Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I saw the chaos coming in the early years of the Obama Administration, when the opposition was less guttural but just as strident; when the Republican leadership ordered its members to oppose every part of the president’s agenda; when they openly strategized that the path back to power required denying Obama a single moment of bipartisan cooperation—even during a national crisis; even before he announced what was in a proposal; even when he offered a health care plan that looked just like the Republican alternative to Hillarycare in 1993; a plan that was nearly identical to the reform that had just been passed by the Republican Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

I saw the insurgency take shape in the apocalyptic response to a piece of legislation so radical that it maintained America’s system of private health insurance. But this time, it wasn’t enough for Republican politicians to simply oppose Obamacare—to say, “I think it costs too much because of X” or “I don’t think it will work because of Y.” Instead, they were advised by party strategists to tell their constituents that Obamacare was “a government takeover” because “takeovers are like coups—they both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.”
What followed were the absurdist claims that Obamacare included death panels. We heard perpetually confused brain surgeon Ben Carson say that the bill was “the worst thing that happened in this nation since slavery.” We watched a Congressman interrupt the President of the United States during a live national address to call him a liar for claiming that Obamacare wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants—which, by every account, was 100 percent true.

Is it any wonder, then, that Tea Partiers took to the streets? Is it really so shocking that one of them waved a sign outside the Capitol which threatened gun violence if Republicans failed to stop the Affordable Care Act? And when the bill still passed with a majority of votes in both houses of Congress—a radical strategy that Obama learned about from the Constitution—is it terribly surprising that Tea Partiers were swept into power on a wave of anti-government rage that was stoked by Fox and Rush and millions of dollars in bullshit ads?
We saw what came next. Over and over, President Obama would try to negotiate with Speaker Boehner on taxes and spending. The negotiations would fail. And Official Washington would blame the two men for not recreating its favorite wet dream: Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, solving the world’s problems with a glass of whiskey and a handshake after a hard day’s work.

93henfan wrote:Perpetually confused brain surgeon Ben Carson.

The article is obviously biased. It's not like the Dems have ever extended an olive branch to get anything going. Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein are the very definition of uncompromising.

93henfan wrote:Perpetually confused brain surgeon Ben Carson.

The article is obviously biased. It's not like the Dems have ever extended an olive branch to get anything going. Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein are the very definition of uncompromising.

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:Perpetually confused brain surgeon Ben Carson.

The article is obviously biased. It's not like the Dems have ever extended an olive branch to get anything going. Reid, Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein are the very definition of uncompromising.

Hillary compromised.

Bernie co-authored a bill with Ron Paul.

93henfan wrote:As batshit crazy as he comes across to many, I think The Donald would actually be the only true wheeler dealer of the bunch. It's his MO to change as necessary to get shit done. He's made a career of it.

CAA Flagship wrote:

93henfan wrote:As batshit crazy as he comes across to many, I think The Donald would actually be the only true wheeler dealer of the bunch. It's his MO to change as necessary to get **** done. He's made a career of it.

I think there is some truth to this. He does not fear negotiation.
Question is whether or not he would walk away from a deal that he perceives not to be in his favor, despite being a step in the right direction.

93henfan wrote:Yeah, because Dem congressmen take no money from big pharma and insurance.

As much as he's reviled, Mike Moore did a great job of pointing this out in Sicko. The scene with bubbles of pharma contributions floating over everyone's (especially Hillary's) heads was hilarious.

kalm wrote:Let's not forget that Obamacare was once a good idea with Republicans and that the finished product WAS a compromise...that favored big pharma and insurance.

Obama...the uncompromising liberal...

93henfan wrote:Yeah, because Dem congressmen take no money from big pharma and insurance.

As much as he's reviled, Mike Moore did a great job of pointing this out in Sicko. The scene with bubbles of pharma contributions floating over everyone's (especially Hillary's) heads was hilarious.

Baldy wrote:

93henfan wrote:Yeah, because Dem congressmen take no money from big pharma and insurance.

As much as he's reviled, Mike Moore did a great job of pointing this out in Sicko. The scene with bubbles of pharma contributions floating over everyone's (especially Hillary's) heads was hilarious.

From the look of the vote, it looks like the Donks are the only ones who take money from Big Pharma and Insurance.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: I think there is some truth to this. He does not fear negotiation.
Question is whether or not he would walk away from a deal that he perceives not to be in his favor, despite being a step in the right direction.

One of his line from his last press conference that he had friends on the other side, that spoke volumes. We need someone at the time who has the ability to get along with both sides of the aisle. The President needs to be the ultimate mediator between both sides. As soon as they step into the fray and choose sides, their presidency is a failure IMO.

GannonFan wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:
One of his line from his last press conference that he had friends on the other side, that spoke volumes. We need someone at the time who has the ability to get along with both sides of the aisle. The President needs to be the ultimate mediator between both sides. As soon as they step into the fray and choose sides, their presidency is a failure IMO.

And that is one redeeming thing about Trump - he's clearly not beholden to the normal GOP backers, so he's much freer to steer a different course, both on the social as well as economic fronts. He's not beholden to a particular ideology and forbidden from deviating slightly, or a lot, from it.

DSUrocks07 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
And that is one redeeming thing about Trump - he's clearly not beholden to the normal GOP backers, so he's much freer to steer a different course, both on the social as well as economic fronts. He's not beholden to a particular ideology and forbidden from deviating slightly, or a lot, from it.

Exactly, he's cannot be labeled as a "traitor to the cause" because hes not defined by any one particular cause. I want a leader that will consider all answers to a question and will always try to select the best one for the country as a whole, not consider only the ones that hold to the "principles of their party" and only select the ones that make their party look good and when they don't work its the other side's fault.

Trump 2016

Ivytalk wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: Exactly, he's cannot be labeled as a "traitor to the cause" because hes not defined by any one particular cause. I want a leader that will consider all answers to a question and will always try to select the best one for the country as a whole, not consider only the ones that hold to the "principles of their party" and only select the ones that make their party look good and when they don't work its the other side's fault.

Trump 2016

Jesus, DSU, you sound like a male version of "Diamond and Silk." What makes you think that Trump has any allegiance to the best interests of the country as a whole -- if he even knows what they are ("I saw it on the Internet")? JHTFC.

And GF tripped over his well-polished centrist dong here. "Not beholden to a particular ideology"? You bet -- megalomaniacs and pathological liars know only the Ideology of the Self. Given that choice, I'll take ideology! Heck.

93henfan wrote:Ivy is having crabs with JSO this year.

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:Ivy is having crabs with JSO this year.

Better than catching crabs from you. No homo.

Ibanez wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Better than catching crabs from you. No homo.

If you did, they'd be from Louisiana.

Ivytalk wrote:

Ibanez wrote: If you did, they'd be from Louisiana.

True dat. I'd have to ask JSO how many nutria it takes to make a meal. Gotta be fewer than muskrats.

Ivytalk wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote: Exactly, he's cannot be labeled as a "traitor to the cause" because hes not defined by any one particular cause. I want a leader that will consider all answers to a question and will always try to select the best one for the country as a whole, not consider only the ones that hold to the "principles of their party" and only select the ones that make their party look good and when they don't work its the other side's fault.

Trump 2016

Jesus, DSU, you sound like a male version of "Diamond and Silk." What makes you think that Trump has any allegiance to the best interests of the country as a whole -- if he even knows what they are ("I saw it on the Internet")? JHTFC.

And GF tripped over his well-polished centrist dong here. "Not beholden to a particular ideology"? You bet -- megalomaniacs and pathological liars know only the Ideology of the Self. Given that choice, I'll take ideology! Heck.