|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I've always wondered how they were able to get such people to interview with them for those segments. Daily Show is pretty renowned for what it is/does, so it's kinda weird that they'd volunteer to get ridiculed.
|
On October 10 2013 09:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 08:09 Sermokala wrote:
the government partially shutting down does go with exactly what the tea party people were elected to do. to have a smaller government. And they're succeeding pretty hard right now. Its the same thing with the "sequester" being an excuse for the democrats to cave in on more budget cuts.
All of our politics is based on lieing. Let me save everyone the trouble and explain what the foundation of the Tea Party is: a deep-seeded feeling of betrayal and disenfranchisement by the federal government. These are people who work, pay taxes, and watch the federal government piss their money away. It has long been felt by Tea Party members that the government would do less harm if it was just shut down. No they aren't. More tea partiers accept government handouts as a percentage than non-tea partiers, mostly because tea partiers tend to be older. They and their family members collect social security and medicare just like everyone else. They just want to get rid of everyone else's entitlements because they are incapable of empathy, except for people just like themselves.
Those older constituents of the Tea Party identify themselves just as I described, regardless of the fact that they are Medicare or Social Security beneficiaries like everyone else in their age group.
|
On October 10 2013 11:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 09:28 IgnE wrote:On October 10 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 08:09 Sermokala wrote:
the government partially shutting down does go with exactly what the tea party people were elected to do. to have a smaller government. And they're succeeding pretty hard right now. Its the same thing with the "sequester" being an excuse for the democrats to cave in on more budget cuts.
All of our politics is based on lieing. Let me save everyone the trouble and explain what the foundation of the Tea Party is: a deep-seeded feeling of betrayal and disenfranchisement by the federal government. These are people who work, pay taxes, and watch the federal government piss their money away. It has long been felt by Tea Party members that the government would do less harm if it was just shut down. No they aren't. More tea partiers accept government handouts as a percentage than non-tea partiers, mostly because tea partiers tend to be older. They and their family members collect social security and medicare just like everyone else. They just want to get rid of everyone else's entitlements because they are incapable of empathy, except for people just like themselves. Those older constituents of the Tea Party identify themselves just as I described, regardless of the fact that they are Medicare or Social Security beneficiaries like everyone else in their age group.
And you don't see a logical fallacy with any of that? Be against handouts, a big intrusive government and social legislation - collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security anyway.
|
On October 10 2013 12:00 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 09:28 IgnE wrote:On October 10 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 08:09 Sermokala wrote:
the government partially shutting down does go with exactly what the tea party people were elected to do. to have a smaller government. And they're succeeding pretty hard right now. Its the same thing with the "sequester" being an excuse for the democrats to cave in on more budget cuts.
All of our politics is based on lieing. Let me save everyone the trouble and explain what the foundation of the Tea Party is: a deep-seeded feeling of betrayal and disenfranchisement by the federal government. These are people who work, pay taxes, and watch the federal government piss their money away. It has long been felt by Tea Party members that the government would do less harm if it was just shut down. No they aren't. More tea partiers accept government handouts as a percentage than non-tea partiers, mostly because tea partiers tend to be older. They and their family members collect social security and medicare just like everyone else. They just want to get rid of everyone else's entitlements because they are incapable of empathy, except for people just like themselves. Those older constituents of the Tea Party identify themselves just as I described, regardless of the fact that they are Medicare or Social Security beneficiaries like everyone else in their age group. And you don't see a logical fallacy with any of that? Be against handouts, a big intrusive government and social legislation - collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security anyway.
The arguable fallacy is obvious, sure. I'm only describing who these people are.
|
On October 10 2013 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 12:00 Doublemint wrote:On October 10 2013 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 09:28 IgnE wrote:On October 10 2013 08:15 xDaunt wrote:On October 10 2013 08:09 Sermokala wrote:
the government partially shutting down does go with exactly what the tea party people were elected to do. to have a smaller government. And they're succeeding pretty hard right now. Its the same thing with the "sequester" being an excuse for the democrats to cave in on more budget cuts.
All of our politics is based on lieing. Let me save everyone the trouble and explain what the foundation of the Tea Party is: a deep-seeded feeling of betrayal and disenfranchisement by the federal government. These are people who work, pay taxes, and watch the federal government piss their money away. It has long been felt by Tea Party members that the government would do less harm if it was just shut down. No they aren't. More tea partiers accept government handouts as a percentage than non-tea partiers, mostly because tea partiers tend to be older. They and their family members collect social security and medicare just like everyone else. They just want to get rid of everyone else's entitlements because they are incapable of empathy, except for people just like themselves. Those older constituents of the Tea Party identify themselves just as I described, regardless of the fact that they are Medicare or Social Security beneficiaries like everyone else in their age group. And you don't see a logical fallacy with any of that? Be against handouts, a big intrusive government and social legislation - collect Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security anyway. The arguable fallacy is obvious, sure. I'm only describing who these people are.
Ok, just wanted to clarify that.
|
United States41117 Posts
The GOP is splintering over its strategy to force conservative reforms by sustaining the government shutdown and threatening default.
Republican leaders don't know what they want, other than for Democrats to accede to some sort of policy concessions in order to avert the crises. And they're divided on which of the two must-pass bills is the better one to hold hostage.
Two op-eds this week by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) make no demands about unwinding Obamacare -- the party's central objective in the showdowns, which Senate Democrats have repeatedly quashed. And that has left Republicans lost on what to ask for or to placate their demanding base.
Ryan's op-ed published Tuesday evening in the Wall Street Journal didn't even mention Obamacare and instead suggested entitlement reforms to replace across-the-board spending cuts under the 2011 debt ceiling law. Cantor's op-ed, also published late Tuesday, in the Washington Post is abstract attack on President Barack Obama that steers clear of any specific demands; it merely calls for budgetary negotiations as a prerequisite to averting the crises.
"Mr. President," Cantor implores, "let's sit down and talk. Let's reach consensus and end the 'my way or the highway' attitude once and for all."
Even as his party scales back its Obamacare demands -- from defunding it to delaying it to dismantling nonessential parts of it -- Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Wednesday bashed the law over problems with the insurance marketplaces that opened for enrollment last week. "What a train wreck," he declared on the House floor. "This is why we need to sit down and have a conversation about the big challenges that face our country."
Source
|
On October 10 2013 10:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told his Republican colleagues that the shutdown has improved the GOP's position in a closed-door lunch on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner.
Cruz paid for a poll conducted by Chris Perkins, of Republican polling firm Wilson Perkins Allen. The poll found results similar to those run by national firms this week, which showed Republicans taking the majority of blame for the shutdown. Only 28 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, according to findings from Gallup released Wednesday. Source
I must be reading this wrong. He told them they are doing good in the polls while even the poll he payed for says there getting crushed?
WTF is this. Is he a fairy or plain old insane? And how come the rest of his party isnt calling him out on it and publicly denouncing him when he is telling factual lies to there faces.
|
On October 10 2013 18:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 10:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told his Republican colleagues that the shutdown has improved the GOP's position in a closed-door lunch on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner.
Cruz paid for a poll conducted by Chris Perkins, of Republican polling firm Wilson Perkins Allen. The poll found results similar to those run by national firms this week, which showed Republicans taking the majority of blame for the shutdown. Only 28 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, according to findings from Gallup released Wednesday. Source I must be reading this wrong. He told them they are doing good in the polls while even the poll he payed for says there getting crushed? WTF is this. Is he a fairy or plain old insane? And how come the rest of his party isnt calling him out on it and publicly denouncing him when he is telling factual lies to there faces.
I can feel your idealism whimpering in despair.
|
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.
Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered?
Let's imagine for a second a fantasy parallel reality in which Republicans don't mind the ACA but the Democrats want to get rid of the U.S. Marine Corps to reduce defense spending. They refuse to fund the government unless the existence of the U.S. Marine Corps is erased, and present piecemeal legislation funding of the government which circumnavigates U.S. Marine Corps funding (which Republicans want to keep). Who would be to blame for the shutdown then? Is there even remotely any doubt that it would be the Democrats?! Then why are you incapable of admitting that it is the Republicans who are to blame for the current shutdown and not the Democrats? How is it possible that you do not see the difference between failure to reach an agreement resulting the status quo and failure to reach an agreement resulting the destruction of the baseline (government shutdown)? Who made the latter the current situation? Republicans!
This analysis is in no way partisan. Consistently refusing to acknowledge reality, and blaming both parties when the facts show one party is to blame for the shutdown and not the other, is what's partisan - and that's exactly what you're doing.
|
On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered?
Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult.
|
On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult.
But why must the Democrats negotiate about the ACA? If there is nothing that the Republicans can offer that the Democrats want then why should the Democrats negotiate? As things are, there is nothing the Democrats can do to keep the ACA as it is. The Republicans will not allow it.
|
On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult.
Democrats have. In fact I'm pretty sure the democrats have unanimously stated, along with the assent of a quite a few republicans, that they are willing to negotiate. After the government is funded.
|
On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult.
I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this?
|
On October 11 2013 02:11 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:
[quote]
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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. But why must the Democrats negotiate about the ACA? If there is nothing that the Republicans can offer that the Democrats want then why should the Democrats negotiate? As things are, there is nothing the Democrats can do to keep the ACA as it is. The Republicans will not allow it.
Why shouldn't Democrats negotiate about the ACA? It's a basic function of their job to address the concerns of a divided government and work out a compromise that keeps the country going. And the ACA is not sacred to begin with - it's been changed by both Reps and Dems already and some proposed new changes (like the medical device tax) have broad bi-partisan support.
Additionally, the previous complaint was that Republicans weren't letting Democrats pass certain legislation. Dems could (and should) ask for some of those bills to go through as compensation for any changes to the ACA that they don't like.
On October 11 2013 02:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:
[quote]
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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. Democrats have. In fact I'm pretty sure the democrats have unanimously stated, along with the assent of a quite a few republicans, that they are willing to negotiate. After the government is funded.
So after the crisis they're willing to address the crisis? What a copout.
|
On October 11 2013 02:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:
[quote]
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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this?
Have you read any of my posts? How many times do I have to say that I don't accept your distinction, the destruction of the baseline, and / or the acute cause of it, as the crux of the issue?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there can't be a second coming of southern racists when the first coming didn't even leave.
i've avoided any contact with the shutdown news because it makes my head hurt. if you can't recognize the absurdity of the situation then no hope ahhhhhhhh
|
On October 11 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:11 Melliflue wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:[quote] 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. But why must the Democrats negotiate about the ACA? If there is nothing that the Republicans can offer that the Democrats want then why should the Democrats negotiate? As things are, there is nothing the Democrats can do to keep the ACA as it is. The Republicans will not allow it. Why shouldn't Democrats negotiate about the ACA? It's a basic function of their job to address the concerns of a divided government and work out a compromise that keeps the country going. And the ACA is not sacred to begin with - it's been changed by both Reps and Dems already and some proposed new changes (like the medical device tax) have broad bi-partisan support. Additionally, the previous complaint was that Republicans weren't letting Democrats pass certain legislation. Dems could (and should) ask for some of those bills to go through as compensation for any changes to the ACA that they don't like.
My point was that the Democrats should be able to decide what they are and are not willing to negotiate over and what they are and are not willing to give up in negotiations. The Republicans' position is that the Democrats must give up the ACA (or at least do significant damage to it) and if the Democrats won't do this then the Republicans will not allow the Government to continue. What the Republicans are willing to give up in return is irrelevant. The Republicans have removed the Democrats' right to refuse to give up the ACA.
And it is not a divided Government in the sense that they need to get more votes in order to pass something. The Speaker will not allow a vote on a clean CR. It is not the concerns of a divided Government; it is the concerns of one man (who may be scared about his job because of pressure from the Tea Party). Why is it their job to appease Boehner?
|
On October 11 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:27 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:[quote] 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. I don't know if you're doing it purpose, but did you even read the post you were replying to? I specifically underlined the distinction between being willing to negotiate or not and putting the destruction of the baseline as the result of negotiation failure. Do you not understand this distinction or something? Again, if you want to blame both Republicans and Democrats for not negotiating, be my guest - you'll be wrong to say both are equally to blame, imo, but that is not what I am arguing about here. What I am arguing about is who is responsible for putting the destruction of the baseline, i.e. the shutdown of the government and possibly a failure to raise the debt limit, as the result of negotiation failure. Do you agree, yes or no, that it is the Republicans who are responsible for this? Have you read any of my posts? How many times do I have to say that I don't accept your distinction, the destruction of the baseline, and / or the acute cause of it, as the crux of the issue?
I am discussing the fact that the government is currently shut down (and that there is some degree of uncertainty over the raising of the debt limit). In this context, I am asking the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". The answer I gave to that question is Republicans, because they made the shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure.
Again, if you want to ask a different question, like "who has refused to negotiate", then be my guest - that is not the question I'm interested in in the context of this discussion. I am asking you what is your answer to the question "who is to blame for the government shutdown?". If your answer is "Republicans", then we agree. If your answer is "both parties", then you can't simply ignore my arguments because they're clearly relevant, and replying to me that both parties have refused to negotiate simply does not answer the question being asked, because refusal to negotiate does not in itself result in a government shutdown. It normally results in the status quo/in an unchanged baseline.
|
Saw this online, thought it was kinda clever
Oct 2008: "You'll never get elected and pass healthcare."
Nov 2008: "We'll never let you pass healthcare."
Jan 2009: "We're gonna shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare."
July 2009: "We'll fight to death every attempt you make to pass healthcare."
Dec 2009: "We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare."
March 2010: "We can't believe you just passed healthcare."
April 2010: "We are going to overturn healthcare."
Sept 2010: "We are going to repeal healthcare."
Jan 2011: "We are going to destroy healthcare."
Feb 2012: "We're gonna elect a candidate who'll revoke healthcare NOW."
June 2012: "We'll go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare."
Aug 2012: "American people'll never re-elect you-they don't want healthcare."
Oct 2012: "We can't wait to win the election and explode healthcare."
Nov 2012: "We can't believe you got re-elected & we can't repeal healthcare."
Feb 2013: "We're still going to vote to obliterate healthcare."
June 2013: "We can't believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare."
July 2013: "We're going to vote like 35 more times to erase healthcare."
Sept 2013: "We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart healthcare."
Oct 2013: "WHY AREN'T YOU NEGOTIATING???"
|
On October 11 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:11 Melliflue wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:[quote] 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. But why must the Democrats negotiate about the ACA? If there is nothing that the Republicans can offer that the Democrats want then why should the Democrats negotiate? As things are, there is nothing the Democrats can do to keep the ACA as it is. The Republicans will not allow it. Why shouldn't Democrats negotiate about the ACA? It's a basic function of their job to address the concerns of a divided government and work out a compromise that keeps the country going. And the ACA is not sacred to begin with - it's been changed by both Reps and Dems already and some proposed new changes (like the medical device tax) have broad bi-partisan support. Additionally, the previous complaint was that Republicans weren't letting Democrats pass certain legislation. Dems could (and should) ask for some of those bills to go through as compensation for any changes to the ACA that they don't like. Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 02:18 Jormundr wrote:On October 11 2013 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 10 2013 22:57 kwizach 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:[quote] 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. Jonny, if you want to discuss general budget negotiations and who's to blame for negotiation failure, be my guest (I'll still argue it's Republicans, based on the numerous attempts at negotiating made by Democrats which were blocked by Republicans, but w/e). What I am discussing is the current crisis (the government being shutdown and the debt limit being at risk of not being raised) and who is to blame for it. The facts show us, as I've repeatedly demonstrated to you, that Republicans are to blame for the current crisis, based on the strategy they have adopted: they are the ones who made government shutdown the outcome of negotiation failure, not the Democrats. What facts pertaining to the existence of the shutdown that would point to a responsibility of Democrats do you think should be considered? Dems are refusing to negotiate. I've said it a million times, and I don't extend them a "two wrongs make a right" or "it would, politically, be bad" or "they're terrorists" exemption from that responsibility. They're adults in Congress and their responsibilities exist even if the situation is difficult. Democrats have. In fact I'm pretty sure the democrats have unanimously stated, along with the assent of a quite a few republicans, that they are willing to negotiate. After the government is funded. So after the crisis they're willing to address the crisis? What a copout.
What crisis? Funding the government?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
