|
On October 08 2013 19:56 Restrider wrote:
Since I am not a US citizen, my understanding regarding US internal politics is only superficial. Although I am familiar with the basic conflict, I would like to hear from people with more insight than me, if the US politicians - I am not going to point fingers, although I am of the opinion that the Republicans being hijacked by some right-wing radicals is something I cannot really fathom - are self-destructive and politically and economically suicidal enough to let this shut down turn into bankruptcy.
Or can we expect Boehner and/or Obama to give in in some way or another?
It's all political gamesmanship on both sides. Republicans control 1 of the two legislative bodies in the US government (house of Representatives). Democrats control the other legislative body (Senate) and the presidency. Each side can basically block whatever the other side wants to do. This divided setup gives republicans special leverage to push their agenda which they normally won't have because democrats will block it on their end. For the past two years republicans used their leverage on things such as appropriations and the debt ceiling to extract concessions from the democrats. This year the democrats declared they weren't negotiating, and basically both sides are playing hot potato and passing appropriation bills that are getting ignored by the other side. All the while they are fighting a proxy war through the media trying to pin blame on the other guys.
|
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further to say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinarily computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played.
|
On October 08 2013 22:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinary computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you try again without the thesaurus.
|
On October 08 2013 10:58 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 08:15 Shiori wrote:On October 08 2013 05:30 packrat386 wrote:On October 08 2013 05:17 Shiori wrote:Are you suggesting that the military's sole purpose is offensive? Be serious. Sole practice purpose? Basically, yes. America hasn't had anything even resembling a threat to their actual country in ages. What's more, maintaining an "active" military seems pretty unnecessary in peacetime, unless one is expecting to be attacked sooner or later. Either way, whatever minimal military would exist if one accepts the argument that one is required would be nothing like the one which presently exists. If you think that deterrence isn't a thing then you're wrong. Having our active military is what gives us influence in areas outside our own borders to protect american interests. Farvacola and sam!zdat might come tell you that doing so is a bad thing, but the US military absolutely serves a purpose. Okay, yes, it tautologically serves whatever purpose it is employed for. But if influencing areas outside one's borders and trying to "protect american interests" (whatever that means) is bad (and it is, at least in the sense one means when talking about the US military) then this isn't exactly a shining example of why militaries get a free pass while everything else gets cut (which was the original question). Dude, why do you think the Strait of Hormuz is still open. Iranian goodwill toward the foreign infidels or the 5th US fleet?
Yes, because Iran just woke up one morning and decided "you know, fuck those American guys; let's close the Strait!" Come on.
Who do you think is keeping North Korea out of South Korea
This is probably the only one of the examples you mentioned that's actually true, and even then, I think we can all agree that most of NK's posturing is just that: posturing. As ideological as the NK leadership is, their goal is a united Korea (except run by them, obviously) and they're not going to get that by nuking Seoul.
and China out of Taiwan?
China isn't out of Taiwan. Taiwan is in China as far as the PRC is concerned. They're not going to invade Taiwan unless Taiwan actually tries to secede in a direct, deliberate fashion. And what this has to do with the US military is beyond me. China isn't invading Taiwan because it's not worth their time. If they really, really wanted to, they could take it no problem; the US might make it a little more difficult for them, but it's unlikely they'd be able to actually defend Taiwan. China isn't some terribly equipped Middle Eastern nation with a population of less than 10% of America. I'm not saying China could win an all-out war with the US (because they probably couldn't, although I don't really want to find out) but I am saying that they wouldn't roll over and die, and they certainly have enough nationalism to disdain ceasefires.
I'm not saying every single thing that the US military does is worthwhile or good,
Well, that's a relief.
but there are a lot of global forces that run counter to US interests in the most direct sense possible,
It depends what you mean by US interests. Yes, there are nations that actually want to destroy the US, but none of them are a threat in any meaningful sense. China, which is probably the only "suspicious" nation that could do any real damage to the US, isn't even really an enemy or interested in being an enemy. The real reason that the US has problems with China is that China is pretty strong in terms of the global economy, and because China politically rejects American capitalism. America's foreign policy is still, in many senses, a product of the Cold War. The fact that China is (in some weird, twisted sense, anyway) communist founds a lot of America's worry/prejudice against them.
you need a military that can act as a deterrent to prevent those things from happening.
By deterrent, you mean that the US will use its military might to bully smaller nations in order to protect its "interests," even when pretty much all of those interests (i.e. the ones that the military has actively committed to in recent memory) have nothing to do with the safety of the American people. In some cases (Israel, anyone?) it's just blatant favouritism. I mean, as much as we can rail against the Iranians for hating "infidels," the US doesn't exactly paint Israel's military opponents as any better, which is weird, given that basically everyone involved in that conflict is pretty obviously complicit in some awful actions. That's a different topic, though.
The only alternative is for the US to step down from global power, which is largely considered to be a bad idea given the detrimental affects of multipolarity.
Yeah, because the history of unipolarity is spotless, isn't it? I mean, even as someone who loves ancient history, I wouldn't argue that the subjugation of foreigners by the Romans, Byzantines, Mongols, etc., was anything but immoral. It doesn't really matter if it modernized "barbarian" societies, either. Now, America is obviously a hell of a lot less imperialistic than the aforementioned, but the idea is similar. It sometimes seems as if the US wants to spread the American "way of life" to the far reaches of the world by clandestine or military action. It's like, you know, they had a sorta decent excuse during the Cold War (in that the American brand was better than the Soviet brand of ideology, at least) that they just kept running with afterwards. At the very least, the US could respect the sovereignty/political autonomy of other nations, at least insofar as they do not pose a threat to the US.
lastly on the issue of funding, that shit aint cheap.
Who exactly do you imagine you're going to be fighting? The entire rest of the world combined? Take a look at US military spending compared to other countries in the world. It's not even close. It's not even close to close. The US is miles and miles and miles and miles ahead.
You could arguably afford to spend a bit less if you shifted the US strategy to one of Offshore Balancing as opposed to boots on the ground, but even in that case you need to be spending the kind of cash to maintain a sizable technological advantage over you opponents.
Again, what opponents? None of them are anywhere near America's level of military technology, and none of them are likely to get there anytime soon. The only nation I can think of which could be conceived as having some sophisticated tech. would be China, but then, why is China an "opponent" of America? China doesn't really seem to care much about what North America wants to do in North America. They seem to care mostly about China. As big of a deal as NK/SK is, China's support for NK is pretty exaggerated these days, and it's still not enough of a reason for the US to consider China an actual "opponent," as you stated.
To me, this is why the US runs into so many problems in international politics: they tend to see anyone remotely powerful as an opponent.
Given the fact that military strength is one way in the which US hegemony positively impacts the world,
Hegemony is fundamentally immoral in that it abrogates the freedoms of human beings who have absolutely no connection the US government or its actions. Hegemony's "positive" impacts on the world are incidental; they could just as easily be negative impacts, and, throughout the course of history, often have been.
I see no reason to let it atrophy.
When was the last time the US actually needed to use a large/majority part of their massive military complex? Yes, they've fought some wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there was the Gulf war before that, but really, none of these have ever been contests in any real sense. The US could have spent a 10th of what it does on military spending and it wouldn't have affected their ability to win a war against Iraq in the slightest. I guess what I'm saying is: where is this threat of all-out, large-scale war? The Cold War is over. WWII was in the 40's. There isn't really any reason for the US to behave as if war is imminent, because no war of the magnitude they appear to be preparing for is even conceivable right now.
On October 08 2013 22:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinarily computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played.
You have a nice style, but there are about three sentences which are too purple, and that kinda ruins the effect a bit. Remember, even Nabokov used "said" when it was the word to use!
|
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you try again without the thesaurus.
Sure: I said that the real game is being played by the people.
|
On October 08 2013 22:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinarily computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played.
Great post, actually. I really enjoyed reading it and totally agree with with it.
I also think that the sentence in bold in particular is not getting nearly enough honest discussion.
|
On October 08 2013 22:47 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 22:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinarily computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played. Great post, actually. I really enjoyed reading it and totally agree with with it. I also think that the sentence in bold in particular is not getting nearly enough honest discussion.
While there's a bit of truth behind it, I would argue that it's an argument that can be conveniently made to detract from the topic in almost any situation. Got a political conflict? Blame the game and not the players.
But the players, in this case, largely make the rules, and play the game with boundaries which are sometimes rather loose. You can't detract the blame from the republicans simply by saying the game is flawed (which is what he's trying to do.) Moreover, the game allows everyone to play dirty - but they don't have to. They do, and the game encourages them to... but sometimes, you gotta know where to stop. And that's why it's fair to blame the player who pushed his luck and went from playing dirty to just outright being a dick.
|
On October 08 2013 22:47 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 22:28 MoltkeWarding wrote:
But it is worse than that. Take this thread as a curious investigation into the cradles of human nature. The issues at stake are on a technocratic scale. The media has exaggerated it out of self-interest, but leave it to the public to stretch the exaggerations to empyrean scales. Now the duel has ascended to manichean heights. By the imagination we stretch the distance between the factions, that the anticipated clash may meet with greater violence. Some imagine vaguely that we are fighting an issue which weighs material goods against the sanctity of human life. Yet others will go further say that this is a war waged against their favourite human vice, which in the technocratic theology is ordinarily computed to be greed (in reality, the most feeble sin!) Yet others will say what seems to be the thing to say, so long as the masters of their thought procure their respectability by the banner of a favoured faction. Such is the marvelous economy of our minds, that opinions necessarily purchase their passions by hollowing out their substance. Those who take a grounded study of the argument may not discover the minutiae to be worthy of their continued emotional exertions. Like Victor Frankenstein, such a one may find along his path to concrete knowledge, that he shall be "required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth."
Political gamesmanship on both sides? Let us not pretend that this forum is not populated by gamers! Our only error here, is that we deliberately use the force of abstract intelligence to magnify the sensations of partisanship, and thereby increase our own mental pleasures and hatreds, all the while we are heaping blame on those Representatives who are failing to achieve compromise. Let it never be said that the Representatives do not represent the people! A more honest criticism would be aimed at the low level at which the game is being played. Great post, actually. I really enjoyed reading it and totally agree with with it. I also think that the sentence in bold in particular is not getting nearly enough honest discussion.
There was a bit on NPR this morning about game theory and the government shutdown. Turns out the game they're playing is Chicken.
|
You have a nice style, but there are about three sentences which are too purple, and that kinda ruins the effect a bit. Remember, even Nabokov used "said" when it was the word to use!
The extra exclamation marks are only made in compensation. I have made it my personal duty to not bore this forum with superfluous thinking. Unfortunately, irony is always the easiest path to brevity, and I am no better than those who posted before me.
|
On October 08 2013 16:46 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:22 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 15:13 micronesia wrote:On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that. Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture. No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested. Well, yeah, I partially agree now. However is wackiness reason enough for name calling? I somehow thought these forums had a different policy... You're right having an opinion that is a bit wacky isn't reason enough for some one to start name calling. Mostly because there is never a good reason for name calling(because it isn't productive).People are resorting to it out of frustration and I would ask that you try to understand their frustrations before discarding their opinions. Why you should do this this should be self evident in my opinion so I'm going to assume you agree but if you don't agree with me that it's self evident say so and I'll post why I believe that is so. All that said the problem really is that people are trying to justify what the republicans are doing through mental gymnastics. There are people who are currently arguing on this subject by implying or flat out saying that the government shut down is just as much the democrats fault as the republicans. The basis of these arguments usually rely on the idea that what the republicans are currently doing is no different than them trying to argue against the bill before a law is passed and that the republicans are being just as reasonable as the democrats. Going further the stance many have taken is that this is acceptable and that because government shutdowns have happened in the past means that this doesn't set a dangerous precedent because it deflates the gravity of a government shutdown. Government shut downs are a big deal just not in the way the words "government shut down" implies. People think that just because a government shut down doesn't mean complete anarchy it also means business as usual which it does not. Now considering that lets take a look at what you said. You said that Obama manipulated republicans into doing something that would hurt them in the long run. This implies that the republicans are somehow vindicated for their part in the government shut down and that most of the blame should be shifted onto the democrats (or more specifically Obama.). It also implies that Obama would willingly hurt the american people indirectly if it means hurting the republican party and that's not nothing. It's actually a VERY disgusting thing if it was true which is why you got the reactions you did. You can't just throw a claim out there like that and expect people to treat it (or you) with respect because you're not treating the subject with respect unless you have some pretty solid evidence supporting it. p.s. I'm sorry if I came across as a dick but I probably did because i'm a dick.
Thanks for your answer Omnic, it is very well written and not offensive in the slightest. I agree with most of what you said here, however why do you think that President Obama willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Republican party is so unbelievable? Democrat supporters seem to believe that the Tea Party is willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Democrats (and not to fix things as the Tea party claims). Why would President Obama be exempt from being a suspect as well? Again, I am not accusing anybody here, I am merely speculating and trying to understand.
The have been a number of posts here that tried to refute my poorly worded hypothesis, however nobody seemed to challenge the following post by Ghanburighan. What do you think about it?
On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained.
By the way Ghanburighan thanks a lot for your opinion. I would really like to see what other have to say here.
|
|
|
On October 08 2013 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 20:17 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place. You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number. Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism. Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government. Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system. In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products. Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop. Liability insurance for cars is also compulsory in most US states too. Clearly, this is totalitarianism. Unacceptable. How about a trade: remove the personal mandate for health insurance so that people don't have to buy healthcare if they don't want to, in exchange, when people show up at a hospital uninsured and unable to pay, instead of socializing the cost, they don't get healthcare, no treatment, just let them die. Sounds fair? Now that health insurers can't deny people health insurance when they get sick or have preexisting conditions, let's remove the mandate so that young and healthy people don't have to buy health insurance and can wait until they get sick. I wonder what that will do to the cost of health insurance?
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
|
On October 08 2013 19:56 Restrider wrote:
Since I am not a US citizen, my understanding regarding US internal politics is only superficial. Although I am familiar with the basic conflict, I would like to hear from people with more insight than me, if the US politicians - I am not going to point fingers, although I am of the opinion that the Republicans being hijacked by some right-wing radicals is something I cannot really fathom - are self-destructive and politically and economically suicidal enough to let this shut down turn into bankruptcy.
Or can we expect Boehner and/or Obama to give in in some way or another?
Let me inform you on what's going on. This is a political game; there is an election coming up in a year. House republicans are threatening a default in order to get the president to postpone a law that has already passed all 3 branches of government (and over 40 failed votes to repeal it). The want the law postponed a year so they can do some minor tweeks and take credit for the law. Why do they want it postponed one year? Because there is an election and they want to be reelected and win mores seats for their party. At the same time they are going to make the president look bad for not negotiating and are blaming him for the current shutdown and the threat of default when in fact they are the ones who have complete control over that but they aren't going to do anything about it until they get what they want.
The president isn't going to give in because he knows what they're up to. He also knows that if the republicans lose this standoff, it's going to look awful for the republicans.
I think it's sad that peoples healthcare has turned into a political battle. I think it speaks a lot for the growing aristocracy within our government, and I think that this is an excellent display of the maturity of the people within our government. I don't believe this is the way our government (or any government) is meant to work. People should be storming capitol hill on this issue. There should be mobs in the street. This behavior is unacceptable.
So yea... that's American politics.
|
On October 08 2013 23:10 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 08 2013 20:17 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place. You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number. Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism. Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government. Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system. In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products. Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop. Liability insurance for cars is also compulsory in most US states too. Clearly, this is totalitarianism. Unacceptable. How about a trade: remove the personal mandate for health insurance so that people don't have to buy healthcare if they don't want to, in exchange, when people show up at a hospital uninsured and unable to pay, instead of socializing the cost, they don't get healthcare, no treatment, just let them die. Sounds fair? Now that health insurers can't deny people health insurance when they get sick or have preexisting conditions, let's remove the mandate so that young and healthy people don't have to buy health insurance and can wait until they get sick. I wonder what that will do to the cost of health insurance? In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Prove it.
You dodged my whole post with this irrelevant and substanceless-fluff.
|
Who cares about the whole monkey fighting donkey business... I call BS that they still collect federal tax during shutdown.
|
On October 08 2013 23:10 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 08 2013 20:17 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 07:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 07:47 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 06:49 Whitewing wrote:On October 08 2013 06:42 BillGates wrote:On October 08 2013 05:09 Shiori wrote:There is some small legitimate use of government like courts, police, military and that's where it ends How did this get on your list? If stuff like drinking water is too much bureaucracy for you, then how is spending billions sending thousands of people across the globe to fight fair game? There is still going to be underground waters, rivers, etc... without government. Some of the water is already delivered by private businesses. The bottled water you purchase so cheap is all private, its collected, packaged, sold, transported and then resold to you by shops, all that while the price is still low enough. Doesn't mean it can't be community run either, isn't that what socialism is ultimately, community based ownership? You can have that in a libertarian system, because libertarianism isn't a geo-political system, its an idea whose time has come. Where you can have all sorts of systems and formations as long as they are voluntary. Oh and military does have a defense purpose and it doesn't' have to be hundreds of thousands of troops either. Let me just say that anarcho-capitalism is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard. You should probably go read "The Jungle" I haven't mentioned that oven once, have I? I've mentioned socialism, libertarianism, voluntarism, etc... thing is these are all concepts that work as long as they are voluntary. Government is not voluntary, people are forced by it to oblige by its rules, but no one ever signed up for it. Why shouldn't I be able to leave the system of government? I'm ultimately talking about free human interaction, people voluntarily forming and cooperating, not being forced to, so that you can take my money or I take your money, and then fight over who gets what. How about we each keep our money and decide how to spend them, I'm sure all you collectivist are very charitable and you'll willingly give over half of your income to charity to help poor people and people in need. I'm sure you are not charitable only when its not your money, I'm sure you are charitable with your own money, I'm sure you've volunteered in the firefighting squad, I'm sure you've given your clothes when you were young to a parentless children home, I'm sure you've given your old clothes to some homeless organization, I'm sure you've volunteered in a church or community to help the elderly and with disabilities and I'm sure you've given thousands of dollars to charities to help poor people. Because I'm sure you are not just charitable on word to take other's people's money and energy, I'm sure you really are a humanitarian kind and do all the above mentioned charity stuff on a regular basis. Everything you've said is anarchy, and it doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to say this, but whenever someone starts talking about government in terms of monopoly on force and such nonsense, I pretty much immediately tune them out. Calling us 'collectivist' pretty much makes it obvious what you are and what you stand for. And yeah, people like Bill Gates (whom I've met in person and had the opportunity to talk to) who you shamelessly use as your tag who are good people and wealthy actually do give away more than half their income to charity, but at the end of the day, most of us can't afford that, which is why the wealth gap is such an issue and why we need the ACA in the first fucking place. You do realize that in the USA, poor is someone earning less than 30k a year right? You realize in other countries that is super rich, you realize certain countries have $1000 average yearly salary, so your word of "poor" is meaningless. You might as well argue that the moon is made out of cheese. Your word is just a word, its not an argument, its not a fact, its meaningless. Wealth is so subjective, its impossible to quantify in certain exact number. Though liberty and free human interaction provides the most wealth for the most amount of people, whether government shares the misery. Ultimately it comes down to collectivism or individualism and voluntarism or totalitarianism. Anarchy what you mention is no rules, anarcho capitalism is a system based on private property and capital. I'm voluntarist in the if you want big government you can have, just don't force me into it or to oblige by it. Get a group of people who want big government and go wild with yourself, don't assume everyone wants big government, don't assume big government is great, don't assume people with guns and shiny badges have the right to force someone to give half of his money to the government. Wouldn't you agree that is best? Run your healthcare, run your lives, have a totalitarian control freak state, don't infringe upon other people's right if they don't want to be a part of that system. In obamacare for example you can't get away from it, you do not have an option to not be forced to buy insurance from the giant private corporations that you whine all day about how bad they are, yet here you are praising this fascist law that forces people into buying insurance. That is the most evil, dictatorial system that you can get. You don't have free choice under obamacare, you are a slave to the state and are forced to buy certain services and products. Please don't tell me how humanitarian and good obamacare and big government is. When you stop forcing people and running their lives, it may actually serve some small limited purpose and you may have some argument for it, otherwise please stop. Liability insurance for cars is also compulsory in most US states too. Clearly, this is totalitarianism. Unacceptable. How about a trade: remove the personal mandate for health insurance so that people don't have to buy healthcare if they don't want to, in exchange, when people show up at a hospital uninsured and unable to pay, instead of socializing the cost, they don't get healthcare, no treatment, just let them die. Sounds fair? Now that health insurers can't deny people health insurance when they get sick or have preexisting conditions, let's remove the mandate so that young and healthy people don't have to buy health insurance and can wait until they get sick. I wonder what that will do to the cost of health insurance? In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
There is absolutely no convincing evidence for this claim. Simply because there is absolutely no comparison between modern democracies and older ones, there is absolutely no comparison between modern circumstances in general and older times. But even if we assume that, history actually paints completely different picture.
|
On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained.
You really can't claim that the debt ceiling is about 'future' spending. All of it consists of spending that has already been appropriated by congress. If congress objected to the debt ceiling reaching this level they should have worried about it when they passed the legislation that got it to this point, right now there's nothing that anyone can do short term to avoid going through the ceiling.
Also, Obama is not asking congress to pass his budget. He's asking them to pass a budget that's already been negotiated by republicans and democrats, which is very close to the original republican proposal as I understand it or, alternatively a clean CR.
|
United States42774 Posts
On October 08 2013 15:22 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:13 micronesia wrote:On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that. Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture. No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested. Well, yeah, I partially agree now. However is wackiness reason enough for name calling? I somehow thought these forums had a different policy...
I called a small portion of the members of the house assholes. At the time I felt it reasonable to assume that you were not one of them.
|
I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38.
The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
|
On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. Show nested quote +The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
