1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Does the republican party need to get into bed with gays if they want to get rid of obamacare?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by beezel26, Jul 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. beezel26

    beezel26 Jedi Master star 7

    May 11, 2003
    Well do they? Because they can't have it both ways. You can't say states rights over federal govt without giving acknowledgement to NY state, and abandon the federal marriage act? Are they gonna let Obamacare go and let the gay rights go the wayside?
  2. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Apr 25, 2004
    The Republicans are not going to embrace gays. After pushing their anti-gay agenda, turning around and going the opposite way would be a humiliating flip-flop of epic proportions, and the GOP knows it. Public opinion is shifting towards greater acceptance of gays, so mainstream Republicans will just silently take this issue off the table. The religious right however will double down on their anti-gay rhetoric, you can count on that.
  3. DarthIktomi

    DarthIktomi Jedi Padawan star 4

    May 11, 2009
    Am I the only one who thought of Jeff Gannon and Larry Craig when I read this?
  4. Darth_Tim

    Darth_Tim Jedi Master star 4

    Feb 26, 2002
    Only if the Republican party could divorce itself from the Religious Right. Would be nice, but I'll wait for hell to freeze over.

    Personally, I despise gov't interference in personal matters by either the Right or the Left.
  5. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Jul 28, 2004
    And then we can also get the Feds out of Education. If you want to do this, then let's do this!
  6. Quixotic-Sith

    Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Jun 22, 2001
    So, if the goal is to make us stupid and sick, we should vote Republican. ;)

    Meanwhile, the UPMC vs. Highmark conflict in Pittsburgh right now is a case study in why health care shouldn't be treated as a market good. I couldn't have asked for a better example of why genuine health care reform requires making private insurance supplemental to a single-payer plan (like it is in Canada).
  7. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Jedi Master star 6

    Jun 28, 2006
    A divorce would undermine the sanctity of marriage.
  8. DarthIktomi

    DarthIktomi Jedi Padawan star 4

    May 11, 2009
    And then we can mandate all states teach some story written in the Bronze Age rather than the basis of all modern biology. Nice.
  9. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Mar 4, 2011
    That's exactly the system that I support. Sadly Obamacare is not even really in the same ball park.
  10. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 7

    Oct 13, 2003
    I have a feeling that the Supreme Court is going to rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, so maybe single-payer is going to be what we get after all.
  11. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Jedi Grand Master star 7

    Feb 15, 2001
    No. The Republican spin machine will go like so: "We support state's rights but only inasmuch as they're supported by the constitution. Therefore gay marriage is not okay to us."

    Pathetic, but true.

    Also, Obamacare is a misnomer. It should be called 'Dolecare' because that's what it was originally.
  12. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Oct 25, 1999
    ....or even better: rule that it is constitutional, but that the fine imposed for not following it isn't.

    Wouldn't that be an interesting pickle? The government can require you to purchase insurance, but can't penalize you if you don't?

    It's exactly the kind of decision-making cowardice I've come to expect from the Roberts court.


  13. DorkmanScott

    DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Mar 26, 2001
    As I recall, that language -- that the penalty will basically not be enforced by anyone at any time -- is already in the bill. Er, law.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.