Despite all the vitriol flying here, I got a sad unicorn chaser by seeing Humbabella’s avatar. I miss Mr. Squiddy, who was my Glitch’s hat. And I really miss Glitch.
Please return to your bottle tossing. Don’t mind me.
Ah, So I reply to you challenge with an answer, and you immediately ignore it and claim your original thesis that I’m a paid shill.
If I’m shilling, than at LEAST have the courtesy to point out exactly what you disagree with, here. But do go ahead. and smugly trumpet your party line. I can, at least, quote chapter and verse of specific laws and other documents.
I can give specific references, . . .but I’m willing to bet you’ll ignore them, and continue with your thesis.
Frankly, I hope that YOU are a non-essential Federal Employee. So you’d know what the rest of us out here have been facing. . . .
Nice. So it’s PERFECTLY FINE to silence an individual whose views you don’t like.
Last time I checked, the default cure for “bad speech” is “more speech”. But, alas, since I’m a vocal conservative, it’s fine to claim I’m a “troll”, a “paid shill”, and may be silenced.
Let me flip that over for you: What if it was YOU that was Hellbanned. Oh, but that’s DIFFERENT.
Right. And riddle me this: why is it you always see Conservatives get silenced, but you never hear of CONSERVATIVE protesters demanding a Liberal get silenced ? Heck, I saw that back in college, back in the 70s. . . when a campus group tried to shout down the late William F. Buckley during a lecture. . .
I asked you what you would think it Obama attempted to force the exact type of “compromise” that the House is now pushing. You responded with regurgitated talking points that addressed some of the demands in the example (which are totally peripheral), but didn’t actually answer the question (as you’ve done over and over).
You are either a shill or confused enough that it amounts to the same thing. Feel free to respond however you’d like to get the last word in, it’s clear you aren’t interested in any honest discussion. This isn’t worth drawing out since you only want to justify your position not have any honest discourse.
I’m more accustomed to “conservative” types suggesting that liberals be killed, imprisoned, or otherwise eliminated. Certainly not all the time, but enough that a pattern can clearly be discerned.
4 Likes
Let’s see. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives the power of the purse to the House of Representatives. They chose not to fund a certain program. So, in reality, it’s working as intended.
Article One, Sections Seven and Eight, go look it up.
You, on the other hand, started adding things that were outside the Budget Process
Article One Section Eight SPECIFICALLY creates a Federal District of not greater than ten square miles. This was done by ceding of territory from Virginia and Maryland. The Virginia portion was returned to Virginia. I have no problem with dropping the official border of DC to the Federal Core, which is almost entirely official space, but if DC residents want statehood, revert it to Maryland.
As for “assault weapons”, calling a hand a foot does not require Nike to make Air Jordans that will fit. An assault weapon is formally defined as a weapon capable of full-auto fire: that it, continue to fire on a single trigger-pull until released or ammo is exhausted. You CANNOT own a full-auto weapon without a full Class 3 Federal Firearms Licence and a Tax stamp for the weapon, as provided for by the National Firearms Act of 1936, and expanded by the Gun Control Act of 1968. Calling semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like, but do not function like, a full-auto weapon does not make them an Assault Weapon.
This discussion on weapons nomenclature aside, is that it’s a matter for a separate law. Likewise, the “gun show check” you advocate. Both of which have failed by bipartisan majorities.
Let’s compare that to Obamacare. Passed on a strict party-line vote, via the budget reconciliation process, which prevents both fillibuster in the Senate and amendment in both houses. Add to that the major alterations to statuatory dates as defined by the law as passed, which were administratively waived or delayed without actual legislative modification of the law as passed, but purely by administrative fiat.
Now, mind you: I don’t expect you to change your mind, but at least acknowledge that I have made actual arguments. YOU, sir, are the one regurgitating talking points. I’ve pointed out how they are out of scope, and in the case of DC Statehood, specifically in contradiction of the Constitution as written.
I’m giving you respect by answering, point by point. If you choose to ignore those, and repeat the political jingle du jour, it’s you that deserves the pity. . .
There is a certain irony to being a non-american on this thread, I realize that. It’s starting to get a little entertaining, which I find irritating, so I will try to stop participating soon.
Let’s all remember that it’s the “right to speak” and there is something to be said for the “right to listen”. But if people proclaim they have some kind of “right to be listened to”, you know you’re dealing with a crackpot. Because that’s not about free speech, it’s about feeling entitled to a platform. (And as a sidenote: Having your “views silenced” requires that you have stated your views - not nonsense, empty talking points, opinion sold as fact, or fact dismissed as opinion.)
Finally, these days, I have a hard time deciding which I find more funny - the conservative or the christian talking point of being “under attack”, “silenced” or otherwise marginalized… while controlling pretty much everything. Then again, they’re probably both just a facet of the same casual white entitlement.
11 Likes
I think you’re missing the point of the question. Ignore the specifics of what he said Obama hypothetically asked for, the gun control stuff… they don’t matter. Yes, on a few of them, you may have valid points on them being outside the scope of congress, on others you seem to be latching on to things you don’t like and acting like it makes a difference. But you’re missing the point, because nemonemo wasn’t ADVOCATING those changes (he might also, personally, feel they’re good ideas, but it’s not the point), he was asking you a hypothetical question with a specific point.
So, if the democrats asked for a clean CR, and loaded it on with a bunch of things on democrat wishlists (maybe tax increases for those making over a million dollars a year, maybe increases in welfare spending, maybe a publicly-funded option for health insurance for all Americans, again, the specific details don’t matter, what matters is that they’re stuff that democrats want but Republicans are vehemently opposed to), would you blame the Republicans for not being willing to compromise and give in on at least some of these issues?
All the democrats are asking is that the business of the government continue to be funded. A fairly basic request… it’s probably the fundamental job of congress… keep things running. Instead, the republicans are deliberately failing that job, in order to request that a law that was passed fairly (and far more generously to the republican desires than they had to be, even if it was still passed on a party-line vote), be suddenly altered or removed, something they can’t do through the regular process right now.
They democrats COULD add a bunch of unreasonable demands, but they’re not crazypants… in fact, you could argue that they’ve ALREADY compromised by not asking for their wishlists to be added as conditions in the FIRST place. One side is demanding the moon, and you’re accusing the OTHER side of not negotiating, because they refuse to give them even a little part of the moon and, instead of making crazy demands of their own, just want them to do what they should be doing anyway. Where’s the republican compromise? What are they giving up, in order to get the government running again? You can’t say they’re giving up even greater changes that they wanted to make the ACA, because they DON’T HAVE THAT power anyway. Is there anything they’re legitimately offering, like a law that they would normally not allow to pass, but they would in exchange for some changes to the ACA? (Legitimate question, btw, if they have made such offers, I really would like to know… they might not be good deals, but at least it’s something)
And really, say the ACA’s a bad law. Maybe it is.
There’s a simple, time-honored solution. Run on that platform, win the next round of elections, get rid of it then. Why is it so urgent that they need to shut down the whole government to do it (which, even if you fear the ACA causes a lot of harm in the meantime… so does shutting down the gov’t!)?
Ted Cruz’s theory is as follows: "If we don’t do it (defund Obacare) now, in all likelihood, Obamacare will never, ever be repealed. Why is that? Because on January 1, the exchanges kick in, the subsidies kick in,” and “their plan is to get the American people addicted to the sugar, addicted to the subsidies, and once that happens…”
They’re shutting down the government to stop a law that they fear will be TOO popular to remove afterwards, that people will like it TOO much.
4 Likes
And the House has repeatedly passed bills that fund the Government.
If the Democrats were to offer a “clean CR” with a laundry-list of add-ons, . . . it could hardly be considered “clean”.
What really, really bothers me, is that Reid simply refuses to let bills go to the floor of the Senate. Those of us on the right can accept a defeat. What pisses us off is CHEATING: the procedural trick of passing Obamacare via budget reconciliation rules, allowing neither filibuster or amendment, and not giving any of the House bills a simple up-or-down vote.
Because that might cause some Democratic Senators to have election problems in 2014.
Dammit, if you’re going to STAND for something, then make a stand. Don’t weasel around. . .
And once again, you’ve refused to actually answer the question, and instead take up petty questions of form.
And if they Republicans offer CRs that demand defunding of a law they don’t like, that’s not clean either. So, looks to me like, right now, with the Democrats not asking for concessions, it’s the Repubicans who are being unreasonable. Why are you blaming the Democrats for not compromising?
So, again, the question you consistently seem to be ignoring, if the Democrats demanded a clean CR, by which we mean clean of everything they don’t like, and also demanded a laundry list of add-ons, would you or would you not blame the Republicans for refusing to negotiate if they refused to consider giving in on these issues?
When several Republicans insisted, in prior debates that lead to the sequester, that they would not negotiate any deal that included tax increases, did you consider them unreasonable? Please, answer these question, directly… it’s vital to at least whether I consider you an actual person rather than a trolley/shill. Right now you’re on the fence. You seem awfully intent on ignoring the meaning of questions so you can rant on unrelated issues.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
That’s not cheating, that’s just procedure. It’s funny that you insist the procedural trick of budget reconciliation is cheating, but filibuster or adding stupid amendments to kill a bill, well, that’s perfectly fine.
Do you oppose every time a simple up-or-down vote is not allowed, or just when Democrats do it? Because, I thought I saw some news articles yesterday about Boener refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on ending the shutdown with no conditions, because there was a possibilities that enough Republicans would vote for it to let it pass (it wasn’t a sure thing, by any means, but shouldn’t we have at least tried?). And look, Senate GOP Refuses to Allow Votes on 17 Judicial Nominees; Sharp Break from Past Practice - People For the American Way Apparently senate republicans love stopping up-or-down votes on judicial nominees! Does that get your goat too? Because from what I’ve seen, you’re complaining about people refusing votes on things that aren’t going to pass anyway… isn’t it much “cheatier” and harmful to democracy, to refuse to allow up-or-down votes on things that ARE going to pass?
What about other forms of ‘cheating’, like voter ID laws (some Republican have admitted that their goal there is to have a better chance of winning elections (by reducing the minority vote)), or heavily gerrymandering districts. Are you up in arms about that? I am, by the way, in both cases, and yes, I’m against gerrymandering weirdly-shaped districts for political gain no matter WHO does it. I hope you’d agree with me, at least the latter. If you’re going to go off on some rant about how essential voter ID is to liberty, please skip it and consider it ‘agree to disagree’ territory, but surely you should object to the ones who are doing it primarily to improve their perceived chances at election success, right?
And the same to you. Don’t weasel around, tell us what you actually stand for by answering the questions.
4 Likes
or gerrymandering - another form of cheating.
1 Like
Yes, Diana, it costs more to buy barricades to put around the open monuments on the Washington Mall and staff them with park rangers to tell you to go away than it does to leave them open, and the barricades probably do more damage to the lawn that the public would if allowed in unattended, and it doesn’t save the Feds any money to replace working websites with “Go Away, We’re Shut Down Here” web pages (probably with extensive web site metrics).
Your point is?
Grover Norquist says he wants a government small enough to drown in the bathtub. What he doesn’t mention is that the GOP has a bunch of corporate sponsors who want to sell them lots of bathtubs.
1 Like
I’ve been staying with my Republican in-laws for the past couple of months and often overhear Fox News in the background when I’m in the house. Sometimes the barefacedness of the way the argument is framed is breathtaking.
Republicans are the potential saviors of the economy, despite being the jackasses who screwed it up in the first place, during the good times, and in large part due to lowering taxes and engaging in pointless wars. Still, universal healthcare, welfare and stimulus packages are what will kill America. Obama came to power when the shit was really hitting the fan, but anyone would think the national debt was all due to Obama handing money out to poor people and his political allies, or squandering it on useless welfare programs. Despite the Republicans demonstrably planning the shutdown over Obamacare (and showing glee over the political points they feel it will give them), it is clearly all the Democrats’ fault.
Any mass shooting is clearly down to the fact that there aren’t enough guns in the country. Even the recent events with Miriam Carey were twisted in this way by O’Reilly - apparently there are more mentally ill people than we first imagined. It’s clear that we can’t do a lot to help them, but what we can do is stay alert and protect ourselves from them.
Responsibility is also a big buzzword, despite the fact that I’ve hardly ever heard them do anything other than whine about Obamacare, the economy and the shutdown (and why it’s all Obama’s fault) since I came here. I have very little stake in all of this as a foreigner, but it’s pretty disturbing when this is where a lot of conservatives seem to get their information about the country.
Edit: Obviously Obama and the Democrats deserve plenty of criticism, but it’s a little odd to see so much of it coming from people who deserve easily as much criticism for the same things.
3 Likes
Let’s see. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY gives the power of the purse to the House of Representatives.
and to the Senate.
1 Like
Let’s not put the horse before the cart just yet 
Not that Israel isn’t pushing for it…
Have you ever heard the phrase: “Not in any position to negotiate”?
Hint: That applies here.
Diversity of opinion is not really what you’re serving up…
2 Likes
Facts do count. So, as long as we are talking facts, let’s talk actual true facts, as opposed to made up facts.
Near the end of March, the House passed a partisan budget, the “Paul Ryan budget.” Democrats were not on board with that one. The Senate passed its own budget, also a partisan bill, but Republican senators blocked formation of a conference to adjudicate the two.
So here we are.
It’s not any big mystery that we’re here… again… when you have extremists running the House, you’re going to get extreme brinksmanship. As opposed to other Congresses, either Democratic-controlled or Republican-controlled, who actually worked for the greater good. I don’t feel their good faith. I hear a lot of ideology and extremism, not collaboration.
1 Like
Just in case anybody’s buying this dude’s “clean bill” malarkey:
2 Likes
It’s paywalled.
1 Like
