In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 10 2013 01:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] 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: [quote] 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.
The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown.
Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it.
Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline.
There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is.
Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which any Senator has been chosen to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States.
That again seems fairly reasonable to me. Of course there was controversy over the certification of Electors for the Electoral College in 2000, but that's not the same as certification for a U.S. Senator: as far as I know, there's never been any controversy. Shall we keep this law?
I can't think of any reason to get rid of it off the top of my head. Why do you ask?
On October 10 2013 01:52 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
[quote] 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.
The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown.
Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it.
Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline.
There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is.
Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
Okay then, 2 USC 1a:
It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which any Senator has been chosen to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States.
That again seems fairly reasonable to me. Of course there was controversy over the certification of Electors for the Electoral College in 2000, but that's not the same as certification for a U.S. Senator: as far as I know, there's never been any controversy. Shall we keep this law?
I can't think of any reason to get rid of it off the top of my head. Why do you ask?
I'm just making a silly point: there is no reason to ask, and the whole body of federal law shouldn't be up for debate every year!
On October 10 2013 03:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] 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.
The shutdown is the legally prescribed outcome of a failure to agree on spending. Republicans didn't put it there, it has always been there. "Normally" both sides either come to an agreement on the new spending appropriation, or, agree to maintain the baseline. Either way, an agreement is required and a failure to agree results in a shutdown.
Now, if you consider the status quo to be the baseline and I'll again direct you to the Bush tax cut expiration deal. When that was being negotiated the status quo - the tax code as it was, would be destroyed in the event that an agreement couldn't be reached. Moreover, the ACA hasn't been fully implemented yet, so the status quo doesn't include it.
Alternatively you can look to current law to describe the baseline. You can say that the ACA is to go into effect, or the Bush tax cuts were set to expire and so those things happening are part of the baseline.
There's a problem here. Normally, both the status quo and the legal baseline are roughly the same thing. So when you say that normally the baseline is preserved, you're also saying that normally the status quo is preserved. Normally we do not pass a law, and then expect a future, different legislature to implement it as is.
Additionally, I consider who is or is not willing to negotiate to be relevant to the question "who is to blame".
Okay then, 2 USC 1a:
It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which any Senator has been chosen to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States.
That again seems fairly reasonable to me. Of course there was controversy over the certification of Electors for the Electoral College in 2000, but that's not the same as certification for a U.S. Senator: as far as I know, there's never been any controversy. Shall we keep this law?
I can't think of any reason to get rid of it off the top of my head. Why do you ask?
I'm just making a silly point: there is no reason to ask, and the whole body of federal law shouldn't be up for debate every year!
OK but how is that relevant to anything? Is someone debating the whole body of federal law?
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) compared the looming default to the American Revolution on Saturday after a meeting with House Republicans.
The Hill reports Griffith suggested that even if it resulted in a severely damaging default, the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” Griffith said, according to The Hill. “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
After a closed-door meeting Saturday, House Republicans said the White House rejected their offer to temporarily increase the debt ceiling and open the government.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) compared the looming default to the American Revolution on Saturday after a meeting with House Republicans.
The Hill reports Griffith suggested that even if it resulted in a severely damaging default, the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” Griffith said, according to The Hill. “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
After a closed-door meeting Saturday, House Republicans said the White House rejected their offer to temporarily increase the debt ceiling and open the government.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) compared the looming default to the American Revolution on Saturday after a meeting with House Republicans.
The Hill reports Griffith suggested that even if it resulted in a severely damaging default, the House should reject an unfavorable agreement from the Senate.
“We have to make a decision that’s right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done,” Griffith said, according to The Hill. “I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies. They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run.”
After a closed-door meeting Saturday, House Republicans said the White House rejected their offer to temporarily increase the debt ceiling and open the government.
I'll have what this Congressman is having.It sure must be good if you come up with great ideas like this one.
According to numerous rumors a good portion of congress is drinking extremely heavily. I think one bar owner said they were going from drinking at his bar immediately to voting about the shutdown?
The Food and Drug Administration has been forced to suspend all routine food safety inspections for the duration of the government shutdown, FDA spokesman Steven Immergut confirmed to The Huffington Post on Friday afternoon. Until funding is restored, the FDA will be inspecting only those facilities that it has cause to believe "present an immediate threat to public health."
While it has been clear for weeks that the FDA would not be sending its own employees on food safety inspections during a federal shutdown, agency officials had suggested that state officials would be conducting some inspections on the FDA's behalf. FDA budget documents [pdf] show that state employees inspected 9,736 of the 21,169 facilities screened for food safety in fiscal year 2012, so it seemed reasonable to suppose that about half of the normal number of routine food safety inspections would continue during the shutdown.
But the FDA normally pays state agencies a contractually dictated fee for each inspection its employees conduct. (While the amount varies from state to state, the budget documents suggest that the average was about $1,300 in fiscal year 2012.) Funding for these state-contracted inspections was eliminated as part of the shutdown. A few states have leftover money from the FDA's contract last year, though most do not.
As a result, 8,733 food safety inspections that the FDA had commissioned states to perform in fiscal year 2014, which began Oct. 1, are being delayed until funding resumes.
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
Well, my friend's dad is a representative from Indiana-- he's a also a doctor and he's conservative as heck.
To be fair though, being good in one field doesn't mean that your knowledge in other fields is that good, and being knowledgeable in that one field might inflate your ego and even make you feel more qualified in others.
FDA closed, hope everyone stocked up on fresh produce.
Also:
Republicans changed the proceedings so only Cantor (or a proxy) can introduce the clean CR from the Senate for debate. And they complain Obama breaks rules.
On October 12 2013 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 12 2013 07:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
Well, my friend's dad is a representative from Indiana-- he's a also a doctor and he's conservative as heck.
To be fair though, being good in one field doesn't mean that your knowledge in other fields is that good, and being knowledgeable in that one field might inflate your ego and even make you feel more qualified in others.
FDA closed, hope everyone stocked up on fresh produce.
Republicans changed the proceedings so only Cantor (or a proxy) can introduce the clean CR from the Senate for debate. And they complain Obama breaks rules.
Well technically they didn't break the rules they just changed them right before fucking things up to make sure Dems in the House were utterly powerless. Republicans have always had balls to do shit like this because they know how to drive the conversation. On Day ONE this should've been coming out from Democrats about the last minute procedural changes. Anyone who continues to think that politics is the same shit as decades ago live in a different reality or are lying to themselves. Technology has changed everything and it's only going to get worse until First Past the Post voting changes.
The Food and Drug Administration has been forced to suspend all routine food safety inspections for the duration of the government shutdown, FDA spokesman Steven Immergut confirmed to The Huffington Post on Friday afternoon. Until funding is restored, the FDA will be inspecting only those facilities that it has cause to believe "present an immediate threat to public health."
While it has been clear for weeks that the FDA would not be sending its own employees on food safety inspections during a federal shutdown, agency officials had suggested that state officials would be conducting some inspections on the FDA's behalf. FDA budget documents [pdf] show that state employees inspected 9,736 of the 21,169 facilities screened for food safety in fiscal year 2012, so it seemed reasonable to suppose that about half of the normal number of routine food safety inspections would continue during the shutdown.
But the FDA normally pays state agencies a contractually dictated fee for each inspection its employees conduct. (While the amount varies from state to state, the budget documents suggest that the average was about $1,300 in fiscal year 2012.) Funding for these state-contracted inspections was eliminated as part of the shutdown. A few states have leftover money from the FDA's contract last year, though most do not.
As a result, 8,733 food safety inspections that the FDA had commissioned states to perform in fiscal year 2014, which began Oct. 1, are being delayed until funding resumes.
On October 12 2013 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 12 2013 07:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
Well, my friend's dad is a representative from Indiana-- he's a also a doctor and he's conservative as heck.
To be fair though, being good in one field doesn't mean that your knowledge in other fields is that good, and being knowledgeable in that one field might inflate your ego and even make you feel more qualified in others.
FDA closed, hope everyone stocked up on fresh produce.
Republicans changed the proceedings so only Cantor (or a proxy) can introduce the clean CR from the Senate for debate. And they complain Obama breaks rules.
Well technically they didn't break the rules they just changed them right before fucking things up to make sure Dems in the House were utterly powerless. Republicans have always had balls to do shit like this because they know how to drive the conversation. On Day ONE this should've been coming out from Democrats about the last minute procedural changes. Anyone who continues to think that politics is the same shit as decades ago live in a different reality or are lying to themselves. Technology has changed everything and it's only going to get worse until First Past the Post voting changes.
It's really telling how they voted that only Cantor can make the call, not the speaker himself.
JPMORGAN CHASE managed to remain profitable throughout the financial crisis and performed unusually well in the dry period that followed, but a quarterly loss it reported on October 11th reflected a variable even it could not control: government litigation. In a surprise announcement, JPMorgan’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, declared a $380m loss, entirely the product of $9.2 billion the bank has set aside for settlement costs, which offset what otherwise would have been a good quarter. The reserve is an estimate, and coming up with a more precise figure is impossible for anyone (particularly outsiders) because it remains unclear what it is even alleged to have done wrong. ...
Whatever, if anything, it did wrong remains not only unclear, but controversial. The largest component in the current discussions are tied to the financial crisis, and is thought largely to be tied to Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, two banks that failed spectacularly. These were acquired during the darkest days of the banking crash at the government’s urgent request.
That prompted sniping during JPMorgan's earnings call about whether it should have done anything at the government’s behest, even in a panic, without having been protected from being prosecuted as a result. It is a lesson in the virtue of future non-co-operation that has already been drawn by other bankers, though certainly not one that will be cited by regulators in the inevitable press conference that will accompany any settlement. ...
All of this, of course, might be palatable if what JPMorgan did wrong was evident and the $9.2 billion charge suggested the price of a crime, rather than a shakedown by entities that have the legal capacity to shut any financial institution down. Unless a strong case emerges, there will be good reason to suspect who has really done wrong.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Sunday that no Senate Republicans would vote to advance a government spending/debt-limit increase bill that replaces the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, which Senate Democrats are reportedly considering.
"I don't see one," Graham said on ABC's "This Week" when asked if there was an emerging deal. "If you break the spending caps, you're not going to get any Republicans in the Senate."
Graham suggested that such a deal would damage House Speaker John Boehner's position by putting pressure on him to pass a bill with significant Democratic votes.
"Here's what I'm worried about a deal coming out of the Senate, that a majority of Republicans can't vote for in the House, that really does compromise Speaker Boehner's leadership," Graham said. "And after all this mess is over, do we really want to compromise John Boehner as leader of the House? I don't think so."
On October 12 2013 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 12 2013 07:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
Well, my friend's dad is a representative from Indiana-- he's a also a doctor and he's conservative as heck.
To be fair though, being good in one field doesn't mean that your knowledge in other fields is that good, and being knowledgeable in that one field might inflate your ego and even make you feel more qualified in others.
FDA closed, hope everyone stocked up on fresh produce.
Republicans changed the proceedings so only Cantor (or a proxy) can introduce the clean CR from the Senate for debate. And they complain Obama breaks rules.
On October 12 2013 18:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 12 2013 07:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Dr. Ben Carson, a conservative commentator and neurosurgeon, on Friday likened the health care law to slavery.
“Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing to happen to the nation since slavery,” Carson said, speaking at the Values Voter Summit. “And it is slavery, in a way.”
Carson, who is African American, added to applause, “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
During an address punctuated with cheers, Carson also said that there’s no such thing as a “war on women.” Smiling, he noted that pregnant women are typically treated politely, and said that the real war is on unborn children.
I'm absolutely puzzled that someone educated enough to be a neurosurgeon can make such a phenomenally stupid statement. Universal healthcare is slavery, really?...
I am having regular argument with my father on whether Republican congressmen and commentators know they are lying and saying absurd stuff, and are clever and incredibly manipulative with their mostly ignorant base (my position), or if they are completely stupid and twisted themselves by their own propaganda (then it's terrifying).
I don't know what to think of a democracy where rational debate seems to have completely vanished of the political horizon. I don't think people realize how serious that is. I think, whatever happens in the future, that we will remember those years as a moment american democracy was dancing a step from the abyss. Democracy relies on it's actor's rationality and common sense.
Well, my friend's dad is a representative from Indiana-- he's a also a doctor and he's conservative as heck.
To be fair though, being good in one field doesn't mean that your knowledge in other fields is that good, and being knowledgeable in that one field might inflate your ego and even make you feel more qualified in others.
FDA closed, hope everyone stocked up on fresh produce.
Republicans changed the proceedings so only Cantor (or a proxy) can introduce the clean CR from the Senate for debate. And they complain Obama breaks rules.
wow, that video
How is that even allowed?
Best way to think of the houses of congress atm is that the house is a dictatorship and the senate is more rule by consensus. There is nothing forcing this, but they have traditions that made it end up this way. When people talk about the nuclear option in the senate, they are talking about making it more like the house in that you take power from the minority and give it to the majority leader. When you think about it this way, it makes sense that they can just change the rules on a whim.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
On October 14 2013 07:57 Gorsameth wrote: Surely changing the rules of the House takes at least a 2/3 majority which the Republicans dont have. So how did this get changed Oo
The rules can be changed by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. The possibility of the latter is what is normally referred to as the "nuclear option": i.e. the majority in the Senate could get around the necessity to have 60 votes to end a filibuster by simply changing the rules regarding cloture with 51 votes, but senators are generally loathe to do so since they respect tradition (and just not being psychotic in general) more than the House
... Wow....
Thought it was hard to have a lower opinion of the US democratic system but to allow a mere majority to change fundamental rules of democracy is beyond reason.
Pretty sure its 51 in the senate only on the first day of the session, then it needs 2/3. House seems to just be a majority any time. Overall tho, the minority party in the house can't do much at all other than make noise. Minor rules changes here and there are not going to do much to change the status quo. In the senate tho, some of the proposed rules changes would drastically change things which is why it is a much bigger deal.
EPT
