|
On October 04 2013 06:50 zdfgucker wrote:Show nested quote +3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. And if you delay it by 1 year long enough, you guys can stop it at some point in the future because it never was popular enough to get into effect or some similar crappy reason. Republicans should stop being childish and just accept their defeat. If you can't accept that your democratically elected government passed a bill even though you tried stopping it countless times and look for any reason to abolish it still, maybe democracy isn't the right thing for you. Spending is the purview of the house, a house which is composed in the majority, of Republicans, who were elected Democratically. If theres anyone whos ignoring the consequence of elections and the attendant political responsibilities, its democrats refusing to negotiate with the house.
|
On October 04 2013 08:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: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?
I would answer by saying precedent has shown that shutting down the government as a whole is both constitutional and sometimes advisable.
|
On October 04 2013 08:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 06:50 zdfgucker wrote:3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. And if you delay it by 1 year long enough, you guys can stop it at some point in the future because it never was popular enough to get into effect or some similar crappy reason. Republicans should stop being childish and just accept their defeat. If you can't accept that your democratically elected government passed a bill even though you tried stopping it countless times and look for any reason to abolish it still, maybe democracy isn't the right thing for you. Spending is the purview of the house, a house which is composed in the majority, of Republicans, who were elected Democratically. If theres anyone whos ignoring the consequence of elections and the attendant political responsibilities, its democrats refusing to negotiate with the house.
Which is why, if there was a vote on a clean cr right now, it would pass?
|
On October 04 2013 08:31 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:50 zdfgucker wrote:3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. And if you delay it by 1 year long enough, you guys can stop it at some point in the future because it never was popular enough to get into effect or some similar crappy reason. Republicans should stop being childish and just accept their defeat. If you can't accept that your democratically elected government passed a bill even though you tried stopping it countless times and look for any reason to abolish it still, maybe democracy isn't the right thing for you. Spending is the purview of the house, a house which is composed in the majority, of Republicans, who were elected Democratically. If theres anyone whos ignoring the consequence of elections and the attendant political responsibilities, its democrats refusing to negotiate with the house. Which is why, if there was a vote on a clean cr right now, it would pass? No it wouldnt. Even if there are enough moderate Republicans who like the idea, to join with Democrats, they would never do it due to political pressure. Hell, it wouldnt even be brought up unless a majority of the majority backed the idea. This is how American politics function, and its how its functioned for all of our life times.
|
On October 04 2013 08:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? ![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1472943.1380653441!/img/httpImage/image.jpg-large_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/cantor.jpg-large) 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. Show nested quote +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"? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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...
1) I guess I could of made it more clear but pretty sure the non-zealots got it.
2) The idea that Republicans are the ones who want to negotiate.
3) Oh yeah the Catholic Church, I forgot they only condone homosexuality in the context of pedophile priests(it's not like they marry the little boys because THAT would be unacceptable).....
Minor criticism, so that means you're against it?
I pity you Superfan...
|
On October 04 2013 08:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:26 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2013 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I would answer by saying precedent has shown that shutting down the government as a whole is both constitutional and sometimes advisable.
Well precedent is a very different thing than the original design of the system. It seems to me if it was the original design of the system, it would have come about before the 1970s. And I would also question where we draw the line as to "sometimes advisable". If the precedent is set and Democrats capitulate, what's to stop either party from doing this whenever they want?
Also the demand to delay Obamacare, or delay the individual mandate, is not even related to funding, it's a specific policy demand. It seems to be a perversion of power of the purse to withhold funding for the daily operation of random federal agencies in order to effect change in an unrelated law.
|
On October 01 2013 21:25 Clarity_nl wrote:
I think you are severely underestimating how much 2% of certain branches of government' budget is.
I don't think you are taking into consideration just how many 2%'s are spent on ludicrous shit that is not only unnecessary, but also harmful, illegal, and destructive to the welfare of the US as a country and as a people.
Government spending needs to be cut, however the people in charge are fucking us on purpose.
It's kind of common knowledge...
As for this little predicament, it's not like this shutdown is going to have any serious effects.
It will hurt people with immediate short term effects, but I believe the long term effects are highly over anticipated.
|
On October 04 2013 08:33 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 08:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:50 zdfgucker wrote:3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. And if you delay it by 1 year long enough, you guys can stop it at some point in the future because it never was popular enough to get into effect or some similar crappy reason. Republicans should stop being childish and just accept their defeat. If you can't accept that your democratically elected government passed a bill even though you tried stopping it countless times and look for any reason to abolish it still, maybe democracy isn't the right thing for you. Spending is the purview of the house, a house which is composed in the majority, of Republicans, who were elected Democratically. If theres anyone whos ignoring the consequence of elections and the attendant political responsibilities, its democrats refusing to negotiate with the house. Which is why, if there was a vote on a clean cr right now, it would pass? No it wouldnt. Even if there are enough moderate Republicans who like the idea, to join with Democrats, they would never do it due to political pressure. Hell, it wouldnt even be brought up unless a majority of the majority backed the idea. This is how American politics function, and its how its functioned for all of our life times.
Except, you know, that enough Republicans have publicly stated that they would vote for the CR for us to know it would pass if brought to a vote.
|
On October 04 2013 08:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:33 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 08:31 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 04 2013 08:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On October 04 2013 06:50 zdfgucker wrote:3. Republicans didn't say they would only negotiate a complete removal of the bill. They moved down to a one-year delay. And if you delay it by 1 year long enough, you guys can stop it at some point in the future because it never was popular enough to get into effect or some similar crappy reason. Republicans should stop being childish and just accept their defeat. If you can't accept that your democratically elected government passed a bill even though you tried stopping it countless times and look for any reason to abolish it still, maybe democracy isn't the right thing for you. Spending is the purview of the house, a house which is composed in the majority, of Republicans, who were elected Democratically. If theres anyone whos ignoring the consequence of elections and the attendant political responsibilities, its democrats refusing to negotiate with the house. Which is why, if there was a vote on a clean cr right now, it would pass? No it wouldnt. Even if there are enough moderate Republicans who like the idea, to join with Democrats, they would never do it due to political pressure. Hell, it wouldnt even be brought up unless a majority of the majority backed the idea. This is how American politics function, and its how its functioned for all of our life times. Except, you know, that enough Republicans have publicly stated that they would vote for the CR for us to know it would pass if brought to a vote. Nothing you said contradicted what I said. Use your brain before you type.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 04 2013 08:37 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 08:26 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2013 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I would answer by saying precedent has shown that shutting down the government as a whole is both constitutional and sometimes advisable. Well precedent is a very different thing than the original design of the system. It seems to me if it was the original design of the system, it would have come about before the 1970s. And I would also question where we draw the line as to "sometimes advisable". If the precedent is set and Democrats capitulate, what's to stop either party from doing this whenever they want?
The system itself was designed in such a way as to allow this action to occur. The legal requirement for government employees to not work while there is no funding is relatively modern; however, the fact is that the House has always had the power to control appropriations.
Democrats have already presided over the majority of the shutdowns that have occurred since 1976. What stops them from doing it whenever they want is exactly what stops Republicans from doing it "whenever they want."
Nothing but public opinion and a careful cost-benefit analysis. Government shutdowns will always be unpopular moves. I invite the Democrats to fully use their power when they have the House, but caution them to be careful in doing so, and to only do so if they are fully ready for the political backlash that will necessarily occur.
as for the "unrelated point":
Obama and his apologists appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that the House’s insistence on extracting concessions is inappropriate because its demands are somehow “unrelated” to the budget process. Given that nothing in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers hints at this, the claim is peculiar on its face. Nevertheless, let’s pretend for the sake of argument that it’s true. The question then must be, “Does Obamacare really have ‘nothing to do with the budget’(as President Obama managed to claim with a straight face in a speech last week)?”
Hardly. Obamacare is an allegedly “deficit-reducing” measure that was passed via the budget-reconciliation process, was rewritten by the Supreme Court as a tax, and will increase the federal budget by up to 10 percent. The initial House plan here, remember, was not to repeal, but to defund the law — a clear-cut budgetary project if anything is.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1
|
From Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.:
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-stands-firm-against-funding-bill-will-link-to-debt-ceiling-fight/article/2536750
Its as if they see an act of disagreement as a disrespect to themselves. They don't grasp the idea that competing ideas can both be legitimate. Its like they see themselves as the "real government", and democrats are just an annoyance that is getting in the way and pretending to be equals to the republican party. They have no sense of the fact that they are simply one of the two dominant philosophies in the country. And I think that is a big reason why after so long of being "disrespected", they have decided enough is enough and that its time to bring this show to a halt until they are properly respected as the sole governing party of this country.
mod edit: fixed url
|
Just curious if ACA supporters accepted this assessment would the opponents of the ACA do the same here on TL?
PPACA Myths
|
On October 04 2013 08:38 Shinta) wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 21:25 Clarity_nl wrote:
I think you are severely underestimating how much 2% of certain branches of government' budget is. I don't think you are taking into consideration just how many 2%'s are spent on ludicrous shit that is not only unnecessary, but also harmful, illegal, and destructive to the welfare of the US as a country and as a people. Government spending needs to be cut, however the people in charge are fucking us on purpose. It's kind of common knowledge... As for this little predicament, it's not like this shutdown is going to have any serious effects. It will hurt people with immediate short term effects, but I believe the long term effects are highly over anticipated.
harmful, illegal and destructive?
Care to back that up with something?
|
On October 04 2013 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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... 2) The idea that Republicans are the ones who want to negotiate. 3) Oh yeah the Catholic Church, I forgot they only condone homosexuality in the context of pedophile priests(it's not like they marry the little boys because THAT would be unacceptable)..... Minor criticism, so that means you're against it? I pity you Superfan...
The Republicans have asked for negotiation.
Is this anything but a smear? I mean, was there any point to asking about my church and my opinions on homosexuality other than to smear me, first by implying that I hate homosexuals, and then by implying that I support pedophiles? This is why I didn't engage with you in the first place, because you are just a mean-spirited bigot who refuses to debate respectfully. There are dozens of liberal posters on this site who I completely disagree with but respect because they offer up actual debate. You are one of the few who does nothing but insult and smear.
I care so little about it that I'm not even sure you could say that I'm against it.
I really don't need your pity, or your petty insults. Come back when you've got something to say that isn't filled with vitriol.
|
United States22883 Posts
TL Gold is a beautiful thing.
|
On October 04 2013 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2013 08:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 08:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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... 2) The idea that Republicans are the ones who want to negotiate. 3) Oh yeah the Catholic Church, I forgot they only condone homosexuality in the context of pedophile priests(it's not like they marry the little boys because THAT would be unacceptable)..... Minor criticism, so that means you're against it? I pity you Superfan... The Republicans have asked for negotiation. Is this anything but a smear? I mean, was there any point to asking about my church and my opinions on homosexuality other than to smear me, first by implying that I hate homosexuals, and then by implying that I support pedophiles? This is why I didn't engage with you in the first place, because you are just a mean-spirited bigot who refuses to debate respectfully. There are dozens of liberal posters on this site who I completely disagree with but respect because they offer up actual debate. You are one of the few who does nothing but insult and smear. I care so little about it that I'm not even sure you could say that I'm against it. I really don't need your pity, or your petty insults. Come back when you've got something to say that isn't filled with vitriol.
They have not asked for negotiation. They have stated: "delay this law that has already passed for another year or we will not give the government a budget." That is not negotiating, that is threatening. And any moron can see that if the demoncrats cave now they will just do the same thing next year. I honestly shouldn't be feeding trolls like you in the first place though.
|
On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing.
And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why?
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why?
Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying.
I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back.
|
On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back.
And what exactly does TL Gold do to solve this? Tell me more about this amazing product called TL Gold, Jibba!
|
On October 04 2013 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:37 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2013 08:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 08:26 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2013 08:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I would answer by saying precedent has shown that shutting down the government as a whole is both constitutional and sometimes advisable. Well precedent is a very different thing than the original design of the system. It seems to me if it was the original design of the system, it would have come about before the 1970s. And I would also question where we draw the line as to "sometimes advisable". If the precedent is set and Democrats capitulate, what's to stop either party from doing this whenever they want? The system itself was designed in such a way as to allow this action to occur. The legal requirement for government employees to not work while there is no funding is relatively modern; however, the fact is that the House has always had the power to control appropriations. Democrats have already presided over the majority of the shutdowns that have occurred since 1976. What stops them from doing it whenever they want is exactly what stops Republicans from doing it "whenever they want." Nothing but public opinion and a careful cost-benefit analysis. Government shutdowns will always be unpopular moves. I invite the Democrats to fully use their power when they have the House, but caution them to be careful in doing so, and to only do so if they are fully ready for the political backlash that will necessarily occur. as for the "unrelated point": Show nested quote +Obama and his apologists appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that the House’s insistence on extracting concessions is inappropriate because its demands are somehow “unrelated” to the budget process. Given that nothing in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers hints at this, the claim is peculiar on its face. Nevertheless, let’s pretend for the sake of argument that it’s true. The question then must be, “Does Obamacare really have ‘nothing to do with the budget’(as President Obama managed to claim with a straight face in a speech last week)?”
Hardly. Obamacare is an allegedly “deficit-reducing” measure that was passed via the budget-reconciliation process, was rewritten by the Supreme Court as a tax, and will increase the federal budget by up to 10 percent. The initial House plan here, remember, was not to repeal, but to defund the law — a clear-cut budgetary project if anything is. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1
Well due to the relatively modern legal requirement which created the concept of an actual shutdown, extracting policy concessions in exchange for daily operation of government is also relatively modern. So in reality the system was not designed for an actual shutdown to be used as a checks and balances tool.
I really have to doubt the idea that Republicans initiated this standoff after a careful cost-benefit analysis. They initiated due to a minority faction within the party seeking to appeal to their far right constituents. There's a reason party leadership including Boehner was against this before they got a letter from the 80 tea party members. How silly is that that John Boehner spoke out against this tactic and agreed with my position in this argument we're having in this thread?
I think the precedent set by an attempt to defund such major legislation, and in fact signature legislation that's already been upheld by the Supreme Court, is a new precedent over and above what has come before.
And the healthcare law is unrelated to the shutdown in that the shutdown is targeted at unrelated federal agencies. Why is NASA being shut down to force Obamacare changes? It's not logical or some grand wise decision on the part of the party.
My prediction is that Republicans will capitulate under public opinion pressure. And Hilary will destroy in 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
