Tuesday, October 01, 2013

So Charlie: Which Fight Is "Better"?

One Eminence Grise--Charlie Sykes--wrinkles his nose at the fight over ObamaCare.  It's particularly ironic that Sykes refers to the Jesuits--who have been accused of preaching that "the end justifies the means"--and it seems that Charlie's focus is on the wrong end:  political victory.

...Somehow the embrace of questionable tactics has become the new litmus test of ideological purity, while dissent, based on a firm grasp of arithmetic, calls down the furies of political idiocy. So, it's hard to imagine an endgame for the government shutdown that doesn’t leave the conservative base even more embittered and dispirited.

And success seems unlikely.

It's hard to ignore the fact that "political victory" for the Republicans has led to much larger Government since the year 2000.  Federalizing education, nuking the budget with prescription payments, and deliberately and knowingly violating the Constitution with NSA domestic spying are only a few examples of Republican "political victory."  What budget economies were promulgated under GWB and his Republican congress?  So is "political victory" the golden fleece?


More important:  ObozoCare is the sum of evil.  It is the capstone of the Welfare State, and it embeds abortion-on-demand in concrete.  In order to do that, it forces, at the point of a gun, Catholics, Baptists, and Orthodox Jews (inter alia) to fund it.  That is flatly unconstitutional, not to mention immoral.

But that's not worth a fight, eh?

Secondly, accepting the "entitlement" language is wrong.  Any "entitlement" can be changed or eliminated by any Congress.  Don't think so?  Then why is Paul Ryan proposing changes in the "entitlement" of Social Security?  

Third:  almost every word Obozo has spoken about ObozoCare is a lie, including the articles "the" and "a."  Should anyone with principles roll over and (in effect) concede that lying, fraud, and mis-representation is just fine with them?

Really, Charlie?

I'll concede that fund-raising is part of the rationale for resistance.  So what?  The Chamber of Commerce "fund-raises" for congressional elections every single day, and not necessarily for the national interest.  Should that be stopped, Charlie?  The TEA Party fund-raisers are acting to prevent a constitutional and moral cataclysm.  It ain't a fight over truck-tonnage restrictions or the number of grapes in a quart.

So tell us, Charlie:  what fight is MORE important?

What would Churchill say, Charlie?  "Curl up and die in your bunkers!" or "We shall fight on the beaches,...."?



Anonymous said...

"That is flatly unconstitutional, not to mention immoral."

That is flatly untrue.

Anonymous said...

There is no fight over Obamacare. It's a law. Likewise, Obamacare entirely Constitutional. So says the SCOTUS. Your hatred of Obamacare is noted, but it doesn't make you correct.

Anonymous said...

Not that long ago, slavery was the law AND Constitutional, too.

Stuff that in your pie-hole.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the good old 1860s! Seems like only yesterday.

Tim Morrissey said...

Sort of like when Rand Paul says "just because the Supreme Court says it's a law, doesn't make it a law". Sometimes those guys with the snake on their flag seem to be operating not only in an alternate reality, but in a different nation. 'round here, when the Supremes say it's law, it IS law. We can change the law if we don't like it. But if we want to cut the Supremes out of the equation, well - out goes that pesky damn "Constitution" thingy.

Dad29 said...

Yup. Obama changed the law on his own initiative because he didn't like it.

So. Following the example of the LightWorker--the Genius--the Above-All-Criticism--we can do the same.

More to your point: it is the law. However, it does NOT have to be funded. That is up to the discretion of the House, which is solely responsible for spend/tax matters.

You can look that up, Tim.

Tim Morrissey said...

Well, Dad29, I don't need to look it up because I know the funding mechanism has little if anything to do with whether it's a law or not. It's a law because the Supremes say it is. Rand Paul and the other snake-on-the-flag dweebs may not think so, but they don't have a leg (or a Constitution) to stand on.

Dad29 said...

Tim, SCOTUS' ruling is irrelevant.

The Constitution does NOT compel the House to spend money, law or no.

So yah, conceding ad arguendam that SCOTUS was right (and recalling their other major stupids)--it's a law and it's Constitutional.

So what? You should know that "funding" is also "law." Or has Madistan's air infected your logic-works?

Anonymous said...

Was dud29 calling SCOTUS' ruling "irrelevant" back in December 2000?

What a hypocrite.

Tim Morrissey said...

Here's something strange, Dad29: we AGREE on this. I KNOW the Constitution doesn't mandate spending. (Although delivering the mail and defending the shores would be difficult to do without spending money.)

My point is that in murca, the Constitution means what the Supremes say it means.

The ACA is LAW - not only because the Supremes say it is - but because it was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the man you hate.

If the congress decides to defund it, that's their business. It's still the f'n LAW. It will just become meaningless, like scores of other LAWS we the people have made.

If some future group of Supremes decides the ACA is not constitutional, then it's no longer a LAW.

This whole string got started by something Rand Paul said, an idiotic utterance in which he said just because the Supreme Court says it's a law doesn't make it a law.

Only Sarah Palin and the folks with snakes on their flags don't seem to understand how stoopid that utterance is.

Tim Morrissey said...

PS - I didn't imply in any way that the Supremes were "right". All I'm saying is when they say it's a law, it's a law, whether you agree or not, whether they're "right" or "wrong".