|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 01 2013 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 09:51 Roe wrote:On August 01 2013 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah Republicans. Always willing to destroy there country because they don't happen to agree with a law. They think the law is bad. So fighting it is helping the country from their perspective. Fighting it and trying to take it down is exactly what they should be doing if they think it is bad. But when you start thinking that shutting down the government is an acceptable measure to get your point across I think you have lost sight of your job as a politician. Your no longer acting for the good of the people, your being an angry kid in the play ground that didn't get his ball. Thought police  On August 01 2013 04:51 Roe wrote:On August 01 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah Republicans. Always willing to destroy there country because they don't happen to agree with a law. They think the law is bad. So fighting it is helping the country from their perspective. Relativism won't lead us anywhere So move to China and embrace one party rule. Just announcing that they're doing good from their perspective isn't really saying anything. It's like saying: "well the robber thought it was good he took the money and he felt like he needed it. so he's just making a living from his perspective". I'm just saying, relativism doesn't get you anywhere. The point is, what they're trying to do is destructive to democracy. And shutting down the government because they didn't like a law, yeah, that's democratic...Heck we might as well move to China if Republicans want this kind of totalitarian power. So it's totalitarian to not agree on a budget now?
So that's what this is? A "budget disagreement"? Yea, ok.
|
On August 01 2013 11:09 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 11:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 09:51 Roe wrote:On August 01 2013 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah Republicans. Always willing to destroy there country because they don't happen to agree with a law. They think the law is bad. So fighting it is helping the country from their perspective. Fighting it and trying to take it down is exactly what they should be doing if they think it is bad. But when you start thinking that shutting down the government is an acceptable measure to get your point across I think you have lost sight of your job as a politician. Your no longer acting for the good of the people, your being an angry kid in the play ground that didn't get his ball. Thought police On August 01 2013 04:51 Roe wrote:On August 01 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah Republicans. Always willing to destroy there country because they don't happen to agree with a law. They think the law is bad. So fighting it is helping the country from their perspective. Relativism won't lead us anywhere So move to China and embrace one party rule. Just announcing that they're doing good from their perspective isn't really saying anything. It's like saying: "well the robber thought it was good he took the money and he felt like he needed it. so he's just making a living from his perspective". I'm just saying, relativism doesn't get you anywhere. The point is, what they're trying to do is destructive to democracy. And shutting down the government because they didn't like a law, yeah, that's democratic...Heck we might as well move to China if Republicans want this kind of totalitarian power. So it's totalitarian to not agree on a budget now? So that's what this is? A "budget disagreement"? Yea, ok.
It would be the mechanism.
|
Wow, it's actually rather sad and depressing that Jonny can't tell the difference between disagreement and obstructionism.
It's not easy being a centrist today.
|
On August 01 2013 11:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, it's actually rather sad and depressing that Jonny can't tell the difference between disagreement and obstructionism.
It's not easy being a centrist today.
I can't? How do you figure? I'm not even advocating that shutting down the government or repealing Obamacare is a good idea. Republicans aren't doing or discussing anything that is illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't doing anything that will "destroy the country."
When the abortion bill was filibustered in Texas that didn't "destroy democracy" either.
|
On August 01 2013 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 11:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, it's actually rather sad and depressing that Jonny can't tell the difference between disagreement and obstructionism.
It's not easy being a centrist today. I can't? How do you figure? I'm not even advocating that shutting down the government or repealing Obamacare is a good idea. Republicans aren't doing or discussing anything that is illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't doing anything that will "destroy the country." When the abortion bill was filibustered in Texas that didn't "destroy democracy" either.
And yet Texas was still able to pass (and likely carry out the law). They had their fight, and now it's over, unless Democrats take over the houses and governorship.
|
On August 01 2013 12:20 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 01 2013 11:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, it's actually rather sad and depressing that Jonny can't tell the difference between disagreement and obstructionism.
It's not easy being a centrist today. I can't? How do you figure? I'm not even advocating that shutting down the government or repealing Obamacare is a good idea. Republicans aren't doing or discussing anything that is illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't doing anything that will "destroy the country." When the abortion bill was filibustered in Texas that didn't "destroy democracy" either. And yet Texas was still able to pass (and likely carry out the law). They had their fight, and now it's over, unless Democrats take over the houses and governorship.
Yeah, same thing that will happen here. There will be a fight, it will end, things will get passed.
|
Among the many topics covered at this week's Botanical Society of America Conference in New Orleans was the Louisiana Science Education Act, a law that critics say allows for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Zack Kopplin, a rising junior at Rice University, led a session on the LSEA as part of a symposium titled "Yes, Bobby, evolution is real!" The 20-year-old political activist is a leader of the campaign to repeal LSEA.
During the symposium, Kopplin and speakers blasted the law, suggesting that it has made Louisiana an "international laughingstock," according to The Times-Picayune.
The LSEA went into effect in 2008. Under the law, public school teachers are allowed to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."
Critics take issue with the fact that the act does not contain a specific ban on teaching creationism, although it says teachers cannot "promote any religious doctrine."
"It's not about teaching science. It's about sneaking creationism into the classroom," said Kopplin at the symposium, according to the Times-Picayune. "You don't need a law to teach critical thinking in science."
In addition to the session about the LSEA, the conference offered presentations on the history of evolution education and on approaches to teaching the subject.
"[Schools that support creationism] are a problem with evolution education around the country, and coming down here [to New Orleans], that was an obvious touch point," Dr. Marsh Sundberg, a professor at Emporia State University and organizer of the symposium, told The Huffington Post.
Organizers, including Sundberg and Professor Joseph Armstrong, invited Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal last month to attend the conference. Jindal is a supporter of LSEA, and told NBC in April that he did not see a problem with schools teaching creationism.
Armstrong and Sundberg said they never heard from the governor. "We actually didn't expect to get a reply back," said Sundberg.
"It would be unusual for a politician to come to a scientific meeting," noted Armstrong.
Source
|
On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other.
They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing.
As for bolded, this is some strong bias.
What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country.
|
On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country.
Yeah...
In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work....
For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation.
|
On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Yeah... In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work.... For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation.
it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall.
Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn.
|
On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Yeah... In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work.... For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation. it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall. Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn.
So...basically your bias is just really, really bad?
You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario.
And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken.
|
On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country.
Oh I am very biased against crazies.
Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP.
|
On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP.
Krugman made the same observation about the recent Obamacare freakout.
|
The exponential rise in ‘Saudi Texas’s’ oil output continues – production has doubled in only 27 months! ![[image loading]](http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/texasoil-600x380.jpg) Oil output has increased so significantly in Texas in recent years that if it was considered as a separate oil-producing country, Texas would have been the 11th largest oil-producing nation in the world for crude oil output in April (most recent month available for international oil production data) – just slightly behind No. 10 Mexico at 2.56 million bpd. At the current pace of output increases, Texas oil production will likely surpass 3 million bpd by the end of the year and surpass Kuwait, Mexico, UAE, and Iraq to move up to become the equivalent of the 8th largest oil-producing “nation” in the world.
Link
Dang Texas, WP!
|
Dammit! I knew I should have gone into petroleum engineering at Texas Tech...
|
Wake up and smell the roses. Both sides are playing the "government shutdown" scenario to their advantage. But the bottom line is that the Government will not get shutdown due to a lack of funding. This is all just politics, period.
What's really unfortunate is that I've never seen both sides being so far apart on just about everything.
|
On August 01 2013 23:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +The exponential rise in ‘Saudi Texas’s’ oil output continues – production has doubled in only 27 months! Oil output has increased so significantly in Texas in recent years that if it was considered as a separate oil-producing country, Texas would have been the 11th largest oil-producing nation in the world for crude oil output in April (most recent month available for international oil production data) – just slightly behind No. 10 Mexico at 2.56 million bpd. At the current pace of output increases, Texas oil production will likely surpass 3 million bpd by the end of the year and surpass Kuwait, Mexico, UAE, and Iraq to move up to become the equivalent of the 8th largest oil-producing “nation” in the world. LinkDang Texas, WP!
My extended family lives in a very small town in South Texas where pretty much every acre of land has oil under it. So an oil company came in and bought leases on tons of the land and basically every land owner in the town is making bank. What did they do? They all quit their jobs and they all just drink all day. Traffic fatalities have skyrocketed because everyone is drunk by 10am but they still drive around town to do stuff. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
|
On August 01 2013 15:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:31 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Yeah... In general, with elected governments, an "overpowering majority" trying to pass one of their major campaign platforms is usually how things work.... For me, the "fighting tooth and nail" bit is a somewhat terrifying thought. If you absolutely crush the opposition during elections, that generally means the population wants what you're pitching. The fact that such a weak opposition can stone wall effectively does not make any sense to me, in terms of running an entire nation. it's not such a weak opposition. It's a majority in the house. So there is no overpowering majority overall. Also, to call it a "stone wall" is a little silly. They're threatening to not get their job done before their session expires effectively shutting down the government... What's the big deal? Our government technically should have already shut down twice due to debt ceilings in a situation where it was mostly the liberals (the ones refusing to make cuts) who were at fault, so let's not demonize republicans for threatening to "shut down" the government just because it's their turn. So...basically your bias is just really, really bad? You said it was an "overpowering majority", so if it actually isn't, please don't randomly create some fictional David vs Goliath scenario.
Please read. I said a near (but not completely) overpowering majority.
So almost an overpowering majority.
A completely overpowering majority would be a majority in the Senate, the House and the president. Right now it's the Senate and the president.
And I consider any political system where the entire government shuts down with no recourse a bad system. Regardless of who you're trying to randomly paint as the bad guy in this situation, any situation where a minority representation can literally deadlock the entire government is just broken.
That's great, we all really care what you consider a good and bad government system, but the fact of the matter is that the country literally can not afford this healthcare bill and those that are opposing it are using this to their advantage. Maybe if the economy under Obama hasn't been the worse it's ever been in many years then the whole funding thing would be an non-issue and the bill would pass, too bad that's not the case.
On August 01 2013 21:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:09 Kiarip wrote:On August 01 2013 06:34 DoubleReed wrote:
No, shutting down the government to express disapproval is bad governance.
If they thought Obamacare is terrible, then they should be trying to mitigate the problems that it will cause through legislation and stuff like that. When Democrats don't like laws, they don't throw a tantrum, they work with what they have. In fact, we've seen this countless times where Democrats have been strongly disapproving of legislation but once it goes through, they try their damn hardest to make it work.
You can see from, for instance, the governors rejecting the medicaid provision for no practical reason whatsoever what is happening here. The idea of helping poor people is directly contrary to their politics, regardless of pragmatic benefits to the people they are actually representing.
One side is pragmatic and trying to make things work, the other side is ideological and crazy. It's sad how people just constantly equivocate and act like both sides are just as bad as each other. They're not throwing a tantrum they're just refusing to fund the thing. As for bolded, this is some strong bias. What is really happening is one side is using its near (but not completely) overpowering majority to pass a huge piece of legislation that has huge obvious detriment to the budget, while the other side that is weaker, but not completely overpowered is fighting tooth and nail to stop this from happening because they believe that the thing as a whole is wrong for the country. Oh I am very biased against crazies. Again, Republicans are not trying to make Obamacare work after it passes and mitigate damage. That's not what they're doing. Stop trying to pretend that this is how reasonable legislators act. They're trying to cripple legislation that could actually help people because they know perfectly well that Obamacare might actually work. And think about how disastrous that would be for the GOP.
They ARE trying to mitigate damage, by not funding it. "Reasonable legislators" is a very relativistic term. How about when we were at the debt ceiling, a ceiling that was also imposed by Congress (like Obamacare was voted on by Congress,) but when it came to actually make the cuts that the debt ceiling implied we were supposed to make, the democrats refused to make any cuts saying something along the lines of "no this isn't the time, we can not make cuts while our economy is in such bad "recovery.""
It's the same situation, just in reverse. Republicans are saying, "that's great that your bill passed but the country can't afford to fund it."
|
On August 02 2013 00:27 jellyjello wrote:
Wake up and smell the roses. Both sides are playing the "government shutdown" scenario to their advantage. But the bottom line is that the Government will not get shutdown due to a lack of funding. This is all just politics, period.
What's really unfortunate is that I've never seen both sides being so far apart on just about everything.
Other than pointing out that republicans are crazy, how exactly are democrats using the "government shutdown scenario."
I'm sorry but I get annoyed at all the equivocation. Democrats may be corrupt and such, but the Republicans have gone off the deep end. They've given significant voice to extremists on their side including Neo-confederates and nativists (Rand and Ron Paul, Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc). Stop pretending that there is no difference here.
That kind of apathy is exactly what got George W Bush elected. Yet do you really think we would have gone into Iraq under Gore? Do you really think climate denialists would have as much influence under Gore? Stem cell research?
The two parties are different. It may sound centrist or wise or nonpartisan or whatever to say that they're "basically the same" but this is simply not accurate.
|
I would call the democrats back in the day threatening to hold back military funding for the troops in the middle of a war much scarier then any ploy by the republicans to shut down the government.
You act like going into iraq was a bad thing when everyone can agree it was a good thing. It was horribly executed and had a massive civil war in the middle because we thought letting them govern themselves was a good idea but no one can disagree all the good its done for the people of iraq now that they don't have a dictator that won't gas the kurds to the north or invade random countries around it.
But I guess its true democrats would rather have people equal in slavery then unequal in freedom.
Edit: also check your facts Bush did more to fund stem cell research then anyone else in history and increased NASA's funding. He allowed funding on existing lines of stem cells and it worked for long enough for people to find a better way that wasn't so morally controversial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
