|
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 October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns  Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with.
Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow.
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan".
|
On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:
[quote]
In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow.
Because Republicans are not trying to change the ACA to be better. They want it gone.
No the individual mandate isn't something you can just delay its the cornerstone of the law, but have the Republicans come with actual changes that have been calculated by independent organizations to be better then the current implementation?
Have they offered solutions to prevent the rising costs they believe will happen? Have they offered solutions to prevent people's hours from being reduced?
I could well be wrong and if so please show me where they have offered anything other then the destruction of the ACA.
|
On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:
[quote]
In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow.
Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis.
On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan".
I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all.
With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)?
|
On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:
[quote]
In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan".
It's not even really the ACA but the entire United States Federal Code that's being treated as a "sacred cow". And why not? Shall we go over every single Federal law passed since the ratification of the Constitution, one by one, and decide which of them we approve of, and which we don't, and will not fund the government should they remain on the books? Shall we institute a sort of liberum veto? That's the real question here.
Okay let's start with 2 USC 1 since that's really the first substantive part:
At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
That seems fairly reasonable, I mean it's really just allowing for what's in the Constitution, so I say we keep it. Now on to the next few hundred thousand laws...
|
On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis.
kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it.
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why?
Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)?
I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria.
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out.
|
On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it.
The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why.
On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why?
No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation.
On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria.
You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim.
On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out.
I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position.
|
What would staunch Tea Party republicans say if an imaginary Democrat-controlled House said "we aren't going to fund the government or address the debt ceiling unless access to handguns and high capacity rifles is removed"
|
Oh god, this conversation just convinces me more that we're going to default. Even Jonny doesn't understand extortion.
Giving in would only empower them to make more ridiculous demands to hold the country hostage. It increases the likelihood of another shutdown and a default. Shutdowns are not part of normal politics so stop trying to normalize them.
But dear lord the Republicans are just too stupid to realize that. They've put the democrats in a position where compromise is impossible and demand that they compromise. The only reason we won't default is if Boehner demonstrates less idiocy than he's presented for the last few months. I'm not convinced he will.
Default here we come.
|
On October 10 2013 02:16 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh god, this conversation just convinces me more that we're going to default. Even Jonny doesn't understand extortion.
Giving in would only empower them to make more ridiculous demands to hold the country hostage. It increases the likelihood of another shutdown and a default. Shutdowns are not part of normal politics so stop trying to normalize them.
But dear lord the Republicans are just too stupid to realize that. They've put the democrats in a position where compromise is impossible and demand that they compromise. The only reason we won't default is if Boehner demonstrates less idiocy than he's presented for the last few months. I'm not convinced he will.
Default here we come.
Im still positive Obama will work his way around a default with some BS executive order or some such.
|
On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position.
kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out.
|
On October 10 2013 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 02:16 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh god, this conversation just convinces me more that we're going to default. Even Jonny doesn't understand extortion.
Giving in would only empower them to make more ridiculous demands to hold the country hostage. It increases the likelihood of another shutdown and a default. Shutdowns are not part of normal politics so stop trying to normalize them.
But dear lord the Republicans are just too stupid to realize that. They've put the democrats in a position where compromise is impossible and demand that they compromise. The only reason we won't default is if Boehner demonstrates less idiocy than he's presented for the last few months. I'm not convinced he will.
Default here we come. Im still positive Obama will work his way around a default with some BS executive order or some such.
14th Amendment or coin minting would work, yea. Probably.
|
On October 10 2013 03:45 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2013 02:16 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh god, this conversation just convinces me more that we're going to default. Even Jonny doesn't understand extortion.
Giving in would only empower them to make more ridiculous demands to hold the country hostage. It increases the likelihood of another shutdown and a default. Shutdowns are not part of normal politics so stop trying to normalize them.
But dear lord the Republicans are just too stupid to realize that. They've put the democrats in a position where compromise is impossible and demand that they compromise. The only reason we won't default is if Boehner demonstrates less idiocy than he's presented for the last few months. I'm not convinced he will.
Default here we come. Im still positive Obama will work his way around a default with some BS executive order or some such. 14th Amendment or coin minting would work, yea. Probably.
I personally like the idea that Lew just pays it anyway and then dares congress to imprison him for saving their asses.
|
On October 10 2013 03:54 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:45 DoubleReed wrote:On October 10 2013 02:44 Gorsameth wrote:On October 10 2013 02:16 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh god, this conversation just convinces me more that we're going to default. Even Jonny doesn't understand extortion.
Giving in would only empower them to make more ridiculous demands to hold the country hostage. It increases the likelihood of another shutdown and a default. Shutdowns are not part of normal politics so stop trying to normalize them.
But dear lord the Republicans are just too stupid to realize that. They've put the democrats in a position where compromise is impossible and demand that they compromise. The only reason we won't default is if Boehner demonstrates less idiocy than he's presented for the last few months. I'm not convinced he will.
Default here we come. Im still positive Obama will work his way around a default with some BS executive order or some such. 14th Amendment or coin minting would work, yea. Probably. I personally like the idea that Lew just pays it anyway and then dares congress to imprison him for saving their asses.
I was previously going to suggest that Obama could ignore congress and illegally ignore the debt ceiling, daring the Republicans to stop him but if there stupid enough to let the default happen they will do pretty much anything.
|
Illegal? Its in the constitution...
|
On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:[quote] Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out.
Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head.
I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else.
|
The only thing I'll agree with Jonny is that both parties are responsible for kicking the can down the road for decades, including the patron Saint of the Tea Party "I’m not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself" Reagan.
However, that does not excuse the current Republican strategy. Any objective, impartial observer can clearly see the Republican strategy was not well thought out and executed.
It basically forced the Dems and Obama to stand their ground. Otherwise, this will continue to repeat over and over with no end in sight.
|
On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances.
And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else.
Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error.
|
On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis?
I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error.
You think that because for some reason you view ending the shutdown as a concession to Democrats. It's not.
|
If anyone has a gun to the republicans heads, it's themselves. This situation has overtones of a murder-suicide.
|
On October 10 2013 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 04:16 Judicator wrote:On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 23:11 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis?
I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible. I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility. How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with. Well first, the "destruction of the baseline" complaint has two sides. Reps aren't offering anything other than the baseline and Dems aren't demanding anything other than it either. There's also a questions as to whether changing the ACA is strictly a Rep demand - a lot of Dems have problems with the ACA too (including Obama). Yet, it is suddenly being treated as a sacred cow. Uh, what? The baseline includes the ACA, since it's a law. Similarly, the current baseline includes the sequestration cuts, because they were voted on. Republicans don't like the ACA and Democrats don't like the sequester cuts to social programs, but they're both part of the baseline. If Obama and the Democrats held the position "we won't finance the government and raise the debt ceiling unless you agree to remove the sequester cuts", they would be putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. They're not doing that, though, Republicans are. That's why they are to blame for the current crisis. kwizach, who cares about the baseline? Why is your hyper obsession with the baseline appropriate? You have to establish that "the destruction of the baseline" is the ultimate thing that matters before you can say that who is guilty revolves around it. The baseline is what matters to understand how the current crisis came into being and who's to blame for it. I explained at length why. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Moreover, Dems have a hand in "the destruction of the baseline" since they've made the conscious decision to use the baseline as their position.
So, your position seems to be that since Dems have decided to make the baseline as their position, they can't be blamed. Why? No they haven't. At all. Democrats would like plenty of things that are not the baseline - to repeal sequestration cuts, to spend money on infrastructure, to pass immigration reform, to pass gun control measures, etc. Democrats have absolutely not decided to use the baseline as their position: it is the Republicans who attributed it to them, by saying that they would grant them the normal functioning of government, and the usual debt limit increase (which are not Democrat gains but the baseline) in exchange for the defunding/delay of ACA (which is a Republican gain). It's mind-blowing that I'm still having to repeat stuff like this this far into the conversation. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 00:32 kwizach wrote:On October 10 2013 00:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Secondly, there have been refusals to negotiate on both sides. You only cited when Reps have refused to negotiate. Hence "partisan". I asked you to "show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan". What you just referred to wasn't part of my explanation of the difference between the Republican strategy and normal negotiation processes. I guess you agree it wasn't partisan after all. With regards to what you're referring to, when have the Democrats refused to negotiate on the budget (other than under the Republican strategy these last few days)? I don't care what you asked specifically. You do not have a monopoly on creating decision criteria. You accused me of giving a partisan account. The entire point of my exchange with you was to demonstrate how the strategy used by Republicans (not their positions but their strategy, I insist) was out of the realm of normal negotiation processes. So I'm asking you how in hell was that analysis partisan. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You keep trying to make a "if X is true than Y is true" argument when I don't agree that we should be looking at X. If you are going to insist on a "discussion" that can only consider the points you want to make, than I'm out. I am addressing the topic of who's to blame for the current crisis. To see who's to blame, you have to look at the actions of both parties, which I did, and that led me to recognize that the Republicans have been using a strategy which does not conform to normal negotiation. So far, you've squirmed your way out of admitting this objective fact in a desperate attempt at avoiding to recognize Republican responsibility in the crisis. If you had an once of intellectual honesty you would have agreed with me on the nature of the Republican strategy and moved on instead of clinging to a fallacious "both sides are to blame" position. kwizach, I'm not disagreeing with every point you're trying to make. However, you are insisting (by very tightly framing the discussion) that only the facts that make the Republicans to blame can be considered. That's unfair. That's partisan. And if you insist on keeping the discussion that way, as I said, I'm out. Well, present something to the contrary to make your point. As of right now all you have done in this thread is to claim that both sides share the blame without really presenting anything that suggests Democrats are to blame for the shutdown other than that they refuse to come to the tables with a proverbial gun to their head. I think we can all agree that this is the Republican strategy if nothing else. Because I'm taking issue with the premise that you just stated - that Democrats are the only ones with a proverbial gun to their head and therefore are exempt from criticism or error.
The only reason the Republicans have a gun to there head is because they put it there themselves. So no, I dont feel sorry for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
