Pelosi Says Her Policies Guided by the Values of Jesus

[East of Eden]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/XdqGnzIrSU

How come nobody is upset about this?

[Goat]

Even if the public is evenly divided on Obamacare, major social legislation shouldn't be rammed through on a partisan basis, as Obama used to say. He never made a serious attempt to involve Republicans.

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

[chris_brown207]

Even if the public is evenly divided on Obamacare, major social legislation shouldn't be rammed through on a partisan basis, as Obama used to say. He never made a serious attempt to involve Republicans.

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

I agree. The process is so hopelessly partisan now, that if Obama proposed that each citizen needs to drink water to stay healthy... the Republican party would criticize it as "socialist" and "big-government".

He raised taxes (to pay for health-care - the same health care that Republicans attempted to pass during the Clinton era - and the same health care that Republican presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney had passed in their states) and they criticized it as big government, and deficit spending. He decreased spending, and reduced government (NASA) and they criticized it as anti-American....

The process is ridiculously partisan.

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

[Goat]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Oh, how the spinner spin things.

[East of Eden]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

We had a monologue, not a dialogue. Obama admitted this when he said:

“What I’ve been doing is consulting closely with leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate on the Democratic side, and what I want to do is consult closely with our Republican colleagues.�

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

You mean what Romney passed? That's a failure.

Really?? he called that his biggest accomplishment when he was running for President.

Of course he did. So what?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ ... 0n1-1.html

[WinePusher]

He tried to, but the republicans were such a party of NO, they were going to kick holler and scream at anything. They were the party of 'no compromise' and 'object to everything'.

The ironic thing is the bill that was passed was pretty much what a number of Republicans did in their home states, and also what the heritage foundation (a republican think tank) suggested in place of of what Clinton proposed in the early 90's. They pushed that concept until it was actually in congress proposed by a democrate.

Actually, the republicans were the party of NOTHING, not NO. The republican had absolutly no power in making of this bill because of the democrats had 60 votes in the senate, and a super majority in the house.

Tell me goat, where was the invitiation by the democratic party leadership for compromise and bi-partisanship? The republicans had many proposals and the dems rejected every single one.

Why did Obama host a "heatlh care summit" only after Scott Brown was elected?

Why didn't he start off the debate with a bi-partisan summit.

[WinePusher]

Wrong again.
CA, as I said, has strong, even extremes, of both right and left. Yes, Liberals outnumber usually. I've lived there twice, and I remember pols from the places I mentioned openly referring to gays as "sodomites."

Are you suggesting Orange county is conservative?

And are you saying that the right wing extremists equal or out number the amount of left wing extremists in the state?

Just look at what the LA School District has done, the president has allowed their teachers to teach the Arizona law to be un-american.

Now, if that doesn't not piss you off nothing will.(I apologize to those offended by the wrod"piss")

It seems that a radically liberal school board is fostering the practice of indoctrination and the oppression of free thought. And how nice it is that the school board president has the power and knowledge and judgement to determine what is american and un-american in this country.

Hollywood is one town. More than balanced by Orange, in terms of local and national influence. Do you dispute what I said about Orange county (you'd be wrong)? do you dispute the general voter make up of riverside, san diego and assortd central valley counties? have you ever seen the movie Milk (some great tender gay love scenes BTW)?

I know nothing abou the political demographics of California's counties, except that the state is compromised of social liberals. I don't understand how you, being a reasonable person, can dedny the FACT that california is socially liberal. And yet, even though California is a socially liberal state run by big government spender that are spendin gus into oblivion, the voters and the American people vote to keep marriage traditional.

It isn't the republican party that will stop the socially and fiscal liberal agenda, it's the resolve of the American people that ill end the corruption and tyrrany.

Did your post have a point? That, with outside activists pouring in the spread lies among the paranoid right, they mnaged to win one?

Um, I believe only california citizens can vote on california props (I may be wrong)

Now, if you know the history or Prop 8 and gay marriage in california. You'll now that the california people voted to keep marriage traditional, then the supreme court overturned this, then californians managed to get it on the ballet again and we AGAIN voted to keep marriage traditional.

And who are these outside activists pouring into my state? You'll notice that the only activist organizations (Unions) are controlled by the left and funded by the George Sorros.

Its funny how unions have turned away from their original purpose of triumphing workers rights to what they are now, a political machine for the liberal base.

Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

ion of the Gospel is different from mine.

Now, I do not like to call christians "fake" when they disagree with me. I have refrained from calling Pelosi a fake catholic, but have you seen the video where she tells the catholic church to preach immigration support from their pulpits.

Again, its another example of liberal hypocracy.

I'm lovin' Boxer and Feinstein only because they stand up against the rightist crazies. I'd vote for Mr. Ed against te hateful right (although I admit that when I lived in SF and Mill Valley the liberals could be pretty squishy headed at times, easy to make fun of).

Obama is the second coming. God Bless CA and the many other states that voted for him.

Who are these right wing crazies? Do you not consider Boxer and Feinstein wingnuts?

Boxer: "CALL ME SENATOR" When military officers are instructed to call their superiors sir or ma'am. Arrogant woman, She interrupts an important hearing because shes an ego maniac and needs people to continually re-affirm her self esteem.

Feinstein, the hypocrite who wants a ban on talk radio, who wants to muzzle free speech, who wants to silence the opposing voice. It's shameful that the state who gave us Reagan gave us these two.

Now, tell me, do you like these Obama intiatives?

-Intruding in Democratic primaries, continuing "politics as usual", potentially breaking the law, not giving an honest statement about the conversations that took place, dodging press questions?

-Apologizing for America in Cairo and Europe. Refusing to once visit our best allie, Israel. Allowing Iran and N. Korea to develop a nuke.

[micatala]

Your opinion is noted. I will note that Reagan promised to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget during his first election campaign. He accomplished the first. He selectively accomplished the second (he massively increased social security taxes), he failed miserably at the third.

I'll take Reagan's deficits over Obama's. Reagan WAS busy winning the cold war. That was real change.

Sorry, still a lie. Obama and Ayers were at best passing acquaintances. You've bought into the right-wing media hype on this.

It would be nice if a moderator and someone voted as a civil debator like yourself would avoid the word 'lie'.

I do not use the word often. In this case I think it fits. It is a clearly untrue statement by any reasonable definitions of the words being used. It is also a statement that has been repeated ad nauseum by many people, especially in the media, often with no regard for the truth.

However, to the extent that the word "lie" implies any intentional untruth on your part, I will retract the statement as I am not implying any such intention on your part.

I am willing to replace the statement "It is a lie" with "it is an untrue statement."



On Reagan's deficits versus Obama's I will again point out that the Obama deficits are at this point all projected, and that some of that projected deficit is due to Obama honestly accounting for war and other expenses not included in the budget by Bush, budget commitments made prior to Obama taking office, reduced revenue due to the recession, and deficit spending engaged in (like Reagan did during his recession) to ameliorate the effects of the recession and get the economy back on track.

However, this again is probably better debated in another thread.

[East of Eden]

I do not use the word often. In this case I think it fits. It is a clearly untrue statement by any reasonable definitions of the words being used. It is also a statement that has been repeated ad nauseum by many people, especially in the media, often with no regard for the truth.

Your opinion, which I disagree with.

However, to the extent that the word "lie" implies any intentional untruth on your part, I will retract the statement as I am not implying any such intention on your part.

I am willing to replace the statement "It is a lie" with "it is an untrue statement."

Thank you. Calling someone a liar has no place on this forum, especially from a moderator. There is no way to get inside someone's head to determine if a lie just occured, which is defined as a known untruth expressed as a truth. Certainly we are all capable of making untrue statements, and are willing to be corrected.

[WinePusher]

You may be right, but I think there is a difference between Pelosi and, for example, Palin and other Republicans. The principle thing Palin and others get criticized for is hypocrisy. Being family values espousers and then acting contrary to those values (see Mark Souder of Indiana, the former gov of SC, etc.). I also note that some dems most definitely do get nailed by the media. Look at John Edwards.

So, because Palin espouses Christian principles and values, she is a hypocrite because of the actions of Mark Souder and the S.C Governor? I hope you have caught your error.

The media has not nailed John Edward as they did Palin, McCain, Bachmann or any other republican.

Can youcite the same number of jokes about Edward's children, faith, beliefs, looks family, as the media made aganist Palin?

Secondly, the dems typically do not expect whatever religious rhetoric they use to blatanlty politcal ends or in a demagogic way (if that is a word).

I will say this once again. Pelosi, in a speech, told the Catholic Church to preach immigration activism from their pulpits.

Pelosi was utlizing the influence of the Catholic Church to advance her political agenda.

[quote"micatala"]Thirdly, the dems typically do not try to enact religious views into law, like many republicans do.[/quote]

Please list some instances in which republicans have tried to violate the line of church and state.

Well, again, Bush tried to enact laws that were blatantly sectarian.

What laws were these?

Now, I agree, some members of the media sometimes criticize people inappropriately. However, you need to keep in mind some of that reaction is justified by what the people are proposing. You could say it is fear-mongering from the left, but when people epouse, for example, "end of world" theology that could lead to bad public policy, or feel they are endowed by God to be rulers and thus don't have to consider the rights of those who disagree with their theology, you can't blame them for being upset.

Well, I don't know of any mainstream churches that claim the end of the world when bad public policy is enacted.

I, as many other right wingers, claim that the policies enacted by Obama will lead to a demise of our triple A rating, a massive deficit that will kill the next generation, massive government intrusion into personal lives and the destruction of our civil liberties.

Is this type of rhetoric not justifiable?

Extremes on both the left and the right can be hypersensitive to perceived violations of their rights. The right goes over the top, in my view, in viewing health care reform as some sort of government power grab. Some also get overly worked up about gun regulations. Some on the left are hypersensitive to church state issues, abortion, etc.

If I were completly oblivious to the contents of the bill, and knew nothing of the specific policies created by the law, I would still believe it to be a power grab simply by looking at the behavior of the democratic/liberal party.

Why in the world would a this president, in the middle of an economic recession and when the people are crying for job creation, focus the political debate and congressional focus on healthcare reform. We couldn't have waited until the recession got better before we tried to reform the system.

Yes, we could have, but this president and speaker and majority leader realized that the American people would never buy this, and their own party would be in a dis-array. So, they waited until a republican filibuster was impossible until they brought it to the floor. That tells me that they did not want open dialouge about the bill.

Next, you have the president who promised a transperant debate with cameras in the room, blatanly lie. This bill was crafted behing doors, with NO C-Span cameras. So, he lies and he prevents transperancy in the debate.

Next, we have the party leaders buy off votes with special deals and offers. This isn't "compromise" as the majority leader suggests. Its corruption, which this president said he would not allow.

Separation of church and state does not apply to individual expressions concerning religion. Separation of church and state applies to government actions. Pelosi expressing her religious views is not a violation of the first amendment. Pelosi seeking to impose these views on others through policies which have no other purpose or effect than to impose that view would be against the first amendment. You paint with too broad a brush.

It was not a personal expression of religion. It was Pelosi rallying the CHURCH to preach her policy from their pulpit. A direct violation.

Agreed. I will note that health care reform seeks to serve the first and third of these ends, and arguably the second as well. A person hostage to medical bills or debt certainly is less free than someone who is not.

A person hostage to medical debts is a very sad thing. So, is it then appropriate for the government to come in and force you to give money to that person in order that they may pay of their debt?

That stats don't back this up. People do die for lack of health insurance. Yes, many people receive free medical care, but that does not mean everyone who needs care is getting. The suggestion that universal health care existed prior to passage of the bill this past spring is laughable.

The FACT is, healthcare is made available to any person seeking it, rich or poor. That is, by definition, universal healthcare.

Now, I do love these democrats exploiting people's personal situations to further than own agenda. Obama citing kathy who died because of a pre-existing condition and Pelosi telling us how bobby got cancer because of high insurance premiums.

It's completly SHAMEFUL. Healthcare is universal in America, doctors will not refuse to take care of a person simply because they are poor, these is the slanderous lies of the liberal left.

Baloney. The accusation that Obama is motivated simply to get more power for the government is unsubstantiated. You are making a false assertion about his motivation.

In the same way, what makes you think his motivation is to actually, genuinely provide care for Americans? What is their to substantiate that claim.

Also, do you believe the (enviromentalists) seek to promote genuine stewardship for the earth? If so, why do they organize themselves into unions and at global summits, gather at bank executives houses and intimidate their familes, and afterwards, people like Al Gore get to reep the millions of dolars they make purporting their propoganda and fear mongering about "global warming."

Tell me, do you believe the tea party is full of racists and is violent?

What about the protests aganist the Arizona law, full of union members from SEIU, who threw stuff at the police, drew a swastika out of tomato on the wall, and vandalized neighborhoods. Where was the "fair and balanced" media coverage on that. I am sick of the left and their treason.

Tell me, why, even with a super majority dems in the house and senate was Obama faced with so much discontent in the democrat party. If socialized healthcare is so good for america, you would think that the moderate wing of the democrat party would support this instead of just the radical leftists. But you have over 30 moderates in the house, and 4 moderates in the senate who opposed this

False premise. The bill that was passed is not socialized medicine.

Fine, disregard that premise and then answer my quesiton.

You have a disapproval rating of over 57%, and over 50% of Americans want this repealed. Does the government know what is best for the American people? Are these senators and representatives not their to represent our views? Is not this country based off of popular sovernity? Yet they shoved this down our throats aganist our will.

The polls I have seen do not indicate this. A small majority opposed the bill before its passage. Afterwards, a slight plurality supported it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

In Janurary 20-21, only 40% favored it, 58% opposed it. That is not a small majority.

Secondly, I will ask if you think that polls should decide all issues. In that case, we would not have passed civil rights and would not have repealed laws banning interracial marriage. Majorities, at least in many places, opposed these as well. You seem only willing to go with the argument from popularity when it suits your views.

Do not the polls represent the opinion of the American people? Should we disregard the opinion of the people when it comes to major policies?

It is also funny how that talking point is always thrown out when the majority of public opinion opposes any liberal policy. Until you can cite some polls proving this claim, I refuse to accept it.