading and attempt to explain it in your own way. To even give gayle the benefit of doubt as to whether she understands even 10% is going way too far. Here is a good analogy of the two of you...Kid A asks the smart kid in class how to write a proof. Smart Kid (you) then goes on to rattle off the proof with ease. Dumb Kid (gayle) turns, smiles, and says, "Yeah, what Smart Kid said".

Because I enjoy discussion with you doesn't mean I agree with you or even think you are right. You do have a great vocabulary though and I enjoy reading your posts. So this leads me to wonder, if you both believe roughly the same stuff, why is it that you are easy to talk to and she is a miserable monster?

eg8r &lt;~~~notices my responses to sofla are never as attacking even though I still disagree

Soflasnapper
11-13-2011, 06:12 PM
Hardly any daylight? 10% is hardly any daylight? Or are you shifting around the numbers as you go?

I think it was Reagan who asked partisans of his side to TAKE someone who has an 80% similar position to oneself as a political ally, rather than as a fiercely opposed 20% political foe.

Similarly, while I voted for someone other than Clinton in the '92 primaries, and someone other than Obama in the '08 primaries, for principled reasons, I still align with them now (the other people WERE Democrats, after all).

As someone for whom a pro-choice position is important, I can still accept a principled pro-lifer position from Democrats and consider them 'on my side' nonetheless (former Rep. and 3rd in the leadership David Bonier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former Gov. Casey from PA as examples).

eg8r
11-14-2011, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As someone for whom a pro-choice position is important, I can still accept a principled pro-lifer position from Democrats and consider them 'on my side' nonetheless (former Rep. and 3rd in the leadership David Bonier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former Gov. Casey from PA as examples). </div></div>Thank you for pointing out the glaring differences between yourself and gayle. You think through things and make a decision. She doesn't have to think because others do it for her. If a Dem says something she believes it no matter what.

eg8r