|
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. |
GOP leaders think if you throw around the word moderate enough in a sentence, that's hardball politics. If you support most everything that the other guy agrees with, but campaign vigorously against it all in election season, that's perfectly fine. It's a failing of the leadership every bit as it's a failing of the RINOs.
The other side is perfectly willing to use executive orders in lieu of congressional bills. The other side will campaign with the unelected courts on measures they dare not try with the people's representatives (hashed and rehashed in this thread already). There isn't some sort of gentleman's agreement that's honored. Thus, using the power of the purse to limit a dangerous bill is every bit in line with the way war is waged these days. The Democrats may choose the government shutdown when the new budget selectively does not fund Obamacare, and may well do so considering their media drive on labeling their opponents as children. That's their choice. Essentially services continue regardless (by law), and it'll be just like your average Saturday and Sunday with respect to the others. Keep preaching the fire and brimstone.
|
On September 14 2013 06:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Where did you get the idea that I've never heard of Adam Smith anyways? And why would it matter if I had or not? He's not some prophet of capitalism that everyone is supposed to bow down to. idk maybe it was the time you said something like "I don't know who this adam smith guy is  " not going to try to search for it but I'm positive you said this. it matters because if you don't know about adam smith and who he was and his social context and how his ideas have been used and misused you are simply not a person who knows the first thing about political economy or economic history and your opinion about such things is worthless. people certainly do treat him as a prophet of capitalism. They misuse his notion of the "hidden hand" and use it to justify all kinds of barbarism, despite the fact they don't know the first thing about what adam smith meant by that
If you think you have some valuable knowledge - share it. It is a discussion.
From what you just wrote I'm a bit worried that you're trying to paint with some very broad strokes. I hope that's not the case.
|
On September 14 2013 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 19:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 18:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 13 2013 13:24 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 13:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It has nothing to do with Dove being the authority on beauty. It has to do with them being the authority of soap and beauty products. Lol man. Keep telling yourself that. I know it's a brand ad. I know it's effective. Those things are insidious. They don't just tell us what to want. They tell us how to want. And let me guess, you and the people you respect are just a cut above the rest right? You see the writing on the wall. You're too smart for those ads, but the rest of us are all just brainwashed little drones too stupid to know what's going on. We all just sit, drooling like the mindless automatons that we are, eating up every little scheme that the MAN comes up with, while you despair because we're not all as unique and super-smart as you. That's what this is really about. It's about you and the people who propagate this nonsense wanting to feel good about yourselves by convincing yourself that you're the few who see through the foggy window into the ugly truth of the world. Like I said, this shit might be impressive to someone who doesn't know better, but to the rest of us it's just the result of an inferiority complex on your part. Advertising has to be some insidious evil, because if there's no wool being pulled over the eyes of the general public then you lose your specialness. You lose that perception of intelligence that you've manufactured within yourself. If you're not one of the special ones who see the writing on the wall then you're just a normal like the rest of us, only worse because the rest of us don't need to create fantasies to make ourselves feel smarter than everyone else. This act might be cute when it's being done by a kid in middle-school, but after that it's just sad. What did anyone say to deserve this kind of condescending shitty treatment from you? It's certainly not in the post you quoted. Guess what: being aware that advertising affects people doesn't somehow make people immune from it, nor justify the sort of smug self-satisfaction you've put on display here. Advertising affects even those who oppose it, even those who are fully aware of its techniques. And you aren't a god, either. You aren't some supergenius either. You're just a regular human being like me and everyone else. Stop pretending to be superior to everyone. Where to start? First they imply that advertising is evil, basically calling out hundreds and thousands of people for being evil without any evidence other than "lol well keep telling yourself that". Then they imply that the rest of us are just too stupid to know that we're being brainwashed into buying things we don't really want. That's offensive to me. I don't like being called evil (by proxy I would be for supporting advertising), and I really don't like being called stupid by someone who doesn't know their ass from their elbow. Guess what? When you come out with overused platitudes about advertising in a cheap effort to make yourself seem smarter than everyone else, people are going to respond by pointing out what you're doing. If you're gonna call everyone an emotionless robot (all the while implying that you're the special one who sees the writing on the wall) then people will get offended. Huh? Who would've thought calling people stupid was a fucking insult? Advertising is perfectly legitimate unless it is false advertising, which is already illegal. The techniques used in advertising don't take away human choice. People are not robots. We are rational creatures, and no amount of misinterpreting psychology is going to change that. You take a cursory knowledge of the topic at hand (psychology, behaviorism, advertising) and spin out these wild theories about the world without ever stopping and wondering why you're the one who always looks better at the end of the story you've made up. The implication here is clearly that those who are fully aware of its techniques are more resistant to its effects, and further that they are the discerning eyes who can see the techniques and know their danger, while the rest of us are just too stupid to know better. And hilariously, when I point this shit out the conspiracy goes deeper. I must work in advertising because I'm not convinced that adverts make my choices for me! I never called myself a god, I never called myself a super-genius. And I certainly never put myself above anyone else. Its the people who call the rest of us idiots and emotionless robots who are doing that. If you want me to be perfectly honest, though, advertising has a very small effect on me. I buy what I want and what I think I need. I don't wear name-brand shit. I've never seen a commercial or ad for the computer brand I bought. When I buy household shit or food, I buy generic because it's cheaper, and I actually look at the cents/ounce tag before I buy it. I don't watch TV (I don't even own a TV) and I don't watch blockbuster movies. I use generic brand soap and I use generic brand toothbrushes and toothpastes. My phone can call people and text and that's it. It can't go on the internet, it can't stream videos or play music. It's a phone, nothing more nothing less. Now, you can say all you want that even all this is the result of advertising; but if computers, hygienic products, cheap, available food, telephones and instant communication, and cheap, efficient clothing are the results of advertising than advertising is the greatest force for good the world has seen in a long time. If the comforts of modern life are the result of advertising than that is certainly not a fault, but a point of praise. And don't try using the "your desires themselves are the result of advertising" bullshit. People wore clothes before advertising existed. People were hygienic before advertising existed. People ate food before advertising existed. People desired communication before advertising existed. People desired entertainment before advertising existed. People followed social conventions and trends before advertising existed. Advertising did not create social trends. It did not invent the urge in people to have a more comfortable lifestyle. It did not create the desire to conform to specific standards. It plays on those natural urges, and takes the place of the wealthy elite in being trendsetters (sometimes), but that's not a moral evil. That's a case of if advertising execs weren't doing it than other people would be. And other people are doing it. There are plenty of examples of trends that advertisers only caught on once the trend had already taken over. Take away all the advertisements in the world and you'll still be left with societal trends that people are desperate to conform to. Only you'll also have a shitty, localized, inefficient economy. You can whine all you want that advertising takes away personal freedom and choice, but that betrays a complete lack of understanding of history, psychology, society, behavior, and of the advertising industry. But since attacking this idea is a direct attack on your super specialness, it's all useless anyway. You'd die before you admitted that you weren't the unique little butterfly who sees all the evil of the world and despairs at us proles and our eternal blindness. On that note, and in that knowledge, I'm done.
Not to prolong this thread of conversation any longer than necessary, but you are reading into a bunch of what I said and drawing totally inaccurate conclusions. I'm not even sure you have a clear idea of how all-encompassing advertising is in the capitalist market. I'm not casting myself as some kind of superior consumer above the fray, impervious to advertising's wiles. I'm analyzing the situation in order to have a better understanding of how marketing works. Some people see the short con, but the long con is the more dangerous.
The entire point, that you seem to have missed in your raving, hysterical rant aimed at leveling any sophisticated worldview, is that you are buying things you want. I never claimed that you are being fooled into buying things you don't really want. That would be clearly false wouldn't it? That's the point of advertising. To make you want things. To create a gap between the ideal and yourself.
As for the rest of your raving about me saying this because I need to feel special, it's a rant that could just as well be coming from someone who thinks the world is flat when he hears the world is round. I'm sorry you don't understand marketing, but ranting and raving about how no one could possibly have a deeper insight into something than the one you, yourself allow for is not only narrow-minded, it's like you want to remain ignorant or something.
|
|
|
Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority.
Source
|
On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source
I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage.
One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage
+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] +
|
On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. Show nested quote +One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] +
At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer.
I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you!
|
-re Danglars
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
|
If anything it just shows that Democrats are willing to be pragmatic while Republicans can't have a reasonable conversation.
|
On September 14 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:
If anything it just shows that Democrats are willing to be pragmatic while Republicans can't have a reasonable conversation.
They are being pragmatic.
I think Reps have some good criticisms, but at this point in the calendar they should have already turned to more pragmatic options too.
|
On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you!
The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers.
Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to?
I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so.
The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this.
|
On September 14 2013 07:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i think it's ridiculous that you think there's a difference
edit: fucking forums make everyone think the world fits into neat little categories that have nothing to do with one another. #themediumisthemessage
You posted the exact same thing to a moderator about a year ago, complete with the medium is the message thing XD.
Also the medium is not the message. That saying is so irritating, just because Mcluhan or someone else wanted to make it sound mysterious. It can convey a message, subconsciously, like that the world can be finely subdivided (i.e. forums) but it is not *the* message! Man that's going to be my pet peeve for life
edit: Also its not really a big deal to continue a conversation onto a new thread. Really its just an artificial divide between one thread and another, but its actually kind of meaningless, and the discussion can continue virtually unabated.
|
On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this.
When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) 
|
On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
No, they aren't. Do you understand the scope of this bill? It's really not very surprising considering the infrastructure that is necessary for it to be implemented. But no, president R̶o̶m̶n̶e̶y̶ Obama knows it's a bad idea and that's why he's trying not to implement it. Oh wait. That picture isn't a news source. That picture is asinine propaganda for morons. I know you're feeling defensive and you definitely don't want to look wrong. But your 'evidence' is nowhere near strong enough to support your conclusion. You're trying to say that the number of delays and changes is abnormal and therefore something funny is going on with the bill. Unfortunately you first have to prove that the changes are abnormal and you haven't, so your point falls flat. You have to first explain why a bill of this size in this day and age wouldn't have changes pre-implementation.
Also, on your whole 'republicans are going strong minus RINOs' spiel let me introduce you to a applicable historical quote:
"Guys, we're still winning." - Hitler, April 30 1945
or, if ancient history isn't your thing, we can do something more recent.
"Romney's definitely going to win this." - xDaunt, November 6, 2012
|
On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals)
The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win.
|
On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win.
I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from.
They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount.
Source
What issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
|
On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
A problem of a 2 party system. People who dont stand fully behind a party still join because there is no where else to go which can lead to a problem in attaining a clear standpoint and fractures inside the party.
|
On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen.
I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities.
That's what the Republican Party stands for.
Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks.
At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans.
|
On September 15 2013 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:
A problem of a 2 party system. People who dont stand fully behind a party still join because there is no where else to go which can lead to a problem in attaining a clear standpoint and fractures inside the party.
so vote 3rd party. If you vote for this election, you are just a cog in the election machine. If you vote for the next election by voting 3rd party, you send a signal that your vote could be claimed by either party in the next election if they put some effort into courting you. The idea that if you vote 3rd party your vote doesn't matter and you are throwing it away is precisely backwards, it's when you vote blue because of a lesser evil that your vote doesn't matter because then they don't have to give a shit about you.
if they run warren in the next election I'll vote for her, otherwise gonna keep voting green
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/auMsK4b.jpg)
