General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Don't Think This Is an Idle Threat
"Let's say you want to follow this administration's idea of greatest good for the greatest number of people," Gohmert said. "It ought to scare liberals to come run and join conservatives, because what it means is when this president's out of the White House and you get a conservative in there, if this president has the authority under ObamaCare ... to trample on religious rights, then some redneck president's got the right to say, 'you know what, there's some practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare, so we're going to have the right to rule over those as well.' "
Now, when Gohmert talks about "practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare" I don't think he's referring to, say, eating too much greasy takeout food and washing it down with half a dozen Bud tallboys and/or crystal meth and never getting more exercise than the amount you get walking from the TV chair to the driver's seat of the pickup truck. I know exactly what he means -- he means gay sex, because thoroughly discredited right-wing pseudo-science, which is believed by a large percentage of the right, including right-wingers who claim to be sophisticated, tells us that gay men and lesbians have shockingly brief lifespans and die sooner than straight people from all sorts of causes, including accidents. Oh, and I'm sure he's also referring to abortion, which all right-wingers "know" causes breast cancer, even though that assertion has been thoroughly debunked. And I almost forgot the supposed link between having an abortion and depression, even though that's also been debunked.
Right-wingers never admit defeat, so if they somehow manage to lose at the Supreme Court on the mandate issue, they absolutely will take advantage of it the next time they control the entire federal government. And if you think they won't try to use pseudo-science in legislation, obviously you haven't been paying attention to the climate change debate in America.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/27/12832/3550
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But tricky to pull off; basically the argument is that a right wing President could use junk science to recriminalize homosexuality (or abortion, or contraception, but I kind of assume they would start with homosexuality) on the grounds of the health risk. I'm not sure the law can be stretched that far, and I'm not sure they could get to enough power that they could do it. But worth thinking about.
Bryant
phantom power
(25,966 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Our party generally sells us out when it comes to economic issues, but when it comes to this issue, I don't think they would just roll over. And these would be some fairly radical changes. I also don't see Republicans, particularly not Teaparty Republicans, getting veto-proof super majorities in both the House and Senate.
Bryant
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's not like history started on Monday, folks.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)And they are just about as vengeful
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Republicans aren't dumb enough to actually satisfy their base.
Because then their base is happy, and the other side is energized. They'd lose, massively. And one thing that keeps independents independent is they don't believe the GOP would go "too far". Well, he's proposing they go too far. Liberals + independents vastly outnumber the right-wing fringe.
This is a dumb slippery slope argument on something that isn't actually a slippery slope. It is exactly like the dumb arguments that gay marriage will lead to legalizing pedophilia.