|
I was going to type out a longer post but no one would read it anyways so I'll just leave you all with this.
The fact that republicans still have support in this country makes me incredibly sad.
|
On October 04 2013 07:35 m4inbrain wrote:
Weirdly enough, even i in the EU remember Romney massively rooting against ACA in his campaign. Somehow you guys and the rest of the world (including more than half of your country) have a bit of a different view on that.
Oh and just as a sidenote, if a system is designed to fail (that's what it's doing right now), it's misdesigned. If a minority can bring the nation to a complete standstill by saying "we don't like what your party does, even though you got the votes for it" - it's not democracy. It's actually the opposite. It's a bunch of old ivy-league farts trying to get their will, against what people are actually voted for.
And it's not up to you to interprete what they voted on, it's obvious what they voted on. They knew the programs. If they didn't and they voted "just because" - tough shit. Makes your system even less practical. Doesn't change the fact that some farts you call politicians (not that other countries including mine were better, but we have failsaves in place, including complete dismantling and immediate reelections) try to bully their will through, which is not what a democratic system is intended to do. It's childish at best, even though it looks more like a dick comparison to me. Tough shit that the president is black.
For the umpteenth time:
The 2012 election was about more than Obamacare.
The fact is: the American people DO NOT support Obamacare. You can argue that they don't understand it, or that they have been tricked by Republican propaganda, or that they will like it once it comes into effect, but it is an inarguable fact that they do not support the law.
I'm gonna quote this again to put emphasis on this point in particular:
And it's not up to you to interprete what they voted on
THEN STOP DOING THAT! You and many others in here have said this exact thing, that we can't interpret what they voted on or didn't vote on... and then you go right ahead and say: "They voted for Obamacare!" No! The polls clearly show that they voted for Obama DESPITE Obamacare, not because of it!
Now, onto the system itself: the system was designed to force compromise and to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority. You might not like it, but as you said: "tough shit". This is the system we've chosen, it's the system that allowed us to overtake Europe and the rest of the world, and it is the system that millions of our young men and women have bled and died for. It is the system that we went through a bloody Civil War over. It is the system that remains the oldest existing democracy, and it is the system that the American people want. If you like your European way better, than good for you. We don't want that shit here.
Stop making this about race. It has no basis in history or reality. It's just a mean-spirited smear.
|
On October 04 2013 07:47 DamnCats wrote:
I was going to type out a longer post but no one would read it anyways so I'll just leave you all with this.
The fact that republicans still have support in this country makes me incredibly sad.
It's a dead party. Sorry, I should say dying. Young people aren't joining Team GOP. Its actually considered one of the more dire issues among Reps right now -- "how do we increase support for the Republican party among the younger generations?"
|
On October 04 2013 07:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:27 Derez wrote:On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? ![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1472943.1380653441!/img/httpImage/image.jpg-large_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/cantor.jpg-large) Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/The republican position obviously does not have public support at this point. Well, that is only one poll. I'll take it at face value for the sake of the argument though: Only 1/4th of the people think that Obamacare should be allowed to go into effect. 1/3 support delaying/defunding/repealing. Almost 1/3 think that changes should be made (something Democrats are not allowing). Apparently the Republican position on the law has some support.
1/3 think that changes should be made, but they didn't say that it was a bad thing, therefore between having it or not, it could also be argued that they support it..... If they didn't support it, then they would have voted to delay/defund/repeal.....
1/4 + 1/3 > 1/2. Not by much, but that is a majority.
The system isn't perfect. It has a lot of loopholes and a lot of stupid things attached to it which are going to cause problems, but spending the next 10 years coming up with a more ideal system would leave a shitload of people without assistance for those 10 years that can at least be covered until the system gets those kinks worked out. It's not perfect, not by a long shot, but it is better than the alternative imo.
I've read a lot of this thread, and I noticed that you're one of the people who are going to be thrown under the bus with how the system is being implemented right now. I sympathize. I'm kinda stuck in a frustrating situation myself right now because of some stupid government procedures and programs in place. It's going to set my life back by a few years (basically owe a lot of debt due to education, but don't have a degree yet, and can't finish my degree until I clear up my debt problem, but don't have education required to get a good job to pay back that debt in any reasonable period of time, putting me into a vicious cycle where I can't get anywhere). But at least I can still see that these procedures and programs are in place to help people overall, it just really, really sucks when it does backfire.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Even I think there should be changes made to Obamacare. That doesn't mean I want it defunded, or anything even close to that.
|
Jennifer Rubin is anything but "highly conservative".
|
On October 04 2013 07:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:40 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 06:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 06:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Everybody understands Republican position. "We have the power to sabotage the country and we don't like the bill you were elected to pass so if you don't negotiate (and demolish the said bill), we shutdown the whole government". Answer: Go fuck yourself Reaction: whine whine whine, they don't want to negotiate!! 1. Don't say "go fuck yourself". Let's keep this debate civil. 2. Obamacare is opposed by the majority of Americans and has always been. They were not elected to pass Obamacare. 3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. 4. The whole government is not shut down. 2) You keep saying this, and yet somehow - Obama is president, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, and the approval rating for the GOP is dropping the longer they try this shutdown bs. 3) If Obama bends AT ALL to this pressure, the office of president and his authority as the democratically elected leader of this country is suspect for the rest of eternity. Minorities of a majority of half of congress can then just bs around and hold the government hostage to get whatever they want, even though they lost in all actual democratic functions of countermanding what they didn't like. 4) Oh boy, only 800,000 people are out of work, just a minor issue. This is the second time I've posted this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.htmlObamacare has NEVER had the support of the American people. The elections were not just about Obamacare, and if they had been, Romney would have won by a landslide. The elections were about a myriad of issues, Obamacare being only one of them. Romney's personal feelings towards dogs received more coverage during the election than Obamacare did. The House has always been the most powerful branch of the government, the Presidency has always been less powerful. The House is directly elected by the citizens every 2 years and is the most representative of the American people. The system was designed so that the House can put up roadblocks and checks against every other branch, and if need be, cut all funding. If you don't like the system, say so. Don't pretend that this is somehow working against the design of the system when it is exactly how the system was designed to function. No one said it was a minor issue. However, since it is not a minor issue by any stretch of the imagination, there should be no need to use hyperbole. It is serious enough on it's own without needing to blow it up into something entirely different.
Did you just say power of the purse was designed to include shutting down the government as a checks and balances tool?
|
On October 04 2013 07:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:35 m4inbrain wrote:
Weirdly enough, even i in the EU remember Romney massively rooting against ACA in his campaign. Somehow you guys and the rest of the world (including more than half of your country) have a bit of a different view on that.
Oh and just as a sidenote, if a system is designed to fail (that's what it's doing right now), it's misdesigned. If a minority can bring the nation to a complete standstill by saying "we don't like what your party does, even though you got the votes for it" - it's not democracy. It's actually the opposite. It's a bunch of old ivy-league farts trying to get their will, against what people are actually voted for.
And it's not up to you to interprete what they voted on, it's obvious what they voted on. They knew the programs. If they didn't and they voted "just because" - tough shit. Makes your system even less practical. Doesn't change the fact that some farts you call politicians (not that other countries including mine were better, but we have failsaves in place, including complete dismantling and immediate reelections) try to bully their will through, which is not what a democratic system is intended to do. It's childish at best, even though it looks more like a dick comparison to me. Tough shit that the president is black. For the umpteenth time: The 2012 election was about more than Obamacare.The fact is: the American people DO NOT support Obamacare. You can argue that they don't understand it, or that they have been tricked by Republican propaganda, or that they will like it once it comes into effect, but it is an inarguable fact that they do not support the law. I'm gonna quote this again to put emphasis on this point in particular: THEN STOP DOING THAT! You and many others in here have said this exact thing, that we can't interpret what they voted on or didn't vote on... and then you go right ahead and say: "They voted for Obamacare!" No! The polls clearly show that they voted for Obama DESPITE Obamacare, not because of it! Now, onto the system itself: the system was designed to force compromise and to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority. You might not like it, but as you said: "tough shit". This is the system we've chosen, it's the system that allowed us to overtake Europe and the rest of the world, and it is the system that millions of our young men and women have bled and died for. It is the system that we went through a bloody Civil War over. It is the system that remains the oldest existing democracy, and it is the system that the American people want. If you like your European way better, than good for you. We don't want that shit here. Stop making this about race. It has no basis in history or reality. It's just a mean-spirited smear.
I'm not interpreting. I'm telling you. You're right that ACA wasn't Obamas only "advertisement", but it clearly was the biggest. If someone is in the election telling you "well, i will make everything better but i will also murder all your children", do you vote for him? You don't. ACA was a huge, integral part of the elections for both sides. One was for it, the other one against it. Now, you're right that Romney would've been an idiotic choice anyway after all the "escapades" and flipflopping, but it doesn't change the fact that one dude and his party won, the others didn't. The dude with ACA in his program won. By a quite huge margin. The dude against ACA lost. Not solely because of that, you're right there - but also.
I wont go into the fact that you don't know what the US citizens support because half of them seemingly (nice overview if you follow the whole thread) don't even know how their government is supposed to work (not pointing at sides, but there's two opinions here, both of which coming from american citizens), let alone what ACA does.
And about your system: if it was designed to force compromise, and no compromise can be made, without consequences except running the country down the drain, i don't know man. You didn't overtake Europe or the rest of the world, and even if you did, i'm pretty sure that had nothing to do with slavrey, natural ressources etc - and still are overtaken by china already. Looking at opinions throughout the internet btw, it seems to be the system republicans want. Not "the american people". But quite the hint that you think you're tough enough to speak for your whole country.
Btw: you kinda didn't the note with the black president. No worries, i explain. Dickmeasurement. Black. Get it?
|
Also, for sc2superfan claiming that the election wasn't about obamacare:
Voters believe, by a margin of 66-33, that the 2012 election “represented a referendum on moving forward with implementation of the 2010 health care law.” 24 percent strongly agreed with that sentence; 42 percent somewhat did; 17 percent somewhat disagreed; and 16 percent strongly disagreed.
|
On October 04 2013 08:02 Derez wrote:Also, for sc2superfan claiming that the election wasn't about obamacare: Show nested quote +Voters believe, by a margin of 66-33, that the 2012 election “represented a referendum on moving forward with implementation of the 2010 health care law.” 24 percent strongly agreed with that sentence; 42 percent somewhat did; 17 percent somewhat disagreed; and 16 percent strongly disagreed.
Okay, and where is that from?
edit:
Also, how does this negate the fact that the American people do not support Obamacare?
|
On October 04 2013 07:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Can't help but notice the diversity (or complete lack there of) of those negotiators. Like the diversity of the tea party. I think it shows Republicans real problem, that they really only appeal to people that look and think like the people in that room. People in that room represent a shrinking group. They are the ones who would say federal recognition of gay marriage was a "loss" like Superfan here. Or say "Somehow we survived a couple hundred prosperous years before this became the 'norm' we are forced to live with." and in the same breath claim they are being enslaved....(Oblivious to how billions of man hours of slaves were foundational to building this country, and they were thanked with whips and chains [actual slavery]). The Tea Party and Republicans have made it clear what they want, maybe on the debt ceiling Republicans will ask to repeal some pieces of the Civil Rights Act like Rand Paul wants... People like this are never going to win a Presidential election again. There just aren't enough bigots trapped in such a degenerative mindset left in the country to win (although still plenty to be a pain in the ass). This is racism/sexism on your part, and I think it needs to be pointed out and condemned. The rest of the post is pretty off-topic and is more of a smear than an actual argument. But to address a few things: 1) When did Rand Paul say that we should tie the debt-cieling to repeals on parts of the Civil Rights Act? 1A) What Civil Rights Act specifically? There are/were many. 1B) What parts of the Civil Rights act? 2) We have made it abundantly clear what we want. We want what the American people want: negotiation and compromise. 3) Perhaps you are right about future Presidential elections... but I doubt it. In fact, the smearing of everyone who is your political opponent as a bigot (a bigoted act in of itself) will do more to help us continue to win elections than anything else.
Projection much?
1&1A&B) I didn't literally mean he wants to tie it to the debt ceiling... But he does think that private businesses should be able to forbid people from entering their establishments based on race.
I was using it to point out the ridiculous nature of this republican position.
2) That is a total joke, you probably also agree with the sentiment expressed by a congressperson whose name slips my mind at the moment that "Obama has gotten use to getting his way" which can only be believed by idiots.
3) I sure hope I am. Not all of my political opponents are bigots, just the bigots. People like you so far as I can tell, you never did answer my question to you about welcoming homosexual couples to your church, or supporting them getting married in it.
Or how you feel about homosexual marriages receiving ACA benefits and responsibilities equal to heterosexual marriages?
Continue to win... Have you looked at the districts Tea Partiers were elected in?
"The members of the suicide caucus live in a different America from the one that most political commentators describe when talking about how the country is transforming. The average suicide-caucus district is seventy-five per cent white, while the average House district is sixty-three per cent white. Latinos make up an average of nine per cent of suicide-district residents, while the over-all average is seventeen per cent. The districts also have slightly lower levels of education (twenty-five per cent of the population in suicide districts have college degrees, while that number is twenty-nine per cent for the average district)."
Source
|
If you're interested in superfanguy's opinions on gay rights just go through his history in those threads. The guy spent many many hours justifying his bigotry with Christianity.
|
On October 04 2013 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 06:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 05:02 aristarchus wrote:On October 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 04:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:The pre 1995 shutdowns were radically different than the ones we have now. Please stop lying about them. We know the difference. Here is Stan Collender's explanation: "You haven't heard much about them [pre-1995 shutdowns] for several reasons: 1. Most of these lapses were short or happened over a weekend. They were barely noticed at the time and are not memorable now. 2. The lapses were not typically government-wide. Instead, they only happened to one or two agencies or departments. 3. In many ways most important, until Carter Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued memorandums in 1980 and 1981 that set up new rules and standards, agencies and departments that suffered an appropriations lapse were allowed to continue to operate as if there was no lapse at all." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2773/shutdown-different-most-others 1. This lapse is currently short. Its been a couple days. Whine about the end of the world when this passes the historical norm. 2-3. I mentioned seven different shut downs under Reagan. Guess what decade he was president in? Golly gee, the rules were already in effect. Functionally they were the same shut downs as we have now, the only distinction is that they were 'brief'...which isnt a distinction, because thus far this hasnt been long. You're right that a 2-day shutdown is very minor, but the point isn't just what has already happened - it's what is being threatened. The House Republicans aren't just saying they'll shut the government down for 2 days. They're saying they'll shut it down perpetually unless unrelated policy concessions are made. Of course what they're threatening is horrible - that's exactly the point. If it wasn't horrible, it wouldn't be a very big threat. I really don't understand this conservative attempt to make it seem like it's no big deal. If it's no big deal, they're certainly not going to get their way as a result. You don't understand the Republican position: We've passed multiple bills to fund the government. We want to fund the government. Obama refuses to compromise on Obamacare. The American people want compromise and negotiation, so why are Democrats unwilling to even come to the table? Can't help but notice the diversity (or complete lack there of) of those negotiators. Like the diversity of the tea party. I think it shows Republicans real problem, that they really only appeal to people that look and think like the people in that room. People in that room represent a shrinking group. They are the ones who would say federal recognition of gay marriage was a "loss" like Superfan here. Or say "Somehow we survived a couple hundred prosperous years before this became the 'norm' we are forced to live with." and in the same breath claim they are being enslaved....(Oblivious to how billions of man hours of slaves were foundational to building this country, and they were thanked with whips and chains [actual slavery]). The Tea Party and Republicans have made it clear what they want, maybe on the debt ceiling Republicans will ask to repeal some pieces of the Civil Rights Act like Rand Paul wants... People like this are never going to win a Presidential election again. There just aren't enough bigots trapped in such a degenerative mindset left in the country to win (although still plenty to be a pain in the ass). This is racism/sexism on your part, and I think it needs to be pointed out and condemned. The rest of the post is pretty off-topic and is more of a smear than an actual argument. But to address a few things: 1) When did Rand Paul say that we should tie the debt-cieling to repeals on parts of the Civil Rights Act? 1A) What Civil Rights Act specifically? There are/were many. 1B) What parts of the Civil Rights act? 2) We have made it abundantly clear what we want. We want what the American people want: negotiation and compromise. 3) Perhaps you are right about future Presidential elections... but I doubt it. In fact, the smearing of everyone who is your political opponent as a bigot (a bigoted act in of itself) will do more to help us continue to win elections than anything else. Projection much? 1&1A&B) I didn't literally mean he wants to tie it to the debt ceiling... But he does think that private businesses should be able to forbid people from entering their establishments based on race. I was using it to point out the ridiculous nature of this republican position.
So it's a completely made up smear? Good to know.
2) That is a total joke, you probably also agree with the sentiment expressed by a congressperson whose name slips my mind at the moment that "Obama has gotten use to getting his way" which can only be believed by idiots.
What part about it is a "joke"?
3) I sure hope I am. Not all of my political opponents are bigots, just the bigots. People like you so far as I can tell, you never did answer my question to you about welcoming homosexual couples to your church, or supporting them getting married in it.
I never answered your question mostly because I've had experience with you before, and am well aware of you being a racist and a bigot, not to mention reactionary and uninformed. To answer the (completely off-topic) question:
I would love to have a homosexual couple come to my church. I would absolutely welcome them and would leave my church in a heartbeat if one word was said about shunning them. God's love is open to all who seek it and it is not for me or for anyone else to turn away a fellow sinner from receiving God's blessing. There are MANY homosexuals who are a million times the better person and the most Christian person than I am. For me to shun them or to forbid them from coming to church would only result in them condemning me on the day of Judgement.
Would I support them being married in it? No. The Catholic Church has clear rules for what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. I do not support homosexual marriage and I would not support the Church changing their rules to allow it. That being said, if the Church owns a building that a homosexual couple wants to use in a marriage, then I would not have any opinion on whether or not they should be allowed to use said building or not. If I was in charge, any paying customer would get the same treatment, be they red, blue, white, black, brown, or homosexual. But that would be up to the Church. Some people have different moral standards for what constitutes "enabling sin" than I do.
Or how you feel about homosexual marriages receiving ACA benefits and responsibilities equal to heterosexual marriages?
It is probably the most minor criticism I could ever find about the law...
|
On October 04 2013 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:27 Derez wrote:On October 04 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:16 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 07:02 dabom88 wrote:
A negotiation is "We both want to get something done. If we disagree on how it should get done, then we'll each give up something on how it should be implemented so that it gets through in the end".
Both sides have said they want the government to remain open. It's not something either side has to give up anything to get done. But the Republicans are saying "We're not going to let the government open unless you give us a concession on a separate issue". That's not a negotiation. That's closer to extortion.
And caving to that extortion would set a horrible precedent of using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. No matter who is in power, neither party should be using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Other than money, yes. So you're saying that the Republicans are giving up more money to let the government open? So how much more money is the Republican Party paying than the Democrats if they open the government? No, that's not what I meant. If a clean CR goes through Reps will have to pay their share on the ACA which they don't want to do. The shutdown has nothing to do with ACA funds. They're already allocated for the next two years. It has everything to do with the ACA funds. Reps want to remove the funds.
They're still not giving anything up by raising the debt ceiling.
I'm just gonna post this quote that's been posted in the other topic, it explains it pretty well.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=19901532
On October 04 2013 08:03 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:58 DoubleReed wrote:On October 04 2013 01:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:34 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2013 00:15 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 04 2013 00:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 03 2013 23:52 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2013 23:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Congress has the power to "veto" any law or any line item in an existing law it doesn't like. This isn't a new power. Congress has the power to repeal a law, which is not what's happening. What's happening is that the house speaker and his party are using a separate issue to force a repeal on a law that your Congress doesn't want to repeal (if it did, it would already have). I think the veto analogy sounds quite apt. Congress also has power over funding. It can choose to fund or not fund any law it wants. So, you're saying that your Congress doesn't want to fund the ACA despite not wanting to repeal it? Interesting. But if that's the case, wouldn't it have been much simpler to pass a law defunding the ACA without having to shut down the government? The Senate wouldn't approve it, or if it did Obama would veto it. The only leverage House Republicans have comes from their power to approve of spending in general. So they've forced a government shutdown to circumvent the democratic process in order to repeal a law they don't like. Sounds very much like a veto. This is part of the democratic process. As the party controlling the House they have power over spending authorization. House Reps have forced a government shutdown by not passing a clean CR. Senate Dems have forced a shutdown by not passing a CR with ACA defunding provisions. lol yes we know its part of the democratic process Jonny. That's how it is happening. It sounds like you're operating under a Just World delusion at this point. "But the system of governance allows it and the system must be perfect with all rational actors! There is no other possibility! If it was hostage taking then the system wouldn't allow it! Therefore it isn't hostage taking!" You can use the phrase "hostage taking" if you want, but the political reality is that making demands and using what political leverage you have is pretty normal. If the shoes were on the other feet I'd be saying the same thing. Obama used the Bush tax cut expiration as leverage to raise taxes. No one wanted taxes to go up on the middle class and the poor and so Obama "held the country hostage" to get what he wanted. That's politics. Actually, the exact opposite happened, and it happened in 2011 already: it was the Republicans who "held the country hostage" by saying that they would not agree to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and the poor unless they were also extended for the rich. So good job, you just gave us another example of Republican hostage taking - talk about shooting yourself in the foot. With regards to the current situation, no, it is not "pretty normal" to do what the Republicans are doing, because usually what is used as leverage is "positive" changes in policies: "we will give you higher taxes on the rich if you give us entitlement reform". "We will give you votes for stimulus action if you give us votes for tax cuts". "We will give you votes to repeal the sequester if you give us votes on raising the retirement age". etc, etc. The point is that the baseline isn't supposed to be what is given to one of the two parties - they're both supposed to get something else than the already existing situation, and the incentive for negotiating is that both parties want to get away from the existing situation in particular ways, which means that (to simplify) successful negotiations will lead them both to gain something that will supplement the baseline/existing situation in the way that they want (they'll also "lose" something on the other front, but that loss is seen as less important to them than what they gained). In this case, however, the ACA is already the baseline. And what's more, the only incentive that Republicans have given to Democrats to reach a deal is the normal functioning of government. Democrats have absolutely nothing to gain that isn't already the baseline.
|
Superfan, don't want to be aggressive or anything, just want to clarify for myself one part of your argument. Do you believe power of the purse was designed to include government shutdowns in some way?
|
On October 04 2013 08:21 Doodsmack wrote:
Superfan, don't want to be aggressive or anything, just want to clarify for myself one part of your argument. Do you believe power of the purse was designed to include government shutdowns in some way?
Im ofc not him but yes he has said so many times in this thread already.
|
On October 04 2013 08:21 Doodsmack wrote:
Superfan, don't want to be aggressive or anything, just want to clarify for myself one part of your argument. Do you believe power of the purse was designed to include government shutdowns in some way?
The power of the purse is the power to withhold funding.
|
On October 04 2013 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:21 Doodsmack wrote:
Superfan, don't want to be aggressive or anything, just want to clarify for myself one part of your argument. Do you believe power of the purse was designed to include government shutdowns in some way? The power of the purse is the power to withhold funding.
How do you answer the counterargument that it was designed to control funding related to specific laws rather than the daily operation of the federal government as a whole?
|
ugh its a goddamn broken system. All anybody can do is point the finger at the other party. There is no working together for the betterment of everybody anymore. George Washington warned against the party system and we would do well to consider his words.
|
On October 04 2013 07:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:47 DamnCats wrote:
I was going to type out a longer post but no one would read it anyways so I'll just leave you all with this.
The fact that republicans still have support in this country makes me incredibly sad. It's a dead party. Sorry, I should say dying. Young people aren't joining Team GOP. Its actually considered one of the more dire issues among Reps right now -- "how do we increase support for the Republican party among the younger generations?"
I won't start playing taps just yet, but there's another reason why I think the GOP has a rough road ahead. As more businesses close shop in union/blue states and reopen in red, so too are people moving from those areas to take the jobs. There was the hilarious ad of Rick Perry addressing New Yorkers to move their businesses there, for example. Their policies are self destructive in an ironic way, but I think we'll start to see some red turning purple (as it did in VA right before I left the state) unless they can get even more creative with gerrymandering. :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
