|
On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote: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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law. Show nested quote +
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." Show nested quote +No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination.
Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of it.
I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues....
|
These whining millionaires - Didn't go our way? get the ball were going home.
These public servants HA! with servants - Screw the public who needs paid?
This gilded trash - A victory they call it. a tragedy of democracy i say.
How can you be so wealthy and yet so worthless?
IT would be funny if it weren't so sad. Hey at least they finally have a reason to be so ineffectual. Maybe that is it. Our government has graduated from stagnate and ineffectual, now its just straight detrimental.
|
On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote: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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues....
Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic.
As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say.
|
USA discussing about health insurance is for Europeans like Muslim countrys discussing about secularization.
Welcome to the modern age!
Seriously, free economy alone, without health insurance and social system, is good for some (the ritch) people, but not for the majority of people. And a democracy should always have the goal to serve the majority of people.
We have been having a health insurance for everyone for 130 years now and guess what - we still live, and the world has not imploded! Employers will get used to it and everything will be alright.
|
On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote: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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say.
Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives.....
Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you.
|
On October 02 2013 06:07 Caladan wrote:
USA discussing about health insurance is for Europeans like Muslim countrys discussing about secularization.
Welcome to the modern age!
Seriously, free economy alone, without health insurance and social system, is good for some (the ritch) people, but not for the majority of people. And a democracy should always have the goal to serve the majority of people.
It's strange because that whole "free market economy at all costs" thing is pretty much an old failed system has proven to be ineffective by the atrocities inflicted to people during the industrialization all the way up to the Great Depression. And yet despite having been the cause of much human suffering, it's still some sort of moral code in that the believers still think it magically works out for the best for everybody even though it clearly doesn't.
These people put on a blindfold and disregard the fact that people die in the US, the infantile mortality is at the level of third world countries overall (it's perfectly good in some States). The market fixes everything, they say - people will be rich and they'll be able to afford health insurance. And when they don't and they die because they couldn't afford healthcare, then they were poor and they didn't matter.
And the worst thing is, those advocates of the free market economy would probably be more empathetic toward human suffering if their ideology didn't force them not to be in order to remain internally coherent.
|
On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote: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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you.
I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did?
I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves.
|
On October 02 2013 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:I believe that is correct, but there is also an issue of the Supreme Court effectively changing the language of a law, from "penalty" to "tax". Justice Antonin Scalia: Show nested quote +For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.”
Well, I think they got around that whole thing by finding a piece of legislation they had laying around, I think it was some Armed Forces Support bill, which originated in the House, gutting it, and replacing everything with the text of Obamacare. So, technically, the bill that was eventually passed had originated in the House. This is another thing I picked up from Cruz' filibuster.
|
If you dont understand he's position theres no need to strawman the fella. And this whole mature immature distinction seems less about categorization and more about calling him childish
extremely educated? by todays standards? i dunno about that one, but thats just opinion based on no research
|
On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote: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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves.
the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy?
btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D
|
On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D
Hercuhlees! Hurcalees! haha.
A valiant attempt but still silly. Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would (EDIT:have) thought... please and thank you
Edit courtesy of Kaitlin: Grammar Officer #1337
|
On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D
He rejects Obamacare because he read in some blog that it was some sort of conspiracy to transition to universal healthcare and he doesn't like crazy socialized medicine because he's not all that opposed to poor people dying since they're failures anyway.
He does say that they could work harder and stop being failures but that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't help everybody.
|
On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:09 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D Hercuhlees! Hurcalees! haha. A valiant attempt but still silly. Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would of thought... please and thank you
If you're going to call others ignorant, use "would have" instead of "would of" in that particular sentence. It would make your accusation stick a little better.
|
On October 02 2013 06:07 Caladan wrote:
USA discussing about health insurance is for Europeans like Muslim countrys discussing about secularization.
Welcome to the modern age!
Seriously, free economy alone, without health insurance and social system, is good for some (the ritch) people, but not for the majority of people. And a democracy should always have the goal to serve the majority of people.
We have been having a health insurance for everyone for 130 years now and guess what - we still live, and the world has not imploded! Employers will get used to it and everything will be alright.
No the goal of democracy is to serve all the people not just the majority. You can serve the majority of people by discriminating the minority but that's obviously not something we want to achieve.
|
On October 02 2013 06:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:29 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 02 2013 06:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 06:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 06:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2013 05:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 02 2013 05:24 Leporello wrote:On October 02 2013 05:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
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) No, you're so off-base, you insult our entire country. You don't get to tell the American people what they were voting for. The American people did that themselves. They voted for the guy with the healthcare plan. You don't get to say what their intentions were. Just shut up with that. So you do get to tell them what they were voting for? If you have some knowledge that Obamacare is what put Obama over the top than please provide it. As for my evidence: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlThe people oppose Obamacare. This is a fact. Go ahead and come up with reasons why (uninformed, propaganda, etc.) but don't pretend that they actually do support the law.
You could argue it ends with the Supreme Court, which did vote on this law and passed it. There is nothing written about our checks-and-balances that says, "If you don't like a law and you hold enough offices to shut down the government, you should do that in order to hold that law hostage."
Checks and balances never ends. Nothing is written about checks and balances that says: "Once a law is passed and is found constitutional by the Supreme Court, all opposition to that law must immediately end and can never again be brought up." No, really, do shut up about the founders. It is a childish appeal to authority which neither you nor anyone else has the authority to make. This isn't 1776, you have no idea what Thomas Jefferson's opinion on such a modern issue would be.
We're all arrogant to a degree, I recognize that. It's human nature. But do you ever check yourself? Do you ever think, "Maybe I don't actually know what this person, who has been dead for over 200 years, would actually think about a niche issue?" No, just put words in that dead guy's mouth. And you tell me I hate him? No, I respect him, and you should to. Actually respect him, for the dead person he is, not turn him into your political sock-puppet.
We can look at their writings. We can look at their opinions on how government should be run. We can look at the system they designed. We can make extrapolations from all the evidence and be reasonably sure about what they would think about it. The Founders, fortunately, left us a wealth of information about their opinion on governance and they were quite specific and far-seeing. It is not childish to look for solutions to our modern problems in their words and thoughts. They were all incredibly educated and incredibly intelligent men. "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." We should always look to the past to be informed about the future and the present. Checks and balances is not a niche issue. It is a key to the way our government was formed and the wealth of opinion by the Founding Fathers on that particular issue is so vast as to be well worth an examination. Yeah good ol TJ if only we still thought like him... Except for that whole being a quiet advocate for slavery once he realized how much money he could make off of them. I agree about not invoking the authority of historical figures particularly when you have no idea about what they actually thought, even about their own contemporary issues.... Well, what Thomas Jefferson thought about checks and balances is pretty irrelevant to what he thought about slavery, isn't it? I guess we can never agree with anyone, ever; because under your logic they might hold a reprehensible opinion on some completely unrelated topic and that invalidates all thoughts and experiences they had with any other topic. As I said: the Founding Fathers left us a wealth of information about the system they designed, and it would be completely foolish to ignore what they had to say. Yeah so long as you think believing some humans are not humans wouldn't affect your judgment on other aspects of how humanity should interact...Or how the dramatic differences in the world they lived in and the one we do would likely alter their perspectives..... Think this is it for us...Don't think there is any recovery from that for you. I don't understand your position here. Should we burn all writings from the Founders because some of them supported slavery? Should we ignore their insights completely? Should we only take the opinions of those who didn't support slavery (an oft overlooked fact is that many of them didn't) and ignore the rest? Should we ignore the opinions of every person who ever lived because they don't live now and maybe they would think differently if they did? I think it would be foolish not to at least look to the opinions of those who went before us. Obviously the discussion should not end with what the Founders thought, but they were extremely educated and extremely thoughtful men. Their opinions are definitely of value to us for serious examination and consideration. We should allow their discourses to inform us about our discourses. We should not be shackled to the past, but we should definitely not ignore the past either. It is the height of childishness to think that those who went before us are useless because they do not understand our particular plights and troubles. Only a mature person can see that those who went before us experienced problems and questions much like ours and have valuable insights on possible solutions, whereas the immature will reject anything that is not immediately connected to themselves. the way you reject ACA/Obamacare because you are young and healthy? btw I like how you went from poor uneducated guy to omniscient figure during the afternoon. :D Hercuhlees! Hurcalees! haha. A valiant attempt but still silly. Sc2Super I'm not going to derail the thread to encourage your ignorance so just do us a favor and don't tell us what "The Founders" would of thought... please and thank you If you're going to call others ignorant, use "would have" instead of "would of" in that particular sentence. It would make your accusation stick a little better.
Not if he's a Wittgensteinian.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.lifeanddog.com/Ryan-Writes/June-2012/Cant-We-All-Just-Get-Along/RyanWrites01a.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
I don't understand why people did not anticipate this as the inevitable result of two parties separated along ideological lines. One party is pro-tax-increases, pro-government-growth while the other is pro-tax-cuts, and pro-government-shrinkage. Now, the Democrats, during regular legislative sessions (aka non-budget) never have a reason to negotiate because the government basically keeps chugging and naturally grows because of increasing obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, etc. They ONLY can be brought to the table during things like the debt ceiling or during the budgeting process, because they are constantly winning at every other time basically through inertia.
The old age of "civility" is gone, not because Republicans or Democrats are more or less intransigent, it is because they finally have opposing points of view. The old system was "Democrats want more money for X while Republicans want more money for Y." There are still some old Guard Republicans like McCain and Graham, who want more military spending and will do anything for it, but the modern Republican Party doesn't believe in horse trading to the extent it used to, so a more difficult negotiation is to be expected.
|
I feel like this was kind of inevitable considering how often the tea party Republicans will hold Congress hostage and act like children to get what they want. The fact that you have tea party Republicans applauding this shut down as a good thing should sicken most Americans.
|
I am tired of liberal fuck all saying shit they have no idea about. For instance, obamacare has fucked over alot of people who have medical needs. This is due to the fact they are taxing insurance companies and hospitals while lowering the doctors salary. This means less people will want to put into 12 years to become a doctor. The general idea of obamacare might work in other countries, but in America it is backwards thinking. We have a capitalistic government, ideas, and philosophies. Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. You need either a really good system that takes advantage of the already input system or you would have to destroy the system in order for that idea to work. This was doomed to fail from the start. Obamacare the worse dam idea Obama ever had. Oh wait, I think the worse idea he had was to go to war with Syria. Dam, people still think Obama is a good president. Although I think it is only blind sheep that think Obama is a good president.
|
On October 02 2013 07:49 overt wrote:
I feel like this was kind of inevitable considering how often the tea party Republicans will hold Congress hostage and act like children to get what they want. The fact that you have tea party Republicans applauding this shut down as a good thing should sicken most Americans.
It sucks short term, but we'll be glad they chose to do this in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
