|
On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function.
Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say.
The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function.
It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
So FCC has shut down, so no more phones to the US? and opther countries of america? (because my phone has an FCC ID so i guess it has something to do with it)
Anyway, seems a really bad situation for the US, and sadly this will affect the rest of the world, not because the US is the most important country or anything , but because of globalization.
|
On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
This says everything we need to know about the Republican party's faith in the American people and the democratic process. Who cares who the people voted for, who cares what these people's representatives voted into law, who cares that the Supreme Court even voted approvingly on the law's constitutionality...
After 2012 we were told the GOP would re-evaluate itself and try to better understand the electorate. That was obviously a lot of BS. So 2016 will come and go, with Republicans again looking like a party of no real ideas except to hate their opponents. They'll lose. If Republicans actually want to give America alternative ideas to the Democratic Party, then they should do that -- in the election. But they've just become the Arrogance Party. This is really all they stand for anymore -- pure spitefulness and obstructionism.
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function.
Wouldn't you try and "obstruct" something if you thought it would hurt millions of people? Speaking of "spitefulness and obstructionism", what are the democrats in the senate doing now by stopping any spending bills from the house that have anything to do with Obama care without so much as a committee?
|
On October 02 2013 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:49 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
Gerrymandering is hardly a Republican-only phenomenon. Both parties do it every chance they get. As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress. How is it you work with people who have made it their primary goal to undermine and repeal any and everything you do. Unless by 'work with' you mean ignore he won the election and just implement the policies the country voted against when they elected him... ... To claim Republicans have even the slightest desire to compromise or 'work with' Obama takes an ignorance nearly unparalleled in the universe
Obama didn't want "THE" election, he won "HIS" election, as did every single member of the House and Senate. As for who has the obligation to "work with" the other side, Presidents are remembered based on their accomplishments, not so much the House. They both have their legacies, but only President Obama's will be compared with other Presidents throughout history. In fact, whether he is able to work with Congress will be part of his legacy, for better or worse. He is either the greatest President ever, as many liberals think, or he's so weak, he can't is stopped in his tracks by a "fringe group" of one House of Congress.
|
On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work.
Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas.
The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost.
The system of checks and balanced is how laws get passed -- and this law got passed. It passed the system. It even got voted on by the Supreme Court. It's the law now.
So the Republicans, instead of accepting the system and the laws provided -- they shut down the system. Shutting down the government is not a "victory" for anybody -- certainly not the veterans depending on the Veteran's Administration to get the care they need.
And shut up about the Founders, what a childish appeal to authority. I just talked to Thomas Jefferson, he called you an ass.
|
On October 02 2013 04:49 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Ok Kait your're right...sort of. The republican congressional members were elected to do what they are doing. The problem is that the reason they only won the house is because they gerrymandered the districts to include so many wackos that only republicans could win them.
this is partially evidenced in how despite congressional positions resulting from the size of a given states population, republicans won the house with many less votes than democrats received.
Hasn't worked with congress...? You have got to be joking....? You want Obama to 'work' with these guys......?
As far as working with Congress, well, he had better or he's going to have an embarrassingly ineffective 6 of 8 years, not to mention the first two years was all about Obamacare which will prove itself a major failure over time. So, yeah, if he wants to accomplish anything, he will need to 'work with' Congress.
You know who the American people are blaming this shut down on right? Who they'll also blame any debt ceiling debacle on as well. Republicans. Whether you believe it or not perception is reality, the blame for this is going to fall squarely on them.
Now, lets say at the end of the day that the house can hold Obama to being a "embarrassingly ineffective" president overall. Its pretty certain Hillary is a god damn slam dunk as the next president, there's no one on the planet the republicans can put up to stop her. You know the the blame for this whole situation is going to fall on the republican congress which means you're going to be looking at a fully democrat controlled government.
All that the actions of republicans are doing right now is setting yourself up for your worst nightmare. That doesn't seem like a very bright plan.
They've already shot themselves in the foot with the shutdown. They can scream and cry all they want about "Obamacare" being the worst thing since Hitler, but I don't see them offering up a single alternative. Unless they bring to the table an option for healthcare for every man, woman, and child in the country that costs less, has good results, covers all basic needs (including birth control and abortions). Lets just call that what it is, single payer universal healthcare, they've got no right to complain. ACA has already been passed, that ship has sailed and they've given zero logical alternatives. Bring some real options to the table or sit down because this might come as a shock, but President Obama is not going to take back "Obamacare". That will NEVER happen while he's the president, ever. If you think it's really that horrific then come with a better plan and run it through, replace it with something. Or, you know, continue to call votes to repeal something that literally has a 0% chance of being repealed and be unrealistic and see how that goes with the American people come election season.
|
On October 02 2013 05:04 Swiipii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:58 Joedaddy wrote:Do you think Obamacare should be revised? Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be." Saying that they exempted themselves from it is misleading. The purpose of the ACA is to get people without insurance to purchase insurance, and to provide subsidies for those who can't afford it. Congress already has an insurance plan, so just like every other person in the country who gets insurance through their employers, they won't have to go to the exchanges to get insurance. Booyah. Question, did the shutdown in the 1990's helped Bill Clinton to get reelected? (news here say so but I've seen US people say no)
It's not so clear as to whether it had any real effect or not. Bill Clinton was running against a very weak candidate, had help from Ross Perot (a third party candidate who received 8.4% of the popular vote) and Clinton still couldn't crack 50%.
A better view of the political cost of shut-down would be the '96 congressional/Senate elections. Ironically, we did better in those than we did in 2012. What happened before 2012? Republicans DIDN'T shut down the government.
|
On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work.
ROFL this guy... They could spend the next 12 months voting yes to everything Obama proposed and they will have still voted against him more than with...
To portend that funding the government would be akin to "just going along with whatever they say" is ignorant at best, but probably closer to malicious.
|
On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work.
I'm assuming this is after they regained consciousness from looking at the spending and debt ?
|
On October 02 2013 05:08 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
This says everything we need to know about the Republican party's faith in the American people and the democratic process. Who cares who the people voted for, who cares what these people's representatives voted into law, who cares that the Supreme Court even voted approvingly on the law's constitutionality...
After 2012 we were told the GOP would re-evaluate itself and try to better understand the electorate. That was obviously a lot of BS. So 2016 will come and go, with Republicans again looking like a party of no real ideas except to hate their opponents. They'll lose. If Republicans actually want to give America alternative ideas to the Democratic Party, then they should do that -- in the election. But they've just become the Arrogance Party. This is really all they stand for anymore -- pure spitefulness and obstructionism.
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Wouldn't you try and "obstruct" something if you thought it would hurt millions of people? Speaking of "spitefulness and obstructionism", what are the democrats in the senate doing now by stopping any spending bills from the house that have anything to do with Obama care without so much as a committee?
So rather than obstructing obamacare, who they think will hurt millions of people, they just let gov't shutdown and hurt millions of people? makes sense to me.
|
On October 02 2013 04:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 04:41 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:29 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2013 03:01 Grollicus wrote:
The more I read about this the more I feel some people in the congress are very sore losers Actually, every single member of Congress won their last election, so they can't really be losers, can they ? They are all doing what they were elected to do. Many Liberals just seem to think that because they won the Presidential election, that the House and Senate should just be lapdogs to the President's wishes. Doesn't work that way. This President has made no effort whatsoever to work with Congress, and here we are. There are ALWAYS two sides to an agreement, or lack thereof. Would you say the same thing if in the future a relatively small group of Democrats in the House threaten to shut down the government if a law isn't passed that bans assault weapons? Saying you'll agree to fund the government in exchange for getting what you want isn't negotiation, it's coercion. I would call them fools and laugh at them when that blows up in their faces... but I wouldn't say that they aren't doing their jobs. Their job includes using the power vested in them to fight for political conclusions they want. As for it being coercion... welcome to the real world. This isn't fun time, it's fucking politics. If Democrat Senators/President/Representatives don't like being put in a hot-seat by their political opposition then they need to find a new occupation.
Hm well I think if anyone's in the hot seat it's Boehner... I'm pretty sure he's squirming a lot more than the Dems right now.
I'm having a really tough time understanding why so many people seem to think that using a government shut down as a "negotiating" tactic is acceptable. If the GOP can use a shut down to force concessions on Obamacare, they can use it for anything. Say Obama caves on this. Then the next time the tea party wants something and a CR vote comes up, we'll just go through the same thing all over again.
Whether or not you support the ACA, how is this in any way a desirable outcome?
|
This is not the first time the Republicans have done this. It really does show contempt for American voters. Sorry, but this bill passed. If Republicans REALLY want to defeat the bill -- if America REALLY doesn't want this bill -- then the elections are where you fix that.
So it's obvious that the Republicans know that America actually does want the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans had any actual, real confidence in their ideas, they'd rely on the democratic process.
This will all be made very apparent in 2016.
|
On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost.
There were many issues in the election. Provide evidence that Romney lost BECAUSE of his position on Obamacare. (Remember that the wide majority of Americans do not want Obamacare)
The system of checks and balanced is how laws get passed -- and this law got passed. It passed the system. It even got voted on by the Supreme Court. It's the law now.
It passed with zero Republican support. Also, checks and balances do not end with a law's passage.
And shut up about the Founders, what a childish appeal to authority. I just talked to Thomas Jefferson, he called you an ass.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson, who hated the Federalists, would support a massive federal program to provide the people with a welfare program...
Sure thing buddy. Oh and if you hate the Founders, why would you appeal to the "system" they created? The system they created was designed with the intention of forcing gridlock and compromise.
|
On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Obviously you should join them if your idea of how it should function is that when a President and Senate are controlled by one party the House should just go along with whatever they say. The American government was designed to have checks and balances. Arguments and political fighting should not begin and end at election-time. They should be occurring every single day. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock is usually a good thing. It means that our government is functioning the way it was designed to function. It is utterly foolish to think that the Founders would look at this as anything but a victory for the system. An outnumbered House is managing to force compromise with a hostile Senate and President. It's the system of checks and balances at work. Elections are exactly for arguing your party's ideas. The Affordable Care Act was passed before 2012. Romney ran on overturning it. He lost. The system of checks and balanced is how laws get passed -- and this law got passed. It passed the system. It even got voted on by the Supreme Court. It's the law now.So the Republicans, instead of accepting the system and the laws provided -- they shut down the system. Shutting down the government is not a "victory" for anybody -- certainly not the veterans depending on the Veteran's Administration to get the care they need. And shut up about the Founders, what a childish appeal to authority. I just talked to Thomas Jefferson, he called you an ass.
Nah. The Republicans didn't shut down the system. The system shut itself down because spending is out of control. In the edited words of Bill Clinton, "It's the debt ceiling, stupid." Anyways, had the Democrats increased the debt ceiling to correspond to these charges they've run up, we wouldn't be here, now would we ? I never understood why the debt ceiling adjustments aren't simply made part of the legislation that is going to require it to be increased...
|
On October 02 2013 05:14 Leporello wrote:
This is not the first time the Republicans have done this. It really does show contempt for American voters. Sorry, but this bill passed. If Republicans REALLY want to defeat the bill -- if America REALLY doesn't want this bill -- then the elections are where you fix that.
So it's obvious that the Republicans know that America actually does want the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans had any actual, real confidence in their ideas, they'd rely on the democratic process.
This will all be made very apparent in 2016.
Hillary is ezpz slamdunk for 2016, if she chooses to run. I don't see Republicans recovering from this shitstorm.
|
At least the post office is still operating.
|
On October 02 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:04 Swiipii wrote:On October 02 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:58 Joedaddy wrote:Do you think Obamacare should be revised? Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be." Saying that they exempted themselves from it is misleading. The purpose of the ACA is to get people without insurance to purchase insurance, and to provide subsidies for those who can't afford it. Congress already has an insurance plan, so just like every other person in the country who gets insurance through their employers, they won't have to go to the exchanges to get insurance. Booyah. Question, did the shutdown in the 1990's helped Bill Clinton to get reelected? (news here say so but I've seen US people say no) It's not so clear as to whether it had any real effect or not. Bill Clinton was running against a very weak candidate, had help from Ross Perot (a third party candidate who received 8.4% of the popular vote) and Clinton still couldn't crack 50%. A better view of the political cost of shut-down would be the '96 congressional/Senate elections. Ironically, we did better in those than we did in 2012. What happened before 2012? Republicans DIDN'T shut down the government.
Thanks a lot! 
|
On October 02 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:08 Yergidy wrote:On October 02 2013 05:00 Leporello wrote:
This says everything we need to know about the Republican party's faith in the American people and the democratic process. Who cares who the people voted for, who cares what these people's representatives voted into law, who cares that the Supreme Court even voted approvingly on the law's constitutionality...
After 2012 we were told the GOP would re-evaluate itself and try to better understand the electorate. That was obviously a lot of BS. So 2016 will come and go, with Republicans again looking like a party of no real ideas except to hate their opponents. They'll lose. If Republicans actually want to give America alternative ideas to the Democratic Party, then they should do that -- in the election. But they've just become the Arrogance Party. This is really all they stand for anymore -- pure spitefulness and obstructionism.
They should all go back to fucking middle-school, where most Americans learned how our Republic is intended to function. Wouldn't you try and "obstruct" something if you thought it would hurt millions of people? Speaking of "spitefulness and obstructionism", what are the democrats in the senate doing now by stopping any spending bills from the house that have anything to do with Obama care without so much as a committee? So rather than obstructing obamacare, who they think will hurt millions of people, they just let gov't shutdown and hurt millions of people? makes sense to me.
You are overreacting to how bad a (partial) government shutdown actually is.
Most of the government employees are still working and while not getting paid at this second (if it was in their pay schedule to get paid at this time), will get paid for their time during the shutdown when the government gets funded again.
That being said, the Republicans tried to avoid a shutdown, sending 4 different bills completely funding the government to the Senate with not so much as a committee from The Senate majority leader.
On October 02 2013 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:14 Leporello wrote:
This is not the first time the Republicans have done this. It really does show contempt for American voters. Sorry, but this bill passed. If Republicans REALLY want to defeat the bill -- if America REALLY doesn't want this bill -- then the elections are where you fix that.
So it's obvious that the Republicans know that America actually does want the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans had any actual, real confidence in their ideas, they'd rely on the democratic process.
This will all be made very apparent in 2016. Hillary is ezpz slamdunk for 2016, if she chooses to run. I don't see Republicans recovering from this shitstorm.
I really hope you are being sarcastic.
|
On October 02 2013 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:14 Leporello wrote:
This is not the first time the Republicans have done this. It really does show contempt for American voters. Sorry, but this bill passed. If Republicans REALLY want to defeat the bill -- if America REALLY doesn't want this bill -- then the elections are where you fix that.
So it's obvious that the Republicans know that America actually does want the Affordable Care Act. If the Republicans had any actual, real confidence in their ideas, they'd rely on the democratic process.
This will all be made very apparent in 2016. Hillary is ezpz slamdunk for 2016, if she chooses to run. I don't see Republicans recovering from this shitstorm.
Benghazi might trip up Hillary. That or the effect of Obamacare taking effect and people learning about "unintended consequences".
|
United States24683 Posts
Reading through most of this, I don't think any passionate person in this thread is going to have a single opinion altered by something another person said in this thread. How sad is that?
I want to respond to something specific though:
On October 02 2013 05:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:04 Swiipii wrote:On October 02 2013 05:01 Mercy13 wrote:On October 02 2013 04:58 Joedaddy wrote:Do you think Obamacare should be revised? Revise it or make it where the congress and president are subscribers. The fact that they conveniently exempted themselves from it is reason enough to flag this plan as "not everything they've made it out to be." Saying that they exempted themselves from it is misleading. The purpose of the ACA is to get people without insurance to purchase insurance, and to provide subsidies for those who can't afford it. Congress already has an insurance plan, so just like every other person in the country who gets insurance through their employers, they won't have to go to the exchanges to get insurance. Booyah. Question, did the shutdown in the 1990's helped Bill Clinton to get reelected? (news here say so but I've seen US people say no) It's not so clear as to whether it had any real effect or not. Bill Clinton was running against a very weak candidate, had help from Ross Perot (a third party candidate who received 8.4% of the popular vote) and Clinton still couldn't crack 50%. A better view of the political cost of shut-down would be the '96 congressional/Senate elections. Ironically, we did better in those than we did in 2012. What happened before 2012? Republicans DIDN'T shut down the government.
The argument here appears to be that the 90s shutdown did not hurt the Republicans in the 96 congressional/senate elections since republicans fared better in those elections than they did in the 2012 elections, which was not in proximity to any shutdown.
However, there are many other reasons for why republicans fared worse in 2012 (aside from the possible voter disappointment that republicans had not utilized the 'threaten-shutdown tactic'), so you can't reasonably draw any conclusions here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
