Source: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?s=bedbde9f827bc69a2b0842d06acc0159&showtopic=20185
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:27:42+00:00

Document:
What are the Pros and Cons regarding this Pledge to America?
What is your personal take on the Pledge to America from any of these viewpoints -- or others you deem fit; these are simply suggestions: political strategy, originality, rhetorical effectiveness, historical connections, logical flow, sincerity?
The goals are good. The specifics are tepid and do not reflect the goal statements. Tepid is a kind word. Disconnect is accurate.
It shows how statist the current bunch of Republicans are. Make government a bit smaller here for show...make it bigger there with disregard to freedom, the constitution, or natural rights. These clowns do not understand economics or monetary policy and love crony capitalism.
Democrats and Republicans need to be replaced. Instead of 96.5% of incumbents winning election it should be 96.5% of incumbents lose.
That they want to repeal health insurance reform and replace it with... what is most of the current health insurance reform.
The part about constitutional authority be restored sounds good, doesn't everybody.
We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.
Is that all the same as Obama Care delivered? Obama Care added more mandates ("children" insured up to age 26) no ability to charge more for pre-existing conditions (even though the cost of care for these people will obviously be higher), no ability to not get coverage (instead, you can now game the system by paying a small fine of $750 until you need coverage and then get it when your expenses go above that). The correct way to handle pre-existing conditions is a high risk pool, not a guarantee that they won't have to pay more. Would you want to pay more for auto insurance because your neighbor got his fourth DUI?
The biggest pro is that it is on paper and thus voters can hold Republicans lawmakers accountable for what it says.
The first take away is the Democratic and media attack on it that it does not have specifics. I guess they haven't read it like they haven't read the 1,000 page plus monstrosity laws they have been passing. It does have pictures, but the document is 48 pages long. It is pretty hard to miss the specifics.
Is that all the same as Obama Care delivered?
The correct way to handle pre-existing conditions is a high risk pool, not a guarantee that they won't have to pay more. Would you want to pay more for auto insurance because your neighbor got his fourth DUI?
Silly Amlord, I already do. That's the way auto insurance works. Where you live and what your neighbors' records are, in aggregate, affects your insurance rates. More comprehensive claims? More accidents? More moving violations? More DUIs? Your rate goes up.
Of course, the Republican plan is repeal and replace. Some of the things the Republicans want are in the current health care reform. If they repeal Obama Care, they must put back in place something else, such as certain good ideas.
They would leave out other things, such as coverage of 26 year old children and making mental health care or ob/gyn services covered for everyone.
Yes, until those drivers are booted from the insurance pool. Under these health care rules, nothing can be done about individuals who use a lot more than the average risk pool participant.
Yet they want to repeal the plan and then replace some of it with what they just repealed? Yeah. Doesn't pass the smell test. You know the real plan is repeal and not replace. If they wanted to preserve parts of it, they'd repeal only the parts they don't want.
BTW, it's 25 year olds (the idea being that students could go to college or graduate school and remain on their parents' health insurance) -- and since 18-25 year olds are among the healthiest segments of our population and therefore keeping them in the pool is to our benefit, right?
Also BTW, this 25 year old margin is common in many health plans. When I was young (and I turned 25 in 1996) my mother's health insurance would cover me through the age of 25 if she could claim me as a dependent. Of course, she taught at Macalester College, and they had pretty nice health insurance as a rule, being a bunch of hippy-dippy liberals who care about that sort of thing.
Gee, how horrible that the beleaguered insurance companies can't rescind the insurance of someone who gets cancer AND a serious injury in the same year.
Just finished skimming through the document.
It is no exaggeration to note that the Republicans liken our current situation to that which justified the American Revolution.
If that's the case, then what we have here is Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin themselves creating the long train of abuses and usurpations against which they rebel! Both the "Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust" and the "Checks and Balances" sections could be replaced easily by a single statement: "We promise not to do that stuff anymore."
This is the single most hypocritical political document I have ever read.
It's time to do away with the old politics: that much is clear.
Our plan offers a clear and clearly different approach, one in which the people have the most say and the best ideas trump the most entrenched interests.
When did the main theme of Obama's presidential campaign become the Republican mantra?
I suppose if hypocrisy was the worst charge I could level about this pledge, it would be no more than politics as usual. But there's something far more dangerous than hypocrisy involved here.
As I noted, the premise of the pledge is that we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis.
This is not saying the Republicans merely disagree with the policies of the duly-elected current government; this is saying the government itself is illegitimate - "the governed do not consent."
We have a constitutional process for achieving consent. We elect a president; we elect the Congress; the president and Congress together appoint the judiciary.
The Republicans, while professing fealty to this system and pledging to return us to its principles, seem to be calling for revolution against that very system. (What else are we supposed to conclude from the references to the Declaration of Independence?) Essentially, the proposition here is that by freely electing a majority Democratic government, the people of America have failed the people of America ... because the Republicans have lost a few elections, the proper order of things has been disrupted and must be restored.
Scary stuff. These are fighting words. This is nothing less than a justification for the overthrow of the government. I don't believe for a moment the Republicans actually WANT an armed rebellion - really they just hope to get more of themselves elected come November. But when you tell people they would be justified in armed rebellion as a way to win an election, you're playing a dangerous game.
Our Constitution established a tri-partite system of government, with the notion that each branch of government would act as a check on the other two. Unfortunately, ... Congress [has] largely viewed themselves as defenders of the ... Administration, instead of a vital check on overreaching by the Executive Branch. By doing so, I believe they have acted to the detriment of our Constitutional form of government.
The Administration also appears to have ... eviscerate[d] the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution.
All the while, ... Congress sits idly by. Rather than performing its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch, it has chosen to stymie any and all efforts at oversight. After ... years of deceptions, attacks and yes, outright lies, I am convinced the American people have had enough.
... America’s Constitution is in grave danger.
It is this same disrespect for America’s Constitution which has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution.
This shameful exercise of power overturns a set of principles that our nation has observed since General Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War and has been observed by every president since then – until now.
It was in revolt against just such a regime, after all, that America was founded.
We the people are—collectively—still the key to the survival of America’s democracy.
it is “We the people” who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.
Below [is] a list of charges made by the Continental Congress against King George III. And in reading through them, it's amazing to me how many of these charges now apply to President George today.
It was surprising--though, sadly, not nearly as surprising as it ought to have been--to see just how many of the very violations of human decency that triggered the founding of this nation have been repeated by the current Administration. Below, I present the rest of the Declaration of Independence.
Reading through the Declaration and applying it to America today is illuminating--and chilling.
This is one of many reasons why the proverbial bums must be thrown out this November, ... They are quite literally acting to destroy the very principles upon this nation was founded, one by one.
I could go on, but that would be overkill.
A "chill pill" might be in order. Perhaps several. Heck, take as many as you need. They're free. And they'll remain so even if the Republicans do manage to pull a "repeal and replace" on ObamaReidPelosiCare.
"The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated," the introduction says.
It continues: "With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America."
I am amused (and not a little frustrated) about the GOP having to pledge to dedicate themselves to reconnecting their highest aspirations blah blah blah. What the devil have they been doing in the Congress during this administration? Nothing but obstructionism. Seems it takes a "pledge" for them to remember that they were supposed to be working for the people in the first place, and for all the people, not just neocons and the like.
It just looks to me like they have a miserable little cake of a platform to run on, but they're piling it high with frothy frosting in the hope that nobody notices. I'm trying to remember a time when GOP legislaters were as uninterested in serving the needs of everyday Americans as they are now.
Really, really, REALLY poor form, akaCG. There's a reason I never quoted your words from another forum here; how very disappointing you didn't return the favor, and in so doing you chose to make an entirely specious and false argument.
1. And the reason is ...?
2. Feel free to quote anything I wrote anywhere else. I, like you, have made no secret that I post elsewhere. I've even linked to my outside-AD postings on several occasions here.
... in so doing you chose to make an entirely specious and false argument.
And what, pray tell, do you believe my "entirely specious and fallacious" argument to be?
When you can refer to a series of cases like ACLU v. NSA, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, In re Sealed Case 02-001, In re Directive 08-01, Rasul v. Bush, Boumedienne v. Bush, Al-Haramain v. Bush, Ahar v. Ashcroft, Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, NYT v. Gonzalez, Doe v. Gonzalez, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and others, rather than to a list of policies with which you merely disagree, I'll begin to think you have a point.
When the complaints against a Republican administration take the form of a Pledge to America from the Democratic Party itself rather than a John Conyers diary entry, a speech by Al Gore, and a blog post, I'll grant you that point.
Maybe Maybe Not covered it.
All of which were adjudicated in accordance with our checks-and-balances system of government, no? And, despite their being in opposition to "BushHitler"'s administration's and the "Rethuglican" House and Senate majorities' desires, said decisions stood. No attempts were made to expand the size of the Supreme Court in order to stuff it with more sympathetic Justices. No "brownshirts", digital or otherwise, were dispatched to silence the Supreme Court, occupy and seize it, or throw the uncooperating Justices in jail in the name of some Constitution-suspending "national emergency" or somesuch.
And then, "amazingly" enough, "BushHitler" and the "Rethuglicans" stepped down when they were supposed to, peacefully relinquishing power in accordance with the results of the '06 and '08 elections (repeat and emphasize: ELECTIONS) and the spirit and letter of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
A mere "John Conyers diary entry", eh? LOL. Those comments accompanied his announcement of the pre-2006 mid-term election release of the House Democratic Judiciary Committee report of the same title ("Constitution in Crisis"), remember?
And that's Democratic Vice-President/almost President of the United States/erstwhile (albeit briefly) potential '08 Presidential candidate Al Gore who thus spake (also, it bears mentioning, during that same mid-term election year).
As far as my including "Raptavio"'s Daily Kos comments (which also, lo and behold, date back to said mid-term election year), that was as an example of how widespread such absurdly hyperbolic "The end of our republic is nigh, unless you elect us/ours!" fulminations can get. Absurd not just at the time, but especially in retrospect.
My point is that your comments belong to the same sorry category of absurdity. Even more so, since all that they basically boil down to is "Oh my God! They mentioned the Declaration of Independence and the phrase 'consent of the governed' in the same 21-page document! That's code for a call to insurrection!"
And, despite their being in opposition to "BushHitler"'s administration's and the "Rethuglican" House and Senate majorities' desires, said decisions stood.
... that was as an example of how widespread such absurdly hyperbolic "The end of our republic is nigh, unless you elect us/ours!" fulminations can get. Absurd not just at the time, but especially in retrospect.
You admit the protestations regarding constitutionality were justified (i.e., those court cases were brought forward for a very good reason) .. then you label the same protestations as "hyperbolic," and "absurd."
You admit the protestations regarding constitutionality were justified .. then you label the same protestations as "hyperbolic," and "absurd."
Challenging the constitutionality of actions/policies is perfectly fine. Happens year in, year out, election in, election out. For going on more than 200 years now.
Accompanying such challenges with "They're shredding the Constitution! They're tearing our checks-and-balances Republic asunder! They're betraying the country! This is exactly the kind of tyrannical attitude toward the consent of the governed that our Founders started a revolution against King George about!", etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, kind of rhetoric, however, is simply drivel. And, when employed in the lead-up to elections, in "Elect me/us/ours, and we'll save the Republic!" fashion, is deplorably/despicably cynical drivel.
Both parties employ this kind of garbage rhetoric, alas. It's one of the many reasons why I'm occasionally tempted to succumb to the sentiments expressed by another poster (sorry, forget which one) earlier in this thread regarding the desireability of having our elected officials endure a 96+ chance of getting ousted, as opposed to re-elected, on a regular basis.
My point, of course, was to focus on the absurdity to which YOU succumbed when (supposedly gimlet eyes keenly trained upon the supposed sub-surface "code" of the document in question) you engaged in your "Oh my God! Look at this! Didja guys catch this? See how they mentioned the Declaration of Independence and then used the phrase "consent of the governed"??? And then they wrote that the governed do not consent??? You know what that's code for, dontcha??? That's their way of calling the current government illegitimate, just like the Founders did with King George, and telling people they'd be perfectly justified if they embarked on armed rebellion without actually coming out and saying so!" hyperventilating drivel.
Earlier this year, the conservative discussion forum that I help administer nowadays lost a fair number of members, for whom a few of us remaining members made life sufficiently uncomfortable such that they decided to leave and form their own. One of the reasons? Their "The end of our Republic is nigh, people!" kind of nonsense. Ask "Raptavio" about that, if you wish. He can fill you in on the other reasons, too.
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - and a number entertained Birtherism - the only real difference I ever saw between the two factions is that the ousted side was willing to make overt calls for violent revolution. Not that I know how it's been lately; I haven't peeked at that forum in months.
Which the GOP, in their plan, have stopped short of calling for. Something we cannot quite say of all their candidates, such as Sharron "2nd Amendment solutions" Angle.
Care to provide a linky-poo to that?
1 is "a number". So is 2. And so forth. Care to get more specific? While you're at it, care to be more specific about the past tense element involved? As in: How long ago?
Feel free, "Raptavio". Go at it.
The "only real difference", eh? The "only real difference", eh?
This is where you've just hit number 11 on the bovine excrement meter.
Surely you remember THAT one, no? You eventually, as opposed to being a semi-rare participant/mere observer, got in the middle of the latter stages of THAT ONE, after all. If nothing else, your being banned as a result of getting in the middle of THAT knife-fight should be jogging your memory right about now, if it hadn't been jogged already.
Not that I know how it's been lately; I haven't peeked at that forum in months.
Aaah, well. That "explains" it. Care to put a number on "lately" and "months"?
Don't tell me, "Raptavio". Tell "MMN".
Unless, of course, you actually agree with "MMN" that "stopped short of" = "they're just helping justify armed insurrection without actually coming out and saying so".

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.