On October 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote: And there is your problem: "When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance". "
Politics is not about "dominance" it's about compromise. If you can't or are against compromise your better off with a dictatorship. It's sad for you that your country isn't as conservative as you wish (or even think) it was but... just fucking deal with it.
Compromise is a nice word. But let's look at the last century and see how much "compromise" has gotten the conservatives. It got us Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon that grew the federal government more than their Democrat predecessors. It got us George HW Bush who dismantled all the gains we achieved during the Reagan years and it got us his son who fractured the Republican party almost beyond repair. It got us Obama and a super-majority which led to the monstrosity that is Obamacare. And it led us to this point where we have no choice but to shut down the fucking government and threaten default (God help us) in order to get the Democrats to move a fucking inch.
Funny how it's always the Republicans doing the compromising, and the losing. Democrats weren't falling all over themselves to compromise with Republicans when they had a super-majority and the Presidency. They were more than willing to cut us out and ride their wins. Sure, they compromised with the less liberal members of their own party, but they didn't even give lip service to Republicans, much less conservatives. Now that they don't have complete control they want compromise back? It would be ironical genius if it was fiction.
Politics is a dog-eat-dog world. God help us, since we seem to have forgotten that in the pipe-dream that is "compromise". We didn't learn our lesson from the legacy of Henry Clay's "compromise".
Maybe in some happier, sunnier time there will be room for compromising between the parties. But anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows that this shit has been brewing for decades. Partisanship and winner-takes-all is here to stay. I say let's let this tune play out until the next presidential election and see how the American people really feel about compromise.
On October 02 2013 19:34 Lachrymose wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
This self-victimization is absolutely disingenuous and incongruous with the facts of the situation. Lose two presidential elections in a row and all of a sudden you've been "losing" for 20 years. Get out of your echo chambers.
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the original Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
Like, even if he is right what is his point exactly?
"We're really depressed that our ideals haven't been dominant for a long time so that justifies throwing a tantrum and trying to force those ideals on people we admit don't want them. In a democracy."
??
Not quite.
If you've been trying one strategy for a long, long time; and it's gotten you nowhere... wouldn't you start thinking about maybe changing your strategy? Republicans have tried working with the Democrats since before you or I were born and it's gotten us nothing but grief. And as soon as we start playing hard-ball, like the Democrats have been for a century, we get called out for being hard-liners and radicals. Sorry, but if you're gonna pull the victim card after ~30 hours of being pushed around then I'm gonna have to remind you that my side has been the victim for a lot longer than that.
Funny how forcing Obamacare through was perfectly fine (even though the people didn't want it) but repealing it isn't (even though the people want that.)
but you're walking a political tightrope. if and should the US default the blame will be seen as resting squarely on republican shoulders by almost every non-republican supporter, and i mean the world at large. true, it's not entirely on sides fault, but if the US should go into a downward spiral and takes the world economy 10 years backwards with it, you guys are going into the history books. not obama, you guys.
it sucks, but fact.
Hmm not sure i agree with this. The boss always will be blamed,hes the one that has the responsability in the end. If usa defaults under obama he will forever be seen as the one president that let the usa default. Maybe not entirely reasonable and justified but it is to some extend, he could have prevented default by giving up on obama care. People will have forgotten how silly the republicans acted within 2-4 years i guess.
On October 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote: And there is your problem: "When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance". "
Politics is not about "dominance" it's about compromise. If you can't or are against compromise your better off with a dictatorship. It's sad for you that your country isn't as conservative as you wish (or even think) it was but... just fucking deal with it.
Compromise is a nice word. But let's look at the last century and see how much "compromise" has gotten the conservatives. It got us Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon that grew the federal government more than their Democrat predecessors. It got us George HW Bush who dismantled all the gains we achieved during the Reagan years and it got us his son who fractured the Republican party almost beyond repair. It got us Obama and a super-majority which led to the monstrosity that is Obamacare. And it led us to this point where we have no choice but to shut down the fucking government and threaten default (God help us) in order to get the Democrats to move a fucking inch.
Funny how it's always the Republicans doing the compromising, and the losing. Democrats weren't falling all over themselves to compromise with Republicans when they had a super-majority and the Presidency. They were more than willing to cut us out and ride their wins. Sure, they compromised with the less liberal members of their own party, but they didn't even give lip service to Republicans, much less conservatives. Now that they don't have complete control they want compromise back? It would be ironical genius if it was fiction.
Politics is a dog-eat-dog world. God help us, since we seem to have forgotten that in the pipe-dream that is "compromise". We didn't learn our lesson from the legacy of Henry Clay's "compromise".
Maybe in some happier, sunnier time there will be room for compromising between the parties. But anyone with even a cursory knowledge of American politics knows that this shit has been brewing for decades. Partisanship and winner-takes-all is here to stay. I say let's let this tune play out until the next presidential election and see how the American people really feel about compromise.
On October 02 2013 19:34 Lachrymose wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
This self-victimization is absolutely disingenuous and incongruous with the facts of the situation. Lose two presidential elections in a row and all of a sudden you've been "losing" for 20 years. Get out of your echo chambers.
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the original Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
Like, even if he is right what is his point exactly?
"We're really depressed that our ideals haven't been dominant for a long time so that justifies throwing a tantrum and trying to force those ideals on people we admit don't want them. In a democracy."
??
Not quite.
If you've been trying one strategy for a long, long time; and it's gotten you nowhere... wouldn't you start thinking about maybe changing your strategy? Republicans have tried working with the Democrats since before you or I were born and it's gotten us nothing but grief. And as soon as we start playing hard-ball, like the Democrats have been for a century, we get called out for being hard-liners and radicals. Sorry, but if you're gonna pull the victim card after ~30 hours of being pushed around then I'm gonna have to remind you that my side has been the victim for a lot longer than that.
Funny how forcing Obamacare through was perfectly fine (even though the people didn't want it) but repealing it isn't (even though the people want that.)
but you're walking a political tightrope. if and should the US default the blame will be seen as resting squarely on republican shoulders by almost every non-republican supporter, and i mean the world at large. true, it's not entirely on sides fault, but if the US should go into a downward spiral and takes the world economy 10 years backwards with it, you guys are going into the history books. not obama, you guys.
it sucks, but fact.
Hmm not sure i agree with this. The boss always will be blamed,hes the one that has the responsability in the end. If usa defaults under obama he will forever be seen as the one president that let the usa default. Maybe not entirely reasonable and justified but it is to some extend, he could have prevented default by giving up on obama care. People will have forgotten how silly the republicans acted within 2-4 years i guess.
I guess it depends what happens at the next election on who will be remembered for what. For instance, our Progressive Conservatives went from one of the largest majority governments in our history to being reduced to two seats (not even official party status) and even the PM lost her seat. You can guarantee people remember the collapse of the PC's for quite some time.
However, the right does need an alternative to vote for because except for centrists, they are not suddenly switch to the opposing side (in our case, Liberals.) The collapse of the PC happened to coincide with the rise of two regional parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform party in the West. Without an alternative, voter bases probably won't shift much.
So in reality, I suspect the votes to come out more or less the same except maybe a couple percentage points swing to one of the parties and Obama gets blamed for a default.
edit Well actually, if voting tendencies aren't completely entrenched, you don't necessarily need an alternative party. Our provincial NDP had such terrible budgets (fudge-it budgets) and government mismanagement that they got reduced to two seats and it has taken them a couple elections to become a viable alternative again. So that does mean a lot of people switched from a left of centre (if not completely left) to a right of centre government. So depends on voting tendencies, but based on past results I would not guess to see a party collapse.
In the US maybe.. Outside of it? I highly doubt it... Your whole country allready is the laughing stock of the people in countries with functioning political systems... If not for the fact that you could actually pull the world economy down with you thats all there is, people over here in europe are dazzled by the sheer stupidity and childish behaviour of your politicians and general stupidity of the political "game" in your country...
Oh and for the blame game... That answer is incredibly easy, it will be the "USA"... not Dems or Reps, not politicians or the president.. Just ALL of you guys. You are on the way of sinking the world economy and instead of starting to swim your still playing an incredibly silly blamegame...
So it sounds like Boehner has found his out. He is going to bring up a bill to fund national parks/war memorials like yesterday but under different (normal) house rules where it will only need a majority instead of a 2/3 majority.
They key here is that in order to do that the bill must be open to amendment and approval by the senate.
What that means is that Democrats will add an amendment that is essentially a clean CR without the Obamacare defund requirement. It is widely understood that if such a bill could make it to a vote in the house it would pass with bipartisan support.
This isn't bad considering the predicament they put themselves in. It basically provides an out for everyone. Everyone gets someone to blame for continuing the shutdown except the Tea Party who will be stuck trying to explain slightly complicated procedural excuses for why they ended up passing the clean CR it won't work on most Americans but should be sufficient to satisfy the Tea Partiers.
If it's not clear let me try to break it down a bit. Essentially Boehner is considering turning their strategy against them. Basically there will be a bill to get the government going and the Tea Party will have to take the vote that they were trying to pin on Senate Democrats. Either voting against opening the war memorials to the WW2 today and over the next week/s or voting for the clean CR...
By introducing the piecemeal bill knowing it will get amended, he loopholes the Hastert rule. What I'm curious about is whether Tea Party reps realize this is what is happening and they are going along with it to try to save some face for the party or if they just got out maneuvered by a trapped Boehner, or if they are just so oblivious to procedure that they really don't see this coming.
Boehner named representative Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, PA-5 as speaker Pro Tempore... Boehner is avoiding getting his fingerprints on something not sure what though. Should be interesting to see how the 'rule' is worded.
On October 02 2013 21:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:08 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 19:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:37 Jibba wrote:
On October 02 2013 18:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
Oh and among the battle you lost, you forgot about segregation, legalization of homosexuality etc etc etc... Too bad progress tends to win sometimes.
Yeah... it was the Republican who voted for desegregation. The Democrats came a little late to that party.
The legalization of homosexuality? That's a pretty broad definition, but even so, yes, the Republican party has not ALWAYS been on the forefront of every issue. Sadly, we came a little late to that party.
You know, I don't even talk about the Republican party, because, what you seem not to realize is that the Republican party has shifted massively to the right since its creation. If anything, it used to be a progressive force in the XIXth century. I talk about conservatives, who are now represented by the GOP.
You, conservatives, lost the battle against abortion, gay marriage, welfare, public education, immigration, just as you lost the battle to make homosexuality legal, which you guys strongly opposed, or the battle for black people to have any right at all. And sometimes, hopefully, you will lose the battle for death penalty, you will lose the battle for the right to buy and own machineguns and war weapons, etc etc etc.
Being on the bad side of history is a bitch. But you never know, maybe a major historical event happens (actually conservative are working on it with their climate change denials, and the issue is fairly promising; keep doing the good work), and we all go back to middle age, where conservative ideas were largely implemented. You never know.
Oh, to answer a previous post of yours, if the political spectrum has been what it is nowadays in the XIXth century, it's of course the Republicans who would claim that "the South will rise again".
You are a very angry man. If you want to see what 60 years of non stop democrat rule brings just check out Detroit sometime.Don't bring up that BS about building a city around one industry - last i checked Pittsburgh doesn't have many steel mills anymore but they're doing decent enough.It's the policies and ideologies that destroy things.
They do things different in D-Town ; they even have 13 months in a year up there last i heard.
There were attempts in the past to rein in such egregious and illegal behavior, but the unions and the beneficiaries enjoying their 13th month checks were just too strong. When Dennis Archer took over as mayor of Detroit following Coleman Young’s disastrous administration in January 1994, one of the first things he learned was how the union-controlled pension plans’ trustees were disbursing these funds, and he tried to stop it. He proposed a new city charter which would have given Detroit’s city council powers to override the pension plans’ trustees. The voters passed, it but the unions and present pensioners took umbrage, sued Archer, and Archer (and the voters) lost in court.
So Archer tried a different tactic, called Proposal T, a ballot initiative to accomplish the same thing. It failed as well, and the 13th month checks continued to flow, illegally, from the plans’ assets.
Because the Detroit Free Press had such difficulty ferreting out the records on which it based its story, it was never able to determine exactly how many dollars were disbursed or for how long. Records prior to 1985 are missing, and one of the plans — the uniformed officers plan — is distinctly opaque about such things.
Added all together, Detroit’s pension plan liabilities are estimated to exceed assets by something close to $3.5 billion, only a fraction of Orr’s overall estimate of Detroit’s fiscal black hole of $18 billion. But with the help of the researchers and writers at the Detroit Free Press, it is now clear for all to see that the real problem isn't the math, it’s the morals. It’s the belief that there are “windfalls” and “free money” available, and that theft is justified by need. It’s the Robin Hood mentality: taking from some and giving to others and calling it charity.
Per Capita Income for Detroit Michigan
2012 1 Year Change 3 Year Change US $27,319 +0.19% - 3.36% Michigan $25,074 +0.62% -1.28% Detroit $27,102 +1.40% +0.31% + Show Spoiler +
From someone sitting on the sidelines up north, I think *you're an angry person. Some stats for you sir (2012 but hey, good enough right?) so people in Pitts make about $600 more per year on average. Rocked your world? Yea. Considering how much negative perspective there is around the D, Pitts does look a bit better. The average national income is only $200 higher than Detroit's, but ahead of Mich by $2k.... So I would say on the whole, if you're like this guy and you think Detroit is a joke then well the whole country is too.
Just the view from the guy holding the chains, waiting to place the ball and rocking 5 comfortable figs. Still love you guys though, sincerely hope this gets fixed, however that it happens it'll be good.
What do Republicans do when they actually get a hold of power?
They increase spending.
It's a one party system folks. Obama must be thrilled people are talking about the "government shutdown" and not how botched the Obamacare launch has been.
On October 02 2013 23:45 Velr wrote: In the US maybe.. Outside of it? I highly doubt it... Your whole country allready is the laughing stock of the people in countries with functioning political systems... If not for the fact that you could actually pull the world economy down with you thats all there is, people over here in europe are dazzled by the sheer stupidity and childish behaviour of your politicians and general stupidity of the political "game" in your country...
Oh and for the blame game... That answer is incredibly easy, it will be the "USA"... not Dems or Reps, not politicians or the president.. Just ALL of you guys. You are on the way of sinking the world economy and instead of starting to swim your still playing an incredibly silly blamegame...
Yes, the Euro crisis has been handled flawlessly with zero negative effects on the world economy.
On October 02 2013 23:45 Velr wrote: In the US maybe.. Outside of it? I highly doubt it... Your whole country allready is the laughing stock of the people in countries with functioning political systems... If not for the fact that you could actually pull the world economy down with you thats all there is, people over here in europe are dazzled by the sheer stupidity and childish behaviour of your politicians and general stupidity of the political "game" in your country...
Oh and for the blame game... That answer is incredibly easy, it will be the "USA"... not Dems or Reps, not politicians or the president.. Just ALL of you guys. You are on the way of sinking the world economy and instead of starting to swim your still playing an incredibly silly blamegame...
Yes, the Euro crisis has been handled flawlessly with zero negative effects on the world economy.
Boy, that's going to show him that his accusation of you playing a silly blamegame is false.
On October 03 2013 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote: I seem to remember people complaining about the "law of the land" comments. I wish you and John Boehner could talk to 2012 Boehner....
As an outsider, I just see one party holding an entire country hostage on an issue that was proposed by the executive, democratically enacted by legislature, and ruled legal by the judiciary. It's a bit embarrassing for the world's most powerful democracy to act like this.
The shutdown is a direct result of Conservative Extremists?
I would say the shutdown is a result of wide-reaching, unforeseen negative effects of the ACA and Republicans are standing their ground on what most Republicans and Conservatives would agree is a massive overreach of the government. Whether it is or not is not for this topic, but as a political Conservative myself, I'd say just fund it for now and see what happens. If it works, great, we get a good healthcare bill. If it doesn't work, we landslide the 2016 election and repeal it then. Either way, the shutdown was inevitable as a split House in this day and age of political pandering will never get anything passed that strays from center. The shutdown is everyone's fault.
On October 03 2013 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote: I seem to remember people complaining about the "law of the land" comments. I wish you and John Boehner could talk to 2012 Boehner....
Eh, that's politicians for ya. Look, here's Obama pulling the same shit on the debt ceiling:
Gee, it's almost like they don't mean the things they say! These events are the only leverage that Republicans have, and if they don't use it they will never accomplish anything. How they used that leverage was pretty terrible, admittedly. And Cruz was simply trying to grab the national spotlight and tea party cred.
The problem here is not that you are stupid, or that we are stupid. The problem here is that you haven't the slightest clue what it's felt like to be a Republican for the last two decades. Obviously you can't understand the Republican frustration, and this obviously means that to you, it looks foreign. That's why you get the obviously wrong impression of it.
Are you motherfucking kidding me? Not only have Republicans been far more successful in both chambers (even when Democrats controlled both) since 2000, but they've also shifted political discourse in this country to the right, despite it shifting to the left everywhere else in the world. Obama and Reagan are a hell of a lot closer than either side will admit, and both are far more conservative overall than Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy and arguably even Eisenhower.
On what policy positions is Obama to the left of any of those listed? And if you think George W. Bush or his father were successes for the Republican party than you're insane and don't know jack shit about Republicanism. Our last real success was Reagan and even Reagan was a big-time spender. Shit, we haven't had an economically conservative president since the fucking Coolidge administration, almost a century ago. The country hasn't been economically conservative since before the fucking first Roosevelt presidency.
We've made gains, sure... all in public opinion. And all of them pretty inconsequential to the big picture. The last time we had the kind of power we wanted was when Democrats were still screaming: "The South will rise again!"
I mean really, look at the original bill Obama wanted in 2009 and 10. Even with a supermajority, the Senate plan was carved up and we ended up with the pretty pisspoor current Obamacare. The Republican party dominated congress in the 1990's and 2000's, and has only since fallen apart because they took a gamble on the Tea Party, and leadership lost control.
The Tea Party lost us the Senate and House in 2006? The Tea Party didn't exist in 2006. When the Tea Party came into real power was 2009-2010, and they won the House back and cut deep into the Senate.
We controlled the Congress in the 90s? We hadn't held a goddamn majority in the House in 42 years before '94. Before '94 we hadn't held both Houses since the fucking '30s. One fucking decade of control and all the sudden we DOMINATED the political landscape? Get your facts straight.
Your reading comprehension is not very good. I'm tired, and really just laughing now. As I said, there isn't a debate to be had. Get over it.
Yeah I said "left" instead of "right". I just noticed that. But the question still stands:
How is Obama to the right of any of those Presidents in his political ideology? In what he's accomplished? That's a different story, mainly because his predecessors did pretty well in establishing the welfare state before Obama was even old enough to vote.
Look at the country since the Great Depression and you'll see that it has been politically dominated by Democrats. For fucks sake, our own Great Communicator was a fucking New Deal Democrat who loved FDR! Sure, we made some gains with Reagan, and shit we even made some gains with Clinton. Of course, we also had some pretty massive losses. The existence of talk-radio and Fox news make up the majority of our "successes" and neither makes up a majority of the media that American's consume, much less have any direct political value. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, healthcare, education, immigration, regulation... we've lost on all these grounds. We've made gains in taxes, but only because they had grown to such ridiculous levels that even Democrats were willing to cut them down, and lo and behold, taxes are going back up.
When you're political "dominance" results in more of the things you don't want than what you do want than you've got a strange idea of "dominance".
edit: Or maybe it's that you only want to look at the narrow decade-wide window of time? Yeah, sorry, doesn't work like that. The history of this party-conflict goes too deep to take a snapshot and try to extrapolate shit. I said two decades because the big hope after Reagan was that maybe we were on a real conservative swing... and we can all see where that went.
You're arguing on behalf of your perception of Republican ideals. You are not arguing on behalf of the Republican party. You don't wipe key Republicans from the ledgers, simply because you don't think they fit those ideals. Also, you're ignoring pretty key changes like shifting the direction of foreign policy, financial regulation and monetary regulation (which is slightly hilarious, because today's Tea Partiers make Milton Friedman look like a liberal.)
Look at how the rest of the world has moved over the last two decades, and compare it to the US.
On October 03 2013 00:16 levelping wrote: As an outsider, I just see one party holding an entire country hostage on an issue that was proposed by the executive, democratically enacted by legislature, and ruled legal by the judiciary. It's a bit embarrassing for the world's most powerful democracy to act like this.
On the bright side eventually saner minds and democracy should prevail instead of it erupting into a civil war, riots, or a fist fight in congress like many other countries around the world... Although the fist fight would get better ratings than c-span has ever seen...
On October 02 2013 23:59 FrankUnderwood wrote: What do Republicans do when they actually get a hold of power?
They increase spending.
It's a one party system folks. Obama must be thrilled people are talking about the "government shutdown" and not how botched the Obamacare launch has been.
Not to mention all the other international drama that have been going on.
On October 03 2013 00:21 Terrestrialrage wrote: The shutdown is a direct result of Conservative Extremists?
I would say the shutdown is a result of wide-reaching, unforeseen negative effects of the ACA and Republicans are standing their ground on what most Republicans and Conservatives would agree is a massive overreach of the government.
It cannot be a result of negative effects if no negative effects have actually happened yet.
On October 02 2013 23:45 Velr wrote: In the US maybe.. Outside of it? I highly doubt it... Your whole country allready is the laughing stock of the people in countries with functioning political systems... If not for the fact that you could actually pull the world economy down with you thats all there is, people over here in europe are dazzled by the sheer stupidity and childish behaviour of your politicians and general stupidity of the political "game" in your country...
Oh and for the blame game... That answer is incredibly easy, it will be the "USA"... not Dems or Reps, not politicians or the president.. Just ALL of you guys. You are on the way of sinking the world economy and instead of starting to swim your still playing an incredibly silly blamegame...
Yes, the Euro crisis has been handled flawlessly with zero negative effects on the world economy.
Boy, that's going to show him that his accusation of you playing a silly blamegame is false.
I was responding to the 'europe is laughing at you' sentiment.
On October 03 2013 00:21 Terrestrialrage wrote: The shutdown is a direct result of Conservative Extremists?
I would say the shutdown is a result of wide-reaching, unforeseen negative effects of the ACA and Republicans are standing their ground on what most Republicans and Conservatives would agree is a massive overreach of the government.
It cannot be a result of negative effects if no negative effects have actually happened yet.
Dude if it wasn't for the GOP the feds would have euthanized grandma on the first. Heroes.
On October 03 2013 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote: I seem to remember people complaining about the "law of the land" comments. I wish you and John Boehner could talk to 2012 Boehner....
Gee, it's almost like they don't mean the things they say! These events are the only leverage that Republicans have, and if they don't use it they will never accomplish anything. How they used that leverage was pretty terrible, admittedly. And Cruz was simply trying to grab the national spotlight and tea party cred.
Going from a presidential candidate to being President is quite different from Boehners position but point taken in general.
As for the leverage to get anything done, I disagree. They could always just come up with ways to actually improve the PPACA instead of just trying to tear it down.
Oh wait, they decided to do everything in their power to resist the President, regardless if Americans suffer as a result.
BTW Boehner is going to meet with Obama today apparently since Obama made it more than clear he's not budging it sounds like Boehner is caving in to sanity.
EPT
