Or, in other words, don’t even bother trying to repeal ObamaCare. Speaking with Bill O’Reilly, Krauthammer argues:
[…] what will happen is, it will look as if the — you know, the Republicans will end up taking away the money for a commission here, a provision here, adding to the chaos and the incoherence of it. And then, when Obama care, which is intrinsically chaotic, incoherent, inefficient, and extremely expensive, collapses, the Republicans will take the blame.
Ah. So we’re back to worrying about how we’ll appear to the moderate and independent Americans who swing elections, is that it? And rather than take a stand on principle, we’re to make decisions going forward with an eye and and ear toward how we’re going to be perceived?
Sorry. That’s not what November’s elections were about — and such “pragmatism,” while it may hold some strategic electoral merit (I don’t believe it does, but the point is certainly debatable), is nevertheless complicit in the surrendering of this country to the left and, ultimately, the kind of “social democracy” that has driven much of Europe to the brink of insolvency.
Let’s be clear here: the debate of ObamaCare is not a debate over health care. It is a debate over individual liberty, self-reliance, personal choice, and the proper role of government.
If ObamaCare is allowed to stand, we legitimize its premise, and grant the government the right to control us at the most basic level. At which point, how it performs as policy is moot.
The country as it was envisioned by the founders and framers will be dead. And we will be the generation that allowed liberty to be stolen away.
Team R tried to prevent Fannie Mae’s collapse and they never got any credit for it, but it never hurt them much either
And then, when Obama care, which is intrinsically chaotic, incoherent, inefficient, and extremely expensive, collapses, the Republicans will take the blame.
Or, you know Charles, take the credit, the applause and undying gratitude of the country that voted in November 2010 to do just that.
What SW said, why blame when they should be lining up to take credit ?
I don’t get the idea that bumblefuck won’t get the blame when his failshit dirty socialist scheme collapses.
It’s called obamacare cause it’s all on him. This wasn’t a team effort.
Just like Dr. Kraut was wrong about the extension of existing tax rates being some kind of stimulus, he’s wrong about this as well.
Forgive the trite sounding Mav-speak, but, Repeal the dang bill!
I understand (and fear) Krauthammer’s point. But, this thing just sucks to bad to do anything else.
Also, we must simply win the battle of ideas on this. The public is already against it. They’re ON our side now.
Isn’t this a re-phrasing the way progressive Democrats want conservatives to fight all wars and carry on in life in all things.
“If you can’t even seem to kill Osama then you shouldn’t even fight the war”. Everything must be properly in place in the five year plan before anyone can do anything.
Works so well since the geniuses in charge can account for every hair on your head, the fall of every sparrow, the decay of every atom, everywhere/when.
It seems to me that Krauthammer is working from the premise that because the Republicans can’t repeal it, they’ll settle for trying to reform it. If that’s the case, then I imagine he’s right.
The trick here is to avoid being drawn into some kind of compromise that results in what Krauthammer fears. A repeal vote may be a symbolic gesture, but it’s better than coming up with some kind of “fix” that can be passed so you can say you passed something.
Personally, I’d be happy if they attached a repeal rider to every bill that comes out of the House.
But if you CAN kill the king, shouldn’t you do it?
I think they can repeal that foul behemoth of a bill and should do everything in their power to do so.
Besides, it will set a lovely precedent and start the momentum moving in a different direction, toward dismantling rather than more scaffolding than you can shake a stick at.
It’s not a king, Dr. K! It’s a fucking unconstitutional, fucking unpopular, fucking unwanted, piece of shit ACT OF CONGRESS!!!
There’s no reason why Congress can’t kill what Congress created. Somebody wheel him out and change his pants, for God’s sake.
Krauthammer is long overdue for retirement. At the least, he needs to spend a decade or two away from Washington.
We need a Constitutional amendment forbidding anyone from living within 100 miles of DC for more than ten years.
There’s a hundred thousand hunters with high-powered rifles and a strong sense of self-determination who live within a hundred miles of DC. I think they should be allowed to stay put.
Mr. Madison concurred (thinking as the political revolutionary he was):
Squid, behold the largest army in the world.
So we have that.
#14 – The citizenry are just barely armed compared to the government. Madison, hampered by a lack of imagination, didn’t foresee a government with supersonic aircraft laden with something people in the future would refer to as high explosives, nor bullet-proof carriages powered by literally fire-breathing hearts.
Luckily the citizen right to bear arms as a bulwark against the state is unlikely to ever really be tested.
“If you strike at the King, it is well to kill him” is, I think, the quotation being referenced.
But Obamacare is not king, and neither is Barry, though it disappoints him to admit it.
Strike it. Strike hard, and kill it fast, lest it metastasize.
If at first you don’t succeed…
The left takes that one to heart and the right should too.
“The citizenry are just barely armed compared to the government. “
You forget something Einstein. Our soldiers are citizens. The airforce is unlikely to carpet bomb Texas. I don’t think the national guard will join the feds against their communities . If it comes to force of arms, as always, the outcome is shrouded in doubt.
You think we would be easier to conquer than the Taliban? Or Somalia?
That doesn’t make any sense.
That depends on Texas.
I think we’ll never find out.
alex_walter, the question isn’t if they will carpet bomb Texas, the question is if they will carpet bomb every city in the country. Because we won’t be in organized bands; we’ll be the next-door neighbor of the EPA bureaucrat who has to decide if they want to not issue that refinery permit if the price is to wake up at 3 am with their home in flames.
As a thought experiment, what would be the response if the Tea Party people began gathering in their hundreds of thousands, all armed? Glenn Beck got half a million people together to protest what’s happening in Washington, what if next time half a million people brandish their rifles over their heads, and scream “NO MORE!”.
Think the tanks will roll though?
Now that is an amazing hypothetical. I have no idea what the response would be, except that the president would be out of town.
The response would be the entirety of the NYT, MSNBC, and the dozens, if not hundreds, of their audience members collectively crapping their pants and putting their fainting couches to good use. Might be worth it, if only to witness the handwaving freakoutery.
Tienemen Square on the Potomac?
The government fools itself if it thinks the resolution would be the same. They think they wield the power of the gun, but the true power of a gun is dependent whose hand it resides in. The military in this country is not an arm of the government – it is an arm of the people lent to the government to do our will until they don’t. Those tank turrets swivel for a reason.
Why do you think the democrats are agitating for bringing back the draft? It moves the military towards the arc of an arm of the government and not an arm of the people. Those who voluntarily serve can voluntarily quit. Those who are conscripted either don’t give a damn or are beholden to those who provide them with benefits.
Tienemen Square would probably never have resolved the way it did if the soldiers involved were beholden to the people and not to the government.
Steph, whatever those tea partiers put in the bags seems to have you overstimulated.
If 500,000 tea partiers bring guns to a party on the national mall, the president orbits from AF1 and waits for them to head home. If those partiers get a wild hair and overrun the White House, then I’m guessing the soldiers fire.
We all agree they damn well better fire, right?
“If those partiers get a wild hair and overrun the White House,”
nice trick there
What silly rhetorical devices…
First, if the president feels the need to vacate in the face of citizens in his driveway, then he truly is tyrannical, no? Consent of the governed… duh.
Second, what if they don’t vacate and head home? A king without his sword, the country without a king.
Third, no we better hope the soldiers don’t fire.
Funny, I’ve always thought Tienemen was a BAD THING… CNN told me so.
Here’s the oath that I took on an autumn day long ago:
Emphasis mine…
So Alex, the soldiers would fire, unless of course, the President himself was violating his oath and openly defying or subverting the Constitution. Like, you know, declaring himself dictator by force. I’m pretty sure that there most warriors would take a jaundiced eye to any orders to the effect that they should mow down US citizens, a la Tienemen square.
US Civil war, a struggle between armed combatants from a declared non-US sovereign nation being an exception.
As an aside, I find your thought experiment to be a reach; moreso than the one that originally motivated the second amendment.
unless of course, the President himself was violating his oath and openly defying or subverting the Constitution.
And there is the nub of the issue….
For the citizens to take to the Squid brand pitchforks and bring their arms to bear, this would pretty much have already occurred, no?
So, no, the soldiers will not fire.
“As an aside, I find your thought experiment to be a reach; moreso than the one that originally motivated the second amendment.”
Really, and I was dreaming it, simultaneously with a hundred others across America, this 4th of July.
Darn!
Those performing treasonous acts generally feel justified, if that’s what your getting at.
I would hope that if the citizens were wielding firearms and overrunning the White House, the soldiers wouldn’t spend an inordinate amount of time pondering this.
“I would hope that if the citizens were wielding firearms and overrunning the White House, the soldiers wouldn’t spend an inordinate amount of time pondering this.”
argue with the strawman alex dude
If the President was orbiting in AF1, Alex, then there’d be no reason to use deadly force to protect the White House; unless that strawman you keep trotting out is there and in charge…
And long before any “soldiers” were to encounter the 500k alleged crazed hilljack gun-toting tea-partiers you postulate got anywhere near 1600 Penn, they’d have been interdicted by the DC and National Capital Park Police.
The scenario you put forth, of armed citizens arbitrarily attempting a putsch is ridiculous. And were some kind of action like that necessarily predicated by a tyrannical act on the part of our leaders, then the commanding General at Forts Belvoir or McNair, nor any other nearby facilities, wouldn’t take orders, or even the phone call, of that person; because by virtue of having violated their own oath they would no longer be the Commander in Chief.
Do you really subscribe to these cartoonish concepts of our warriors, or Tea-Partiers, or are you just trying to be provacative?
“I would hope that if the citizens were wielding firearms and overrunning the White House, the soldiers wouldn’t spend an inordinate amount of time pondering this.”
billy ayhers and the weather underground are O!’s backup
You guys are the ones that keep (joking? Hinting? Stating?) that armed insurrection may be called for in times like these. If I’m in possession of a strawman I think I know where it came from.
Why do people continue to engage this idiot?
Alex,
Others put forth the notion of armed Tea-Partiers openly gathering together. You were the one that turned that into storming the White House.
That hasn’t happened in American history-ever. I know it may sound hackneyed and cliche, but we have peaceful revolutions every four years…
Play the gadfly all you want, but I’d be obliged if you’d do a brother a solid and leave the US military out of your rhetorical constructs.
Sorry Abe, I’m sure it’s a charcter flaw on my part.
I wasn’t directing that at you specifically, Bob. It takes a village to feed an idiot.
“You guys are the ones that keep (joking? Hinting? Stating?) that armed insurrection ”
let’s have a g-20 at the white house
Hah! Hillary was right after all. The end of the world must be nigh…
Maybe, but it only takes a blog host to eliminate him.
As much as I dislike alex_walter, and as much as I think he contributes nothing to the conversation, he hasn’t risen to the level of banning, IMO. Of course, that is not my decision, but I would think that banning in the face of someone who disagrees and is putting on some kind of sardonic pose and is, in general, annoying, might be extreme.
I’m going to do my best to simply not engage him any more, though I can’t say I’ll be successful. I might even take another stab at getting trollhammer working again. I sort of had it working partly, though what would really have been good is to have the old page format and the new one side by side so I could figure out how it works its magic. I don’t know much about that kind of scripting.
Well, it started off with quoting Madison.
And then a little “Because we won’t be in organized bands; we’ll be the next-door neighbor of the EPA bureaucrat who has to decide if they want to not issue that refinery permit if the price is to wake up at 3 am with their home in flames.”
And then “For the citizens to take to the Squid brand pitchforks and bring their arms to bear, this would pretty much have already occurred, no?”
So maybe I’m reading to much into it, but I do frequently catch the wiff here that should the government stray just a tiny bit farther, the founding fathers envisioned armed revolution as an expected remedy.
I do frequently catch the wiff here that should the government stray just a tiny bit farther, the founding fathers envisioned armed revolution as an expected remedy.
Yeah, that fucking rightwing reactionary hack Thomas Jefferson sure sullies the sacred name of the founding fathers.
Yeah. If it comes down to living under the boot heel of a nanny state or fighting, I say we accept the slavery.
Because fighting is so…uncouth…
Is it time to cue the constitutional excerpt from National Treasure now?
And is that a little sally across the bow that Alex posits that maybe this site is subversive or something and like maybe that’s a bad thing cause we’re a bunch of wannabe rightwingers what Napolitano raves about? Ya know, the real terrorists…
scuse me, the declaration exerpt… it’s getting late and my spike sharpening is falling behind schedule.
Is it time to cue the
constitutionaldeclaration excerpt ?Fuck no! Thomas Jefferson was a rightwing reactionary bitterclingy hicktard unworthy to grace the founders’ pantheon.
Alex?
Flummery is his sig.
Just do it.
Must be something in the air. I was just discussing having enough food and water around, being properly armed, planting tactical shrubbery around the house as the interior of the house is completely indefensible, having an evacuation plan, and how to prepare acorns for food this morning.
If the King is a tyrant then any and every attempt must be made even if success is nothing more than a glimmer of a hope. Patriotism demands this, to do less is to submit to the chains.
CK is losing it.
Trees of Liberty, and all that…
#38 – Actually Bob, it looks like I had it right all along. It seems you’re one of the very few here who’s not actually saber rattling about revolution.
Oh, the gnashing of teeth that will happen when the newly minted raise the debt ceiling.
Oh, the gnashing of teeth that will happen when the newly minted raise the debt ceiling.
Alex_Walter – Yaoi Boy
Tighter, tighter. Choke me, yes, yes, yes!!!!
Yaoi Boy is in love with those chains…
Alex is a c*nt. Period. That is beyond question.
alex_walter, on points this site has dispensed with more ignorant leftists than you can count, but you, lad, are among the most obtuse, ignorant, and simple-minded to infest these pages. You propose more sheer myopic bullshit than I can recall.
Consider ceasing this while you’re as young as you are and you’ll thank us. Leave it unaddressed and by one means or another, you’ll be miserable one day.
Maybe you’re reading too much into it, whatever it is? You cannot think your way out of the bath. As Bob Reed noted (and please, please engage Bob Reed as many times as you possibly can):
You’re out of whack, alex_walter.
Early on, Alex was confused by the idea of our soldiers being citizens first. If he cannot grasp that simple concept, it’s not surprising that he cannot comprehend the idea of a gathering of peaceful-yet-armed citizens on the Mall. Nor is it surprising that he cannot grasp the idea of a citizenry standing up against the continuing erosion of their liberty. Nor is it surprising that he cannot distinguish between arms held in defense of one’s life and liberty, and those brandished at a legitimate government by petulant children.
Few would be surprised at the things that Alex cannot grasp, though the sheer length of such a list beggars belief.