Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Post Reply New Topic

That was a rare case where the Senate didn't have the votes to pass a budget in part due to the Senate budget committee being equally split between Republican and Democrat, thus not being able to pass any measure out of committee.
You need 4 out of 6 votes to pass out of a committee.

Then you need 60 votes to move the Senate budget to a full floor vote, which can be filibustered.

Then you need 60 votes to vote it out, if the majority leader decides to use normal Senate rules.

Though if they take up the House budget for vote, they can use a special process that only needs 51 votes (which can be the tie breaking vote can be the VP).
This is was Bush II favorite way of getting spending bills through the Senate.

In 2010 was a rare case of Democrats, DINOs (Democrats In Name Only aka Conservative Democrats) and RINOs (Republican In Name Only aka Moderate/liberal Republicans) being all scared of the midterm votes and the newly created Tea Party movement.

The public was scathing mad at Government takeover of healthcare, which healthcare reform was the most important issue in 2008 and was vowing to stop the Big Black Man from doing stuff...
In 2015 one of the biggest reasons why people don't like Obama is that he is black...
A good chunk of Americans still believe he is a foreign born and/or Muslim!

Thus the Senate decided only to do the basic issues, while putting everything off until after the election to prevent the bleeding of Senate.

The House was energized and willing to do as much as possible, but Pelosi was hamstrung by the Senate.

The Senate break down before election 2010 was 54 Democrats, 4 DINOs, 2 Is, 4 or 5 RINOs, and the rest being true Republicans.

Obviously they bleed Seats, though the Democrats retained their majority until 2014, when only 36% of the voters turn out (which is why the GOP won).

Though the Senate should flip back into Democrats hands in 2016, with a good chance for a super majority.
Of the 34 seats up for election in 2016, 24 are Republican and 10 Democrats.
The Senate is likely to change hands, since the Democrats only need 7 seats for a majority.
The current polls put the House up for grabs.
If John Boehner wants to remain Speaker after next election he will have to lurch further right to appease his party.
If the Republicans still hold a House majority after 2016, there is a good chance they will elect a new speaker, since they aren't currently happy with how centrist Boehner is being toward the Democrats.
You can hear them on most Sundays spouting off about Boehner being a weak Republican.

Though with 2016 being a presidential year, that means high voter turn out.
Since the 1932, high voter turn out greatly favors the Democrats and left.
Low voter turn out greatly favors the Conservative Republicans (sub 40% turn out)
Between 40 - 50%, the votes split about equally.

And look just where supporting right wing politics gets you




First up judging by your responses so far my knowledge of the historical struggles of the American working class and the current dilemma it is in, outweighs yours by several factors of ten. Secondly unlike the right wing I give a s**t about the masses of exploited people throughout the world as do all socialists. Oh and btw by Socialist I do not mean people who are nominally less viciously right wing than their opponents IE The Democrats.


In case you had not noticed we all live on the same planet, share the same resources and are being exploited by the same global corporations. We are all presently in danger of becoming embroiled in a global conflict, which will be caused in part by the contradictions of global finance and production bound within nation states.

Have you ever considered that you are being attacked by both sides because we are now living in an era where reform now means repeal of hard one gains, and someone like yourself is seen as a drain upon the economy? All across the world governments, at the behest of the financial markets, are bringing in austerity measures. These measure do nothing to force the wealthy and the corporations to pay increased taxes, rather, savings are made by destroying the living conditions of the most vulnerable sections of society, which by the sound of it, unfortunately, includes yourself.

As has been pointed out already there is no effective Left in any western country, if there was people like yourself might be living rather than simply surviving.

A-MEN


These populist quacks who try to challenge scientific findings with pseudoscience are often self-promoters who are trying to question authority and seem smarter than others. Allowing them to manipulate other people into doing things that are harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society(read CHILDREN) is unjust, stupid, and completely unacceptable.

State oversight is proving to be a vital necessity when it comes to parenthood in the US and the evidence of widespread child abuse and neglect speaks for itself.

How do you propose this would be accomplished lawfully (beyond expressing personal desires, of course)?

Well, for one, if I see evidence that a parent is forcing a potent bleach like chlorine dioxide on their child in the false hope to cure something like autism, I will call CPS, who is responsible in cases of child abuse.

How will "state oversight" be accomplished lawfully?

It is already lawful. States have the authority to ensure children are safe.

you guys are so dense . for the last fing time I 'm not right wing. nor do I totally support them all all issues. I vote based on the issues that affect me and others. I look at each person running and their views on those issues then I vote for the one who supports most of my issues. the best for this is a pro liberty democrat, whose sees the logic and reality of gun ownership , supports welfare and other civil rights but also sees illegal immigration as bad. luckily not all dem politicians follow the party line blindly. most do even if they personally think illegal immigration is bad they'll support it. most just say and vote based on who lives in their district. the other dems hate on them for representing their districts rather than saying the party line.

anyways I'm done. you all just attacking on me 5 against 1 is hardly fair. and you refuse to see the truth instead choosing to slander me.

people speak like aspies are so nice and better than nts' but clearly we are just as bad as them only difference is we're social awkward about it.

First off by requiring parents to take their children to doctors visits a certain number of times per year and that does include doctors making house calls. As well as schools(both public and private) being required to monitor children and report any instances of abuse or neglect.


And beneficii is correct: States already have the legal authority to conduct oversight and intervene when there is suspicion of child abuse and neglect.

Your proposals go well beyond what federal and state laws provide currently. Schools already have lawful methods through which suspected abuse is required to be reported. The same is true for healthcare providers (though, I believe that interrogating children without the attendance of a parent is illegal and should be prosecuted). But, I am unaware of any state or federal laws which require a certain number of medical examinations at any time. That is legally up to the parents' choice.

I was questioning your statement that "...populist quacks who try to challenge scientific findings with pseudoscience are often self-promoters who are trying to question authority and seem smarter than others. Allowing them to manipulate other people into doing things that are harmful to the most vulnerable members of our society(read CHILDREN) is unjust, stupid, and completely unacceptable. [...] State oversight is proving to be a vital necessity when it comes to parenthood in the US and the evidence of widespread child abuse and neglect speaks for itself."

How would "state authority" be used to restrict "[a]llowing" those who "question authority" "be a vital necessity when it comes to parenthood" let alone lawful? Doesn't the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America protect an individual's natural right to free speech? If so, how should such an individual or parents respond to the desire to restrict their speech, especially when it is about their children?

AspieUtah,

It is one thing to espouse certain things. It is quite another to put them into action by doing dangerous things to their children such as by using bleach. There are a number of parents who, if they believe their child has autism, will either force bleach down their child's throat or up the child's rectum, causing at the very least severe irritation. No evidence has ever been produced that this treatment is effective. A number of quacks call this treatment "Miracle Mineral Supplement" and make a good amount of money promoting and selling it to give false hope to parents and give them a way of seriously harming those children; they also say that it is basically a panacea.

Some of the sellers of that have been and are being prosecuted by the feds, which is justified because these sellers operate within interstate commerce.

Indeed. But, should unwitting parents be prosecuted, too? Under simple negligence, maybe. But, malice? I will leave that to the seller of such poison. When I wrote that "state authority" was limited, I meant in ways that weren't already prohibited (such as misrepresentation of untested chemicals and drugs). The state has little or no authority, however, in prohibiting parents from declining certain treatment for their children that isn't required by law. In my state, at least, parental choice is paramount in almost all healthcare matters involving children. So much so, that it requires a court order for the state to provide any care forcibly.

The combination of words that Lazar_Kaganovich used made it seem to me that he wished to include parents with benign opinions among those who knowingly promote dangerous, untested products. The two are worlds apart.

I hope you don't mean me. My intention was not to attack you but to speak of issues which need addressing. Pressing issues like pollution and low voter turnout. Perhaps this is a time when people should be very concerned and vote every election so we get a true picture of what people consider to be real concerns. I am on the side of the voter.

AspieUtah,

Any parent, unwitting or not, should have their children removed if they are using MMS on any of them. Prosecution of course ultimately requires mens rea.

I think if such parents care enough about their children, they should do more research on what MMS is actually capable of, instead of just following a false hope for a quick fix.

Mens rea requires criminal intent, not merely ignorant culpability. If this is what you meant, I agree. But, as applied to your written explanation as referenced, parents shouldn't have their children moved to protective custody unless intent is proved. Again, in my state, at least, this is the case. Our laws protect the integrity of the family unless absolutely necessary (or the parents are just LGBT -- kidding!).

I agree that parents should be fully informed about any care given to their children, but are they culpable if they are simply duped by a fast-talking scam artist? If so, we would have to incarcerate more than two-thirds of all Americans.

Looking at this suggests that many of the people utilizing MMS, especially on children, know that what they are doing is wrong, but cover it up by demonizing the people trying to warn them:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... ed-1891895

Any parent who takes that kind of attitude is clearly aware that what they are doing is wrong, but they keep doing it anyway, while living in denial. This is a common manifestation of human evil. That is mens rea.