Bush's latest flip flop.

[kallend 2,117]

The Supremes ruled that Federal ERISA laws prevent patients from suing their HMOs in state courts.

The Texas cases were filed under a patients' rights law passed when President George W. Bush was governor. When Bush was running for president four years ago, he took credit for the law, but his administration sided with insurance carriers when the two cases reached the high court.

Another case of saying one thing and doing another.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

I'm confused, I thought GWB was president, not a supreme court justice.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I'm confused, I thought GWB was president, not a supreme court justice.

Let me help clear it up for you...

"his administration sided with insurance carriers when the two cases reached the high court."

[Trent 0]

So the supreme court is now GWB's administration? Don't they stay on until they retire?

Sometimes I forget that GWB is the omnipresent invisible hand that controls all things that YOU don't like.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? His administration stated a position that contradicted an earlier position. Whether or not it had influence on the supremes (and to assume that's not possible is naive) it demonstrates that he's just as apt to change his stance on positions as Kerry is accused of.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No more than anyone else on this forum.

Quote

His administration stated a position that contradicted an earlier position.

Are you talking about the ruling, or did "the White House" issue a statement as such?

Quote

Whether or not it had influence on the supremes (and to assume that's not possible is naive) it demonstrates that he's just as apt to change his stance on positions as Kerry is accused of.

It's naive to assume that judges who the president has no power over in retaining their position, and who have been approved by the senate can be influenced by the office of the president? It's just as naive to think that they actually care what someone who will be out of office during their careers wants.

While you may think this is a good example of the ol' "Kerry Flip Flop" syndrome in Bush, I would hardly say that he's got it down as well as the man himself. I wouldn't say he's "just as apt" to change his stance based on this "example".

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

You're right. When Bush does it, there's nothing wrong with it. When Kerry does it, there is. Case closed.

[EricTheRed 0]

Whether you like the guy or not you are definitely showing your ass.

One day he said 'this is a good idea'
A little while later he states 'I don't think this is a good idea'

Whether he actually had influence in either instance is irrelevant to the fact that his stated opinion changed.

Personally, I think any rational being changes his mind quite often, based on external factors that they have no control over. The whole fixation with "flip-flipping" is asinine.

illegible usually

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Personally, I think any rational being changes his mind quite often, based on external factors that they have no control over. The whole fixation with "flip-flipping" is asinine.

DING DING DING......someone can see past the rhetoric.

[billvon 3,090]

>Personally, I think any rational being changes his mind quite often, >based on external factors that they have no control over. The whole >fixation with "flip-flipping" is asinine.

Agreed. In addition, a vote for a certain bill may not be a vote for what the bill is for. If you vote against the "save the children" bill, and that bill contains a provision that would end private gun ownership, it does not mean that you don't want to "save the children." If you vote for a "save the children" bill that funds research into juvenile diabetes, you haven't just flip-flopped.

[Trent 0]

First, I didn't bring flip-flopping into this discussion. Second, I never said anything about whether or not Bush DID or DIDN'T change his mind. I merely mentioned that all of you are showing YOUR ASSES by saying that Bush is responsible for the supreme court ruling.

So unless you're all ready to hold any future and past president responsible for supreme court rulings, stop blaming the current one for the HMO ruling. Mmmmkay?

I still think Kerry is more likely to change his mind. Bush is much more stubborn.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I merely mentioned that all of you are showing YOUR ASSES by saying that Bush is responsible for the supreme court ruling.

Was that in a font color that matches the background or something? Because I didn't see it anywhere.

[billvon 3,090]

Y'know, that's not much of a flip-flop. Bush has _much_ better flip-flops than that. Heck, he's changed his mind on whether there's any Al Qaeda/Hussein connection twice so far. And remember when he wanted to leave the issue of gay marriage up to the states, and he didn't think US troops should be used for nation building?

[benny 0]

Quote

I'm confused, I thought GWB was president, not a supreme court justice.

No, byt lawyers ostensibly under his direction, argue the position of the executive branch before the Supreme Court. Trent, you may be a bad-ass freeflier but your understanding of the US government is lacking.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Trent 0]

From EricTheRed:

Quote

Whether you like the guy or not you are definitely showing your ass.

... and I replied to all a yous, so that wasn't specific.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

I meant, where did anyone say he was responsible for the ruling....

[Trent 0]

Benny, it appears that your understanding of the US government is lacking. The supreme court made the decision, not the lawyers. And... hmmm, you'd think that it'd be lawyers for the HMOs arguing this case, not the justice department or any other governmental agency.

But, hey, I'm just a freeflier and you're the expert on government.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Re-read the first post, and tell me that kallend didn't want to put the blame on GWB and his administration. Heck, look at your first few posts too.

Oh, hello again!

[newsstand 0]

Kallend was pointing out the change in GWB's position not claiming it was GWB's "fault" the ruling happened.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Trent 0]

And I asked for, and have not recieved, a statement from Bush or his administration stating his opinion on the matter. None of the articles I read about it mentioned Bush.

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Bush has threatened to veto any bill that allows patients to sue HMOs in state courts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I think any rational being changes his mind quite often, based on external factors that they have no control over. The whole fixation with "flip-flipping" is asinine.

DING DING DING......someone can see past the rhetoric.

Changing's one mind over time is all well and good. We wouldn't want our politicians held to the positions they held while in college.

But not if done to coincide with an election cycle.

[Trent 0]

Nice, now we're getting somewhere. I'll look into where he may have said that... but as is... the Supreme Court went ahead and took that issue off his hands. WITHOUT him swaying them one way or another. I'll read the complete ruling when I have more time.

So we're no longer blaming Bush or his administration for the ruling, correct? Your just saying that he changed his stance on the issue.

Oh, hello again!

[dbattman 0]

I'd have to read his position on both issues before calling it a flip-flop. It is possible that the lawsuit was filed as an absurd extension of what he supported on the PBOR.

[PhillyKev 0]

Bush has threatened to veto any bill that allows patients to sue HMOs in state courts.