|
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 September 30 2013 09:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Your view relies on the justices interpretations, wrong or right. You say that our views should change with the times, as with the rulings. Well who decides when things change? You? Five lawyers? Do you see my concern? That's what makes the idea silly. I don't understand. This is how the world actually works, whether you like it or not. Plessy v Ferguson said that Separate But Equal was Constitutional. And then 50 years later Brown v Board of Education overturned that. I'm very confused about what you want. I understand that you disagree with Roberts on Obamacare, but that just sounds like you two have different interpretations. It's not even a difference of originalism v living constitution. It sounds to me like you never want things to change, you never want people's rights to expand, and people should only gain more rights and more inclusive rights through amendments. You want Separate But Equal to be an Amendment? You want Interracial Marriage to be an Amendment? It sounds to me like you want the courts to be ineffectual and powerless to defend people's rights. The NSA perfectly has the power to collect data on everyone due to protecting National Security. The only thing stopping them is a modernized view of the 4th Amendment, which says that people need probable cause and a warrant for search and seizure. But that only works in living constitution terms as far as I know, considering the founding fathers certainly never thought to protect against massive automatic computerized data collection. That certainly can't be their intent. So do we need an Amendment to make the 4th Amendment technology invariant now?
I've never denied that the system works that way now. Indeed, that's a major source of my frustration. It seems to me amendments may be needed to clarify some very obvious things. I want "rights" to expand, but I don't view it as the invention of new rights, but as an extension of rights that already exist, they just go unrecognized.
The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.
Which is one of my points about having "an amendment for every little thing." We shouldn't need that, but we need a few amendments with VERY explicit wording that limit the federal government. The Constitution has been amended 27 times (unless you want to count the BoR as one). It's rare, but not impossible. And the Constitution doesn't even require Congress to be involved, the bunch of useless dolts. I express frustration with the way system is run, but you are right, currently the government operates under the LC framework.
As to Obamacare, it's living v. dead because with our now "enlightened" view of healthcare, we make the Constitution say things we want it to. Under no view would the mandate be acceptable, unless we ignore what the founders wrote.
|
Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation.
The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech.
And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment.
Remember, the 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that.
No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.
|
On September 30 2013 09:43 DoubleReed wrote:Honestly, I don't see anything about what Roberts wrote that doesn't fit with an originalist interpretation. Show nested quote +The privacy of our communications is a good example. I don't object to the government using tech to watch terrorists (even if the warrant occurs after the collection. That IS a thing to be debated), I have an issue with massively collecting data on everyone and just keeping it with no suspicion or intention of getting a warrant. Also, the founders were very much against the idea of general warrants. (Google it). But that is EXACTLY what the government is doing, just with computers and not soldiers. Thus, the words and intent are important. Not the tech. And the NSA will say that it is collecting data, but not looking at it. Something that would be impossible to consider from the founders' perspective. This also does not block general surveillance of public areas (including the entire internet). Doing Mass Surveillance of the various parts of the internet, like your email and communications is also not covered under a strict interpretation of the 4th Amendment. Remember, the 4th Amendment states: Show nested quote +The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1] Technology is obviously very important if you want to be an originalist about it. You want the 4th Amendment to be technology invariant. Which is great, and we agree. However, I cannot see how you can possibly attain what you want from an originalist interpretation of the 4th Amendment. An e-mail is not a house, paper, or an effect. Certainly not what the founding fathers means by that. No, you are taking a more general "Right to Privacy" approach to this. Which is perfectly reasonable. But not originalist.
Just read the dissent, since the discussion has moved on from Obamacare. Simply put, he was using the LC idea because the founders would NOT have approved of this. Every originalist from CA to Maine (and those on the Court, except for Roberts) was united on this.
As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.
Now there are many right minded people (though not me) who don't see a problem with the NSA. I think they are wrong, but whatever. (I mean in the extreme. If you get info on a known terrorist, collect his email, THEN get a warrant, it's fine. You have both reasonable suspicion and a warrant, or intention of getting a specific warrant, before you act). There is certainly a discussion to be had, but for my part in said discussion, I advocate looking at things the way the Constitution meant for them to be seen.
"Right to Privacy" is a thing, just not the way the Court meant it in Roe v. Wade, which is why it was brought up earlier as an example of Supreme Court stupidity.
|
Two House Democrats are urging Congress to investigate oil and gas spills caused by massive flooding in Colorado – a state where the number of oil and gas wells has doubled since 2006, when horizontal drilling and fracking were introduced.
Congressmen Jared Polis, D-CO, and Peter DeFazio, D-OR, in a letter sent Friday to the House Natural Resources Committe, called for a hearing on the spills. DeFazio is the committee's senior Democrat.
“Not only have my constituents been dealing with damage to their homes, schools, and roads, they are increasingly concerned about the toxic spills that have occurred from the flooding of nearly 1,900 fracking wells in Colorado,” Polis said in a press release. “Congress must deal with this issue to ensure that natural disasters do not also become public health disasters.”
Eight people were killed and thousands displaced by what some called a once-in-a-millennium storm. Now that the water has receded, oil and gas industry teams have been able to get into the field to inspect the damage.
Colorado’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) said in its latest report Thursday that it was tracking 12 spills, 14 sites with evidence of a small spill, and 60 sites with visible damage to storage tanks.
“People dealing with aftermath of a catastrophic natural disaster don’t need to worry that their health is at risk because of oil and gas spills,” DeFazio said.
Noble Energy, which operates more than 8,000 active wells in northern Colorado, reported at least four spills totalling roughly 9,000 gallons. In the wake of the storms, the Houston, Texas-based company said in a press release that, "Protection of human health and the environment remain Noble Energy's top priorities as we continue to move forward."
Source
|
As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit.
Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!"
All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works.
If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly.
Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean.
|
On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean.
Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.
That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not.
If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it 
|
On September 30 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean. Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not. If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it
So now I have to ask why you think your view is more "objective" than mine.
|
On September 30 2013 10:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean. Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not. If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it So now I have to ask why you think your view is more "objective" than mine.
Mainly because it doesn't rely on current feelings and societal changes to read the law. It just seems obvious to me that the most fair way to read the law is to read from it what its authors intended it to say when they wrote it. Not to use a Madison quote to justify a massive change (determined by 5 people in a courtroom) in order to effectively change a law. It's just less arbitrary. The law says what it says, not what I want to to say. Now, can you have bias when reading the history of something? Yes. But I think less so then simply reinterpreting something due to modernization.
|
On September 30 2013 10:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:38 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean. Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not. If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it So now I have to ask why you think your view is more "objective" than mine. Mainly because it doesn't rely on current feelings and societal changes to read the law. It just seems obvious to me that the most fair way to read the law is to read from it what its authors intended it to say when they wrote it. Not to use a Madison quote to justify a massive change (determined by 5 people in a courtroom) in order to effectively change a law. It's just less arbitrary. The law says what it says, not what I want to to say. Now, can you have bias when reading the history of something? Yes. But I think less so then simply reinterpreting something due to modernization.
You rely on current feelings and your societal upbringing to consider what the founding fathers would think if they traveled through time though. Don't you think that's a bit subjective?
And by "a bit," I mean "a hilariously large amount"?
Especially considering how racist and sexist they were.
|
On September 30 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:45 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:38 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean. Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not. If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it So now I have to ask why you think your view is more "objective" than mine. Mainly because it doesn't rely on current feelings and societal changes to read the law. It just seems obvious to me that the most fair way to read the law is to read from it what its authors intended it to say when they wrote it. Not to use a Madison quote to justify a massive change (determined by 5 people in a courtroom) in order to effectively change a law. It's just less arbitrary. The law says what it says, not what I want to to say. Now, can you have bias when reading the history of something? Yes. But I think less so then simply reinterpreting something due to modernization. You rely on current feelings and your societal upbringing to consider what the founding fathers would think if they traveled through time though. Don't you think that's a bit subjective? And by "a bit," I mean "a hilariously large amount"? Especially considering how racist and sexist they were.
When you read/use what they wrote it becomes much more difficult to be influenced by current society. But of course every view has its flaws. Nor is every document perfect. But abiding by the law is the bedrock of our system.
And the racism and sexism has been specifically addressed as a matter of Constitutional law. And as I said, the Constitution was a compromise, not every founding father wanted to see slavery continue. Throwing out everything they said because of those things is far too rash. I, for one view abortion as an abomination, so I certainly wouldn't look to today as some society without flaws.
|
On September 30 2013 11:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 10:53 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2013 10:45 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:38 DoubleReed wrote:On September 30 2013 10:28 Introvert wrote:On September 30 2013 10:19 DoubleReed wrote:As I've said before, we have to interpret what happens now in light of what they intended then. So, what would the founders say about internet surveillance? [Here I would like to make a point, if I may: I am aware that the founders are dead. But if they were alive, they would be just as informed as everyone else is, and thus I think my question is fair one.] I'm not going to look right now, but I'm fairly certain that the Court, while recognizing that emails are not your sole property, still says they are the property of the ISP. The government has simply seized what is still private information and using computers to scan it. People have to program the computers, and are still very much involved. I think that if you read about the framers thoughts on general warrants it would be of great benefit. Look, there's no reason to go to crazytown here. There's no need to bring up hypotheticals about if Benjamin Franklin had a DeLorean and went to the future "what would they think?" when I think the obvious answer would be "Cat pictures! OMGADOWABLE!" All I'm going to say is that what you're saying here is not originalism. It's living constitution. I think it's perfectly fair to say that an email is the equivalent of "paper" or an "effect" as the amendment is intended. However, hopefully you'll agree that it is a broad interpretation of those terms. Which is fine. Rights are supposed to be broad. That's how living constitution works. If all you wanted to do was rail against the Obamacare ruling, then you don't need originalism for that. Honestly. Anyway, now I have to go write a fanfiction about Benjamin Franklin with a DeLorean. Most importantly, I think the idea of an email as a piece of paper is consistent with the founders intent and meaning behind the 4th amendment.That's Originalism. If I said "it only means physical stationary!" I would be a textualist. I am not. If you write said piece of fiction, let me know when you finish it So now I have to ask why you think your view is more "objective" than mine. Mainly because it doesn't rely on current feelings and societal changes to read the law. It just seems obvious to me that the most fair way to read the law is to read from it what its authors intended it to say when they wrote it. Not to use a Madison quote to justify a massive change (determined by 5 people in a courtroom) in order to effectively change a law. It's just less arbitrary. The law says what it says, not what I want to to say. Now, can you have bias when reading the history of something? Yes. But I think less so then simply reinterpreting something due to modernization. You rely on current feelings and your societal upbringing to consider what the founding fathers would think if they traveled through time though. Don't you think that's a bit subjective? And by "a bit," I mean "a hilariously large amount"? Especially considering how racist and sexist they were. When you read/use what they wrote it becomes much more difficult to be influenced by current society. But of course every view has its flaws. Nor is every document perfect. But abiding by the law is the bedrock of our system.
Oh bullshit. You cannot look through any lens except with your own eyes, your own biases, and your own society.
The fact that you think you are less prone to this means you are probably more prone to this. Do not make the mistake of thinking you are better than other humans about your cognitive biases.
As far as the last part, the law is a servant of the people. Not the other way around.
I, for one view abortion as an abomination, so I certainly wouldn't look to today as some society without flaws.
Anybody want to start an abortion conversation or have we done that enough?
|
Oh bullshit. You cannot look through any lens except with your own eyes, your own biases, and your own society.
The fact that you think you are less prone to this means you are probably more prone to this. Do not make the mistake of thinking you are better than other humans about this.
As far as the last part, the law is a servant of the people. Not the other way around.
True enough, there is always some of our own interpretation in everything. That's why I despise "unbiased" journalism. Let your colors fly, I say. But I think if one can provide sources from the people who WROTE the document in question, then it is harder to squeeze your own meaning into it. It has a basis set in unalterable words. Not feelings. i made no personal claim of superiority, I just think we should strive for this ideal, instead of throwing it out.
edit: the abortion was just an example of imperfect society, I'm sure you could think of a different one.
The law is a servant, but we all agree to abide by it. What good is a law to "the people" if it's meaning is changed at will by 5 justices! The Congress passes and repeals laws, which is within their right. Not the Courts. They are there to moderate, not rewrite laws and lawmakers.
I do NOT trust them to use power they were never given in a good way. Nor did the document that the SWORE to uphold trust them.
like I said before your view is "of the judges, by the judges, for the people."
I must say I rather enjoyed this little back and forth. I tend to get...animated at times, but overall it was fun!
|
On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system,
Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end.
Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress.
The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President.
The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way.
What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default?
From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail.
|
On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Show nested quote +Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. Show nested quote +The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail.
I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite.
|
On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite.
A better move than recognizing that the American people have great doubts about Obamacare and want to have a real dialogue on it, unlike when it was passed in the middle of the night and ramrodded through? Better than admitting that the Republicans have gained control of the House and kept control through another election and thus possess a mandate to do everything in their power to stop Obamacare? Better than reaching across the aisle to make some concessions and get some concessions and rule through mutual benefit rather than attempt to tyrannize the American people and the Republican party?
They have made no effort whatsoever to negotiate or to give concessions. By doing this, they created a situation where Cruz could use their own short-sightedness and arrogance against them, drawing them in by appearing to be weak and fractured, and then acting as though his strategy is one way when it is actually another, leading to them being outmaneuvered of their own position. They are the ones who must say: "No!" now, they are the ones who must obstruct. Republicans can offer concessions with the knowledge that those concessions will never be taken (because to do so signals a great defeat for Obama and his ego), but that the appearance of giving concessions and of being willing to negotiate wins them points with the American people. The Republicans are now dealing from a position of relative security, while the Democrats have walked into a mine-field. And if Obama takes the deal, we have still won something because it will be the first time in his entire presidency that he's been forced to actually compromise.
It's a gamble, because the leadership that Cruz has usurped and bent to his will are still going to be looking for ways to reassert themselves. Thus far it's been a relatively bloodless victory for Cruz, achieved entirely through maneuvering, but it could very well blow up. It's a win-win for the Republicans no matter what, even if the leadership does turn against us. It's become a lose-lose for the Democrats though.
|
On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite.
Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years.
|
On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years.
It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours.
Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month.
|
On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years.
So basically what you're saying is that when Republicans are in charge, that means that the people want to reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. And when the Democrats are in charge, that means that the people want to reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare.
It's absolutely ridiculous. So when do the Democrats do what they want? Is Obamacare the end of it? Because last I checked, we got the presidency, Senate, and we even won the House by the popular vote. I guess democracy means doing whatever the republicans want or ruin the economy?
|
On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month.
As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said.
|
On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said.
Oh yea, I completely forgot that Obama pretty much screwed it up by not switching to Republican on his inauguration. Good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
