BREAKING NEWS: REPUBL- wait, seriously...? *sigh*... REPUBLICANS VOTE TO SUE OBAMA OVER OBAMACARE.

MMHMM.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE SUING OBAMA FOR BRINGING HEALTH CARE TO THE STATES.

So... how do people still support the republican party again?

This is beyond insane, but it's happening! It's happening as my dwindling respect for the republican party hangs itself.
Even as a Canadian, I can't even sit back and laugh at the absurdity of this. It's just...
WHAT THE ****, AMERICA?!

Keep in mind, these are the insane morons who LOCKED DOWN GOVERNMENT in order to stop healthcare, AND IT'S STILL IN EFFECT.
WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO GIVE UP?

Source: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-votes-to-sue-obama

I expected an Onion article.

So did I, when I first heard about it.

Well, they are 'murican after all. Obama will probably sue them back.

Did you read the article? They're suing him for NOT bringing healthcare to the states.

They're basically accusing him of not enforcing the laws they voted against.

The article then goes on to say

""This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold," Boehner said. "Are you willing to let any president choose what laws to execute and what laws to change? Are you willing to let anyone tear apart what our Founders have built?""

Make no mistake, this is still all about stopping healthcare from happening in the name of that stupid freaking constitution, the republicans are stupid, but they're not stupid enough to carry out with a money and time wasting activity like this without reason.

You have to actually pay attention to politics to understand what is going on.

I'm not going to sum it up for you. Either find out the actual deal before saying anything, or profess to knowing nothing.

HE JUST SAID THE REASON!
What will it take to convince you!?

Allow me to quote:

"It's about defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold"

You really think that they would sue Obama for not enforcing a law that they're against, with no other motive?

That's insane. That's like suing Monsanto because they said they'd put in more toxic chemicals and then decided against it.

EDIT: And the constitution is irrelevant at this point.

You are missing the big picture.

This is a calculated decision to STOP OBAMA from NOT ENFORCING the laws that govern immigration and border security (namely, those involving deportation of illegals). They cannot win in the courts with a direct suit, and impeachment is something Obama WANTS to draw attention from the Midterm election cycle (which is disgusting - the man has no respect for the office). So, no impeachment, can't sue directly - so they sue him on the thing that is MOST CERTAINLY unconstitutional, and can EASILY be defended, at least compared to the border stuff. Politics is never about what you are doing - it's about why you are doing it. I don't like it, but that's the way the system works. The House Republicans are sending a message. Hell, the AMERICAN PEOPLE are sending a message: Fix. The. Border. Or we will burn your house down. I seem to have lost the Brietbart article (dammit), but to sum it up, the headline was HOUSE PHONE LINES MELTED BY CALLS TO STOP IMMIGRATION BILL or something meaning the same thing.

I guess this will do: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ing-Tough-On-Immigration-Most-Important-Issue

If you like that, you'll love the ReaganBook articles.

If he didn't admit to being canadian, I'd say that was a very poor viewpoint.

The best way to improve the condition of the legislature is educating the public. But he's canadian, so he can't vote anyways.

On that note, tehtrekd, hyperbolic statements like "he's being sued for bringing healthcare" serve as active misinformation. He's being sued for not enforcing laws. You can expand on the motive, but starting with misinformation makes you almost as bad as Fox News... Yeah, I went there.

Fox news starts with hyperbole and breaks it down. Honestly,tho, do any of the other networks do any better??

Yes. Fox outright lies about things it has said on a regular basis.

Fox is pretty much the Inquirer of televised news with a strong political bias. They have a flagrant disregard for reality and are more concerned with entertaining and pandering to their viewers than being accurate.

People who watch Fox are actually more poorly informed than people who watch no news at all.
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/

You know, something about being forced to buy something whether we want it or not, and driving up exchange rates, and executive orders from Obama, Obama doing things he does not have the power to do, and the majority of Americans opposing Obamacare...

Shoulda happened a long time ago.

Btw, I'm not a Republican.

I still want to know why so many Americans are opposed to healthcare. It's a sensible policy that works every single time it's used.

Are Americans just allergic to a mildly socialistic policy?

We're not opposed to healthcare. We have healthcare.

Obamacare is more than three times as expensive as what we used to have. Rates have more than trippled because of Obamacare. And that's just rates. Not only have the rates increased astronomically, but deductibles have increased by at least 3 times. So not only are we now paying more each month, but we don't even get to take advantage of the healthcare that we are now forced to have.

The coverage from Obamacare is absolute $#*&#%.

Under Obamacare, me, as a male, has to get coverage for pregnancies. Let me say that again. I am a single male, and I have to be covered for pregnancies.

Obamacare is anything but sensible. It is absolute crap.

And as for socialistic policy... yes. We are, because socialism doesn't work. Period. You sacrifice liberties in exchange for whatever, and that's just bad. Socialism simply does not work. All of history proves that socialism doesn't work.

A lot of the people you ask will give different reasons for their rationale. Asking the American population about their opinion on a single law and expecting a clear answer is like asking the entirety of the female population how they think men should treat them. You'll get a billion answers with a billion different rationales.

Not only are you generalizing the American populous by giving our opinions, but you're wrong at varying degrees depending on the definition of socialism.

If we're going with what a lot of Americans think is socialism, a good portion of Europe is a prime example of how it can work well. Another good portion of Europe is how it can end poorly. If we're going for some really hardcore definitions, then the US already qualifies as a socialist government and has for the last 100 years.

Absolutes are almost always wrong.

You are right, the US is already moving towards a socialist government. And it is crumbling in on itself as a result.

If you can give me a single example of a nation that in the last 100 years WASN'T either socialist by the more rigid definition or a dictatorship I'll accept that response as something other than silly.

Governments exist to provide social services. That is literally all they do. The most basic of them is the maintaining of social order, which is done by the police force.

As the needs of the people have increased so have the responsibilities of the governments. That's why we now have things like public transportation and public education.