|
On October 04 2013 09:19 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
They have openly asked for negotiation, set up meetings to negotiate, and Obama has openly said that he won't negotiate. Republicans have offered a bunch of different proposals, have tried to get funding to some of the services that people need, and are working to get Democrats to come to the table. Hell, Reid's response to the Republicans trying to fund NIH was:
"Why would we want to do that?"
He was asked if he would help children with cancer and he says: why would I want to do that?
|
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.
It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons.
Seriously, have more respect for your position.
|
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.
2) After spending the last five years fighting every possible thing he has done even things as small as basic cabinet appointments NOW after the shutdown Republicans want to "negotiate" which means implement the republican agenda or we'll destroy the country . Again there is no way a reasonable person can look at the last 5 years and say the Republicans are the ones who want to negotiate/compromise. Sure they did a photo-op but they know their position is a non-starter from the get go.
And if you want to pretend that these piece meal funding calls are anything more than a political work around to fund only the parts of government they like and none that they don't you're being foolish.
3)The point of asking was so I could understand you better.
If you are going to use the Catholic Church to justify your view on homosexuality I'm going to point out that THEY DO CONDONE IT when it's priests raping little boys. So essentially if that's your perspective you are totally unreasonable, and it helps me understand why you say what you do.
Homosexual marriage is unacceptable, but Homosexual child rape is... According to the Catholic Church you follow.
Obama doesn't want to negotiate, but Republicans do... According to the political party you follow.
So no. The point was not to smear you, but to understand how your thinking works, and now we know.
|
On October 04 2013 09:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:19 hunts wrote:On October 04 2013 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. They have openly asked for negotiation, set up meetings to negotiate, and Obama has openly said that he won't negotiate. Republicans have offered a bunch of different proposals, have tried to get funding to some of the services that people need, and are working to get Democrats to come to the table. Hell, Reid's response to the Republicans trying to fund NIH was: "Why would we want to do that?" He was asked if he would help children with cancer and he says: why would I want to do that?
Democrats hate children with cancer, heard it here first.
On a serious note: Everyone has already explained to you that there is no debating. The bill passed into law.
|
On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing.
What is it? Just a bunch of intelligent and interesting discussion centered around speculating about what the future holds rather than spewing out stupid drivel and nonsense? Sounds boring! Who doesn't enjoy a good laugh or two from the likes of certain posters here outside of TL Gold that believe arguing the facepalm-worthy Fox News buzzpoints convinces reasonable, educated, and intelligent people of anything other than to steer clear of such people?
|
On October 04 2013 09:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:19 hunts wrote:On October 04 2013 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. They have openly asked for negotiation, set up meetings to negotiate, and Obama has openly said that he won't negotiate. Republicans have offered a bunch of different proposals, have tried to get funding to some of the services that people need, and are working to get Democrats to come to the table. Hell, Reid's response to the Republicans trying to fund NIH was: "Why would we want to do that?" He was asked if he would help children with cancer and he says: why would I want to do that?
Rofl. Good one.
So the bank robbers ask for an armored car and a plane to get them into North Korea, where they reside, and they PROMISE to talk about giving the money back once they get there. Really, they do!
The man robbing the store says he'll stop if the police officer gives him his service pistol.
The man raping your daughter promises he'll stop if you just go tie yourself up in the bedroom for 20 minutes.
GOOD ANALOGY BRO
|
On October 04 2013 09:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:19 hunts wrote:On October 04 2013 09:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. He was asked if he would help children with cancer and he says: why would I want to do that?
lol
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position.
It's just a lack of respect for you.
And don't view me as a mod, just a curmudgeon.
|
On October 04 2013 09:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. It's just a lack of respect for you. And don't view me as a mod, just a curmudgeon.
What about a curmodgeon?
|
On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position.
No, it's more the overwhelming cognitive dissonance which you radiate in the form of desperate attempts to salvage a burning ship that tend to infuriate even the most moderate of posters.
A summary:
1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...)
2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems.
3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable.
Your weak attempts to rationalize the situation contradict each other. That's why even the mods are having trouble.
I mean I respect your general conservative opinion, but right now you're trying way too hard to be a freeper or zerohedge junkie.
|
On October 04 2013 09:47 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:46 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. It's just a lack of respect for you. And don't view me as a mod, just a curmudgeon. What about a curmodgeon?
I declare this thread won, please move along folks.
It sounds like superfan has to write in political style rhetoric no matter what considering the post he just wrote, lol.
I'm incredibly disappointed with both sides of the argument, I used to think that there were still semi intelligent people in the U.S. government but in the case of the Senate it really is just a horrible amount of power-mongering incumbents that can't ever be gotten rid of in their districts because no one can contest them -.-
|
On October 04 2013 09:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote: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": 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.
That's a good point, but it still stands that they did design the system so that it was the House who controls whether or not funding is allowed. Them having the power to cut off funding is a power that was originally intended.
Why do you assume that Tea Party Republicans haven't done a cost-benefit analysis of this? They've obviously come to different conclusions than you, but it would be wrong to think that they believe this will hurt them in the long run. They believe that the possible benefit outweighs the risk, and history has given them some support for this position: Clinton was close to caving during the shutdown of 1995. Boehner is against this, not on principle, but on the idea that a government shutdown will hurt the party's chances in the 2014 elections. The problem here is that the Republican party is relatively fractured: Tea Party conservatives are in the process of taking power, and the establishment Republicans are fighting against that. The infighting isn't so much about political ideals (both sides oppose Obamacare and Obama's agenda in general) but in how to go about doing it. Tea Party conservatives want us to fight it tooth and nail whenever we get the chance, establishment Republicans want to play the political game and try the old-fashioned method of growing support and waiting on the results of the election.
It is somewhat unprecedented, but every new strategy is. Being unprecedented doesn't necessarily make something unwise.
The ones who are keeping NASA and the like from being funded are the Democrats, who refuse to pass the bills the Republicans have passed to fund those projects. Democrats are arguing that it would be politically bad for them to pass those bills and fund those agencies. They are betting on the chance that if they make the shutdown hurt a lot of people than the Republicans will take the blame for hurting those people. Let's do away with the rhetoric for a second and admit that both sides are playing politics here.
I really hope you aren't right, but I will agree that if Republicans cave into the pressure from the media, than they will have a very slim chance of taking either of the next two elections.
|
Here's some stuff for our right wing TLers to read.
If you think it's the Democrats who are creating this shutdown, read this:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/letter.jpeg
That is a letter signed by GOP House members over a month ago saying that they want to do this to stop Obamacare.
Here's a video of a tea party congressman insulting a park ranger who is at work without being paid, telling her she should be ashamed that the parks are closed. It's pretty amazing: http://gawker.com/gop-congressman-makes-park-ranger-apologize-for-shutdow-1440577868/1440651225/@jesusdiaz
Here is an article from FOX NEWS about how good Obamacare is: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/
And to the people who are saying that the Democrats are not "negotiating", that is really just stupid. This is what has happened so far.
The house sent a budget to the senate that would defund Obamacare.
The senate responded by saying the Obamacare defunding provisions needed to be removed. That is called negotiating. That is what negotiating is.
The House however, has ignored this repeatedly. That is not negotiating.
Funding bills originate in the House. It is the Houses job to suggest and pass a budget first. It is the Senates job to ratify and approve it. The Senate has said what they want changed in the Houses budgets and the House, rather than trying to come to a compromise that both parties can agree on, has ignored them. So how are the Democrats not negotiating?
It really depresses me to see people on TL, who I assume were actually educated, reasonable people, trying to defend the tea party here. Reading this thread just makes me sad. It's not even the entire Republican party holding the country hostage here, it is a select minority of Republicans.
Luckily the Democrats only need about 20 House Republicans to change their minds in order to stop this, and according to counts already have 17 or so. I am very hopeful that in a few days the moderates in the Republican party will see the light and stop this before it goes much farther.
|
On October 04 2013 09:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. It's just a lack of respect for you. And don't view me as a mod, just a curmudgeon.
Well, that's kind of sad. I respect you.
Then don't be a mod.
|
That's literally the most retarded thing i've ever seen done by a politician. Then again, tea party. I kinda get the feeling that sanity isn't a musthave there.
|
On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...)
Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable.
As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics.
The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage.
2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems.
I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line.
3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable.
No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though.
And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare?
|
On October 04 2013 10:07 m4inbrain wrote: That's literally the most retarded thing i've ever seen done by a politician. Then again, tea party. I kinda get the feeling that sanity isn't a musthave there.
Yeah I've got to agree that that guy is way out of line there.
|
On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote: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. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. Show nested quote +2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. Show nested quote +3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare?
The terms offered by the republican house are binary:
0 : Defund obamacare
1 : Have no government funding bill
The 'negotiations' by the republican party have been:
0 : Defund obamacare and have a government funding bill (again giving up all your leverage)
or
1: Have no government funding bill.
So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed.
|
On October 04 2013 09:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 09:30 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2013 08:50 sc2superfan101 wrote: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": 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. That's a good point, but it still stands that they did design the system so that it was the House who controls whether or not funding is allowed. Them having the power to cut off funding is a power that was originally intended. The ones who are keeping NASA and the like from being funded are the Democrats, who refuse to pass the bills the Republicans have passed to fund those projects. Democrats are arguing that it would be politically bad for them to pass those bills and fund those agencies. They are betting on the chance that if they make the shutdown hurt a lot of people than the Republicans will take the blame for hurting those people. Let's do away with the rhetoric for a second and admit that both sides are playing politics here. I really hope you aren't right, but I will agree that if Republicans cave into the pressure from the media, than they will have a very slim chance of taking either of the next two elections.
Not a single informed and reasonable person is buying your assertion that Republicans are the ones who negotiate/compromise for the reasons I listed before, and countless others.
|
On October 04 2013 08:49 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:43 Nevuk wrote: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
It's literally just Boehner preventing it at this point. Procedurally he can be run around on the 2nd or 4th mondays of a month if 18 Republicans join with the Democrats in bringing the bill to a vote (this is a different number than the number needed to actually pass, which for bizarre reasons is 1 less than the number to bring the bill to a vote).
A list of the Republicans who have publicly stated they are willing to vote for a CR (there are 20 and only 17 are required to pass the bill) -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/house-republicans-clean-cr_n_4024755.html?1380739351
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
