Victory for the right?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday.

The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism.

Chief Justice John Roberts has served this cause.

The health care legislation's expansion of the federal government's purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers' design for limited government.

Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress' rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.




http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018563800_will01.html

 

[Rationalist]

It is silly for conservatives to pretend that SCOTUS' decision wasn't a victory for liberalism, or even more ridiculously, that Roberts was handing a victory to Republicans so they could use it as a campaign issue. Both of these opinions are delusional.

However, victory in a battle does not mean there will be victory in a war. Liberals have won a battle, but I do not believe they will win the war of ideas.

 

[leaningright]

I do agree Mr. Voltaire....say la ve or whoever you are this week. What happened this week was nothing less than a victory for the left. Ain't no amount of spin gonna change that.

 

[Phantasmal]

I do agree Mr. Voltaire....say la ve or whoever you are this week. What happened this week was nothing less than a victory for the left. Ain't no amount of spin gonna change that.

It is a victory for the uninsured.

 

[Rationalist]

It is a victory for the uninsured.

I agree. But is it the only, best, and most cost-effective way to provide relief for the uninsured? My primary objection is that it addresses the symptom (expensive health insurance) rather than the cause. As a result, costs will continue to skyrocket.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

politically I am not sure how much this supreme court decision will effect the election honestly.

On the republican side, the claim is it's firing up the base. But the base already hated obamas guts. I don't think that changed anything.

Nationally, last I checked (and it may have changed) healthcare being an important issue for voters was around 7%. The economy, and jobs, still remains THE electoral issue.

I don't think obama gained much from this either, but he did prevent a loss. I think the problem obama would have had if the ACA was ruled unconstitutional, would be the fact that he wasted all his political capital and clout on something that didn't even come to fruition. With that being juxtoposed with the economy, it would make him look entirely ineffective, and a time waster. Now at least people realize it wasn't all for naught. He got something done. He was effective. Something to show for his efforts. That's a good selling point for him.

But the bill itself is meaningless when it comes to the 2012 election, it's more about his narrative. The said, people still are having problems with the economy, and it's an economy issue election, not a healthcare one.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So explain how Romney will create jobs, since you don't want to discuss healthcare.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So explain how Romney will create jobs, since you don't want to discuss healthcare.

lmao....you troll your own threads dumbass

 

[Onceler]

It is silly for conservatives to pretend that SCOTUS' decision wasn't a victory for liberalism, or even more ridiculously, that Roberts was handing a victory to Republicans so they could use it as a campaign issue. Both of these opinions are delusional.

However, victory in a battle does not mean there will be victory in a war. Liberals have won a battle, but I do not believe they will win the war of ideas.

In general, there are very few issues in history where progressive ideas haven't won out in the end; very few.

On healthcare, I wasn't a big ACA guy - but it does have a lot of positives.

I have yet to hear any significant conservative "ideas" on what to do about healthcare & the uninsured. The GOP used to be better at ideas in general, particularly during the Reagan years. But now they are somewhat bereft of them.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

In general, there are very few issues in history where progressive ideas haven't won out in the end; very few.

On healthcare, I wasn't a big ACA guy - but it does have a lot of positives.

I have yet to hear any significant conservative "ideas" on what to do about healthcare & the uninsured. The GOP used to be better at ideas in general, particularly during the Reagan years. But now they are somewhat bereft of them.

more nothing "debate" from onceler.

you speak in general platitudes without actually making an argument.

the fact is, you did support ACA...now....all of a sudden you claim you really didn't. that is dishonest onceler.

the cons have no real ideas right now. you are right about that. however, neither do the liberals. but you will never address that. liberals were better under clinton. but you will never admit that. you're a hack, nothing more.

 

[Onceler]

more nothing "debate" from onceler.

you speak in general platitudes without actually making an argument.

the fact is, you did support ACA...now....all of a sudden you claim you really didn't. that is dishonest onceler.

the cons have no real ideas right now. you are right about that. however, neither do the liberals. but you will never address that. liberals were better under clinton. but you will never admit that. you're a hack, nothing more.

I had a pretty good debate prior to the ruling with DH - it went on for a couple of days. I was hoping the court would rule the other way; but since they didn't, the silver lining is the conservative sadness in the aftermath.

I was not an ACA guy. Your post above, like many others, is a lie.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So explain how Romney will create jobs, since you don't want to discuss healthcare.

whether he does or doesn't is honestly irrelevant when it comes to electoral politics. it's whether the public believes he will. you are always asking the wrong questions.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

whether he does or doesn't is honestly irrelevant when it comes to electoral politics. it's whether the public believes he will. you are always asking the wrong questions.

So you can't tell me how Romney would create jobs?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So you can't tell me how Romney would create jobs?

non-sequitur.

Additionally, I made no such claim in either direction. You assume as though I have already claimed such a thing. So that's a logical fallacy and a false assumption within one sentence. that might be a new record for you.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

non-sequitur. Additionally, I made no such claim in either direction.

Who said you had?

You assume as though I have already claimed such a thing.

So Romney would create no more jobs than Obama has, as far as you're concerned?

So that's a logical fallacy and a false assumption within one sentence. that might be a new record for you.

How so?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Who said you had?

your implication.

You specifically ask me to tell you how romney would create jobs. this is an assumption on your part that I am ready and willing to argue for that position. I had never indicated this. That is your error.

So Romney would create no more jobs than Obama has, as far as you're concerned?

Quote me where I have said anything that alluded to that conclusion.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

your implication. You specifically ask me to tell you how romney would create jobs. this is an assumption on your part that I am ready and willing to argue for that position. I had never indicated this. That is your error.

So you admit I never said you claimed Romney would create jobs, but you assumed I had? That is your error.

Quote me where I have said anything that alluded to that conclusion.

When did I say you had?

Do you think Romney can create jobs?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So you admit I never said you claimed Romney would create jobs, but you assumed I had? That is your error.

I did not admit. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

When did I say you had?

go read my posts again

Do you think Romney can create jobs?

>>>>

You specifically ask me to tell you how romney would create jobs. this is an assumption on your part that I am ready and willing to argue for that position. I had never indicated this.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I did not admit. In fact, I said the exact opposite. go read my posts again

So you agree you jumped to the wrong conclusions?

Wasn't Romney governor of Mass while you lived there?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

So you agree you jumped to the wrong conclusions?

So when I say I said the exact opposite, you interpret that as my agreement with your premise?