Real cost of partisanship A rising number of manufacturers are canceling new investments and putting off new hires because they fear paralysis in Washington will force hundreds of billions in tax increases and budget cuts in January, undermining economic growth in the coming months.
Basically, a lot of business investment (and jobs recovery) is on hold because Republican shenanigans are expected to be new normal. Why Republican? Because that the party that made filibusters and various 'no compromise' pledges new normal on Capitol Hill.
97-0 414-0 How's that for bipartisan?
When Reid agrees to bring GOP/bipartisan legislation to an actual vote, I will blame the GOP for filibustering in retaliation.
Sorry, the whole "its them not me" is all perception politics. Its both of them, and to an equal degree because neither party leadership actually gives the slightest shit about anyone or anything other than power. Actually the Dems right *now* are far far worse, Reid wont bring the Fed audit to a vote. ("now" being a month to month thing, they are both "bad") Even though in the past he was all for auditing the Fed. Just one more demonstration of how the Dems simply will stop a popular bipartisan bill by not putting it to a vote, yet cry foul in a loud whiny voice when the GOP filibusters... and the MSM laps it up.
The Dems have completely taken a "my way of the highway* approach. They just dont let something be vote on in the Senate if they dont like it. The media doesn't report on it very often. Liberal leaning media does not report on it at all.... and simply reports on how the GOP is obstructionist. Dems pulled a neat trick with this whole issue.. but trust me it is just a trick.
The Dem Senate hasn't even produced a budget for years. Yes, years. Why not? Because if they did the GOP House could amend it and Reid would not be able to stop it from coming to a vote , or filibuster and the GOP could pass it via reconciliation if they grabbed a couple of moderate Senate Dem votes - the same method used to pass Obamacare. Basically the Dems are so frightened of the GOP using their weapon against them to actually put legislation in front of Obama that Obama would then have to publicly sign or not sign, they dont allow anything to happen or come to a vote if Reid isnt behind it or it is not part of some horse-trade with Boehner.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76358.html About the budget ^
For them to behave in that fashion, then turn around and make it look like the GOP is all at fault, and that a handful of GOP congresspeople/senators who actually have a backbone enough to do what they told their constituents they would do in Washington - ie, not expand govt - is nothing more than petty party politics.
Also... you forget to mention that if Romney were to win, that business investment and job recovery would come rushing back, because it is Obama (regulates to help his friends, under the false flag of progress) who makes them uncertain.
Additionally, some people think that the looming "fiscal cliff" is good for us in the long term. I am not so certain, because I do not want my taxes to go up and would rather see slashed spending to a larger degree. However, either way.. this whole debacle is the result of Obama/Reid trying their darndest to use their positions to carefully frame the GOP in a specific light. They have been pretty successful with it.
( And before you mention it, yes I realize that the GOP has their own cheerleading media sections... and I also think that they pull the same stunts when they can. The Dems simply have the positions right now to manage it.)
When Reid agrees to bring GOP/bipartisan legislation to an actual vote, I will blame the GOP for filibustering in retaliation.
Sorry, the whole "its them not me" is all perception politics. Its both of them, and to an equal degree because neither party leadership actually gives the slightest shit about anyone or anything other than power. Actually the Dems right *now* are far far worse, Reid wont bring the Fed audit to a vote. ("now" being a month to month thing, they are both "bad") Even though in the past he was all for auditing the Fed. Just one more demonstration of how the Dems simply will stop a popular bipartisan bill by not putting it to a vote, yet cry foul in a loud whiny voice when the GOP filibusters... and the MSM laps it up.
The Dems have completely taken a "my way of the highway* approach. They just dont let something be vote on in the Senate if they dont like it. The media doesn't report on it very often. Liberal leaning media does not report on it at all.... and simply reports on how the GOP is obstructionist. Dems pulled a neat trick with this whole issue.. but trust me it is just a trick.
The Dem Senate hasn't even produced a budget for years. Yes, years. Why not? Because if they did the GOP House could amend it and Reid would not be able to stop it from coming to a vote , or filibuster and the GOP could pass it via reconciliation if they grabbed a couple of moderate Senate Dem votes - the same method used to pass Obamacare. Basically the Dems are so frightened of the GOP using their weapon against them to actually put legislation in front of Obama that Obama would then have to publicly sign or not sign, they dont allow anything to happen or come to a vote if Reid isnt behind it or it is not part of some horse-trade with Boehner.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76358.html About the budget ^
For them to behave in that fashion, then turn around and make it look like the GOP is all at fault, and that a handful of GOP congresspeople/senators who actually have a backbone enough to do what they told their constituents they would do in Washington - ie, not expand govt - is nothing more than petty party politics.
Also... you forget to mention that if Romney were to win, that business investment and job recovery would come rushing back, because it is Obama (regulates to help his friends, under the false flag of progress) who makes them uncertain.
Additionally, some people think that the looming "fiscal cliff" is good for us in the long term. I am not so certain, because I do not want my taxes to go up and would rather see slashed spending to a larger degree. However, either way.. this whole debacle is the result of Obama/Reid trying their darndest to use their positions to carefully frame the GOP in a specific light. They have been pretty successful with it.
( And before you mention it, yes I realize that the GOP has their own cheerleading media sections... and I also think that they pull the same stunts when they can. The Dems simply have the positions right now to manage it.)
![[clap]](/images/graemlins/default/t2019.gif "[clap]")
Two thumbs up derid.
Also I rember reading, but cant rember the source, we are spending 23% of the GDP and only taking in 17% of GDP in taxes.
I say lets raise taxes, across the board, from those makeing 24k a year on up. Lets get to 20% GDP taxed, and cut spending to 19% of GDP till we get out of the whole, and then raise spending to 20% of GDP.
When Reid agrees to bring GOP/bipartisan legislation to an actual vote, I will blame the GOP for filibustering in retaliation.
Do you think bipartisan legislation on budget is even possible when most republican politicians have RINO inquisitions and various pledges hanging over their reelection prospects? At this point the only kind bipartisan legislation that is possible is "100% GOP way" that democrats would vote on to avoid complete meltdown. See Ryan budget and other joke legislature, where GOP managed to include their entire agenda via defunding backdoor. Do you really think Democrats should allow such legislation to go forward?
Now I want to really be open-minded on this topic, because I also want to hold my side accountable, so please provide any and all examples where Democrats behaved inappropriately.
The Dems have completely taken a "my way of the highway* approach.
You are misinformed. Please provide 3 recent examples when this happened where there wasn't "repeal obamacare" or similar riders on the bill.
I will dig up a few more later when I have time to go look at the bill tracking websites to make sure I get the bills right, but for now -
Audit the Fed
Audit the Fed
Audit the Fed
Oh, and wheres the Dem budget proposal? Heaven forbid something might pass and Obama would have to take a public stance on something specific before an election.
Besides, I think gridlock is typically a GOOD thing. Name one good thing that has come out of either party controlling both branches of Govt, under Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.
I think this guy
http://youtu.be/8Gck0A41e-A sums it up pretty well, if you have time to listen. ( its a youtube clip from a radio show)
Oh, and wheres the Dem budget proposal?
I am not sure if you are aware, but budget can only originate in the House. Senate cannot initiate it. President cannot initiate it. The Fed cannot initiate it.
Democratic budget proposal is where it always been - not getting any hearing/voting in the GOP controlled House.
Here is a quick selection ...
I read couple from the list (wetlands bill... what is your point?) and have not seen bills that passed house, stalled or failed in senate.
lol, sinji, yes in the past the senate has put forth a budget, the same as the white house, and congress.
Congress does control the purse strings but anyone can submit a budget.
Also you ask for proff, and then when proff is provide you ask for something different. Throw out smoke screens much?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hjres98H.J.Res. 98: Relating to the disapproval of the President’s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code, on January 12, 2012.
Sponsor: Rep. Tom Reed [R-NY29]
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of the President’s exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.
This is fine example (and I didn't have to look hard) of fine legislative work GOP House produces.
Damn you Derid. I was happy in my ignorance... ;)
Enacted Laws
There are 153 enacted bills and joint resolutions so far in this session of Congress.
How can you possibly be expected to know what is legal and what is not when Congress is passing laws faster than you can read them?
Passed Resolutions
There are 613 passed resolutions so far in this session of Congress (for joint and concurrent resolutions, passed both chambers).
I'm so glad that my representatives have this much free time to participate in the national popularity contest that our politics has devolved into.
At the President
There are 21 bills that are awaiting the president's signature.
Active Legislation
There are 333 bills and joint/concurrent resolutions that had a significant vote in one chamber and are likely to get a vote in the other chamber.
Yay, more for the "dear god, how many new laws do I have to read?" pile.
Inactive Legislation
There are 10,402 bills and resolutions that have been introduced, referred to committee, or reported by committee and await further action.
Really? Over 10,000. There are only 500 some odd folks "serving" in the Senate and the House. This is ridiculous. We need to bring these worthless bastards home, let them telecomute for voting and debating purposes, have them be locally answerable to their constituents, and decentralize the lobbying/law writing machine in D.C.
lol, sinji, yes in the past the senate has put forth a budget, the same as the white house, and congress.
Congress does control the purse strings but anyone can submit a budget.
This is not how I understand this process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_and_Accounting_Act_of_1921
Oh, and wheres the Dem budget proposal?
I am not sure if you are aware, but budget can only originate in the House. Senate cannot initiate it. President cannot initiate it. The Fed cannot initiate it.
Democratic budget proposal is where it always been - not getting any hearing/voting in the GOP controlled House.
Thanks for proving that your method of posting random links and then blaming the reader for not reading them doesn't work on you either.
4th sentence from your link Sinji:
This act meant that for the first time, the president would be required to submit an annual budget for the entire federal government to Congress
6th sentence:
The act created the Bureau of the Budget, now called the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to review funding requests from government departments and to assist the president in formulating the budget.
8th sentence:
From the director, the estimates go directly to the president and from the president, directly to Congress.
Do you even read your own links?
414-0 How's that for bipartisan?
on Wednesday night unanimously rejected an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan, dispatching it in a 0-414 rout. White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (
REPUBLICAN-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics.
What is your point? That Republicans in the house can engage in political theater? We already know that.
Do you even read your own links?
Yes. Here is how I understand the process:
President proposes outline, house approp. committee uses outline to create budget bill, house votes on it, senate votes on it. Any steps out of this order take whole thing back to approp. committee and are pointless.
How is that any different from "I love these members that say read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s 1,000 pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill."- John Conyers D-Michigan?
Sounds to me like Rep. Mulvaney just took out all the problems for everyone by eliminating all those thousands of pages of minutiae that no one in congress reads anyway.
I am not sure if you are aware, but budget can only originate in the House. Senate cannot initiate it. President cannot initiate it.
President proposes outline, house approp. committee uses outline to create budget bill, house votes on it, senate votes on it. Any steps out of this order take whole thing back to approp. committee and are pointless.
Does this disconnect require explanation? That's all Red was pointing out, I think.
I'm not sure if you are serious, so I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume that you were going for sarcasm.
I'm absolutely serious. You first said the president couldn't initiate the budgeting process and then you said that the president proposes the budget.
Oh, and wheres the Dem budget proposal?
I am not sure if you are aware, but budget can only originate in the House. Senate cannot initiate it. President cannot initiate it. The Fed cannot initiate it.
Democratic budget proposal is where it always been - not getting any hearing/voting in the GOP controlled House.
Oh come on now, no need for snarking.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76418.html BTW... Senators can propose budgets, via a budget resolution. Its non binding but puts on paper exactly what they want.
Your snarky tone combined with appearing to show a complete lack of knowledge on how the process works makes me think you are just trolling again, because you know how incredibly wrong you are but will never admit it.
Here is a quick selection ...
I read couple from the list (wetlands bill... what is your point?) and have not seen bills that passed house, stalled or failed in senate.
. . .
Passed committee and no vote of any sort = Reid blueballing it.
There are a *ton* of them, how many do I need to post? back to typical "ok I got what I asked for, but I am going to make up some reason its not what I asked for and hope you spend a lot of time providing even more info so I cal loltroll you again". Meh, waste of time.
Ether you or me don't have clear understanding of bill-writing process.
Here how I understand process of House-originated legislature:
House Committee- House Hearing - House Amendments - House Vote - Senate Hearing - Senate Amendments - Senate Vote - House Reconciliation Vote (if required).
What do you think happens?
Depends, what you put there is not incorrect - but anyone can propose a budget resolution. Senate or President will often create a budget proposal/budget resolution. This is non-binding but it provides both a working template for the House to start with and a public statement of the vision of what the budget should actually be.
Senate has :
1) not allowed debate/amendments to be considered on budgets that arrive from the House. This means no attempt to improve the budget has been made. No budget passed because the typical give and take that occurs in the Senate amendment/debate process has not been occurring due to Reid not allowing it to occur. Nothing amended, nothing passed, nothing sent back the House or the President.
2) Not offered its own budget resolution, which would basically outline to the House exactly what type of budget the Senate would pass. It would also provide to the public exactly what the intent and positions of the Senate majority is. If the Dems passed a budget resolution, it is nonbinding as a budget of course - but then a public debate on the merits or lack thereof of the Dem plan could take place... instead of the Dems just sitting back and offering zero solutions of their own and complaining how bad the GOP budgets are.
3) No Senate Democrat has voted in favor of a single budget resolution in over 3 years. Seriously.
----
What, are they waiting for the GOP to adopt/introduce Dem ideas on their own. "Well if the Dems wont do anything, I guess we will have to propose the things the Dems would usually propose/amend during the process... and go on record as the introducer of these leftist positions, instead of having the Dems propose/amend them like in a normal legislature where then a compromise occurs and my political opponent next election cant paint me as a supporter of said proposal." Which is exactly what game the Dems are playing... instead of the typical game of compromise and amendment football, the Dems are trying to force the GOP to introduce the legislation the Dems want so the GOP not the Dems get to take the fall in election season for introducing it. This is all new, and all Dem.
Typically what happens in a healthy (relatively speaking) Congress, is both sides have budget resolutions and/or amendments.. and once its on paper then they work at forming a compromise of some sort. The Dems wont even put forth an alternative plan to compare and compromise against, or allow debate/amendments on the GOP proposals. The GOP has to do exactly as the Dems want, and take all the political exposure for it or the Dems will do NOTHING. Which is why I said its "The Dem way or the Highway" earlier.. and was 100% correct.
Seriously, you think it is OK that the Dems have not offered a single solution and not proposed anything at all in years..? They are party in power I remind you, holding the President + Senate... and the only thing they do is poopoo anything the GOP does while making no serious effort at debate or amendment and offering absolutely nothing of their own.
And the GOP is the extremist party? When all the Dems do is say how bad the GOP is?
It must be nice to just sit back and snipe at the proposals of others, while offering absolutely nothing, not even a contrasting vision or basis of compromise... and have the media go on and on all day about how extremist the other guy is.
It must be nice to just sit back and snipe at the proposals of others, while offering absolutely nothing, not even a contrasting vision or basis of compromise... and have the media go on and on all day about how extremist the other guy is.
Haven't you been reading Sinij's posts for the last 6 months? This is Debating 101 for all Dem arguments.
For the record, I am not looking forward to going back to more contentious style of debate we had earlier. I am trying to be as civil as humanly possible in a political debate. I will appreciate if you could extend me the same courtesy.
I now see what Derid is saying, at a glance it is coherent argument. Derid, what do you think going to happen if Democrats come out with a democratic budget proposal originated in Senate? I think very much the same process that happened with Affordable Healthcare Act - filibustering and grandstanding. 'Obamacare' as we know it today is largely republican legislature that was passed by democrats trying to reach bipartisan compromise. Do you think ideal democratic legislature would have been anything short of single-payer? Why do you think Dem-proposed budget, that _has to have_ a lot of bitter pills in it in order to balance, would turn any different? Bitter pills like tax hikes on middle class and social program cuts that are at this point are unavoidable. Plus, shouldn't GOP own up to Bush's crazy spending years and pick up political cost check?
Sinij, we can have this devolve into a he said she said bullshit. Everytime says what about Bush, that is what is happening. The fact is Bush is out, Obama is in. It is his ship no matter how you look at it, you can no longer blame Bush.
Next on the Affordable Healthcare Act, it was passed by a dem controled congresss, senate, and white house. They only included the bare minumal so they can have fanboys sit on the side line and say see, we tried to be bipatsain, we tried to include repub ideals in it also, but it is nothing but a smoke screen. It was forced thru. No one wanted it. It is a broken peice of legsigaltion. dont forget Ohio where the voters supported unions but shot down the healthcare law. IMHO it needs to be redone, reworked, and fixed.
And lastly, I have said this before and I will say it again. Both parties are fucking us over, both parties have been lyeing to us for generations. Thier power comes from setting us against each other. We are all on the same side, the day we stop with this petty fan boy apporach for one party or anthoer, is the day we can start takeing the steps needed to return the power of this country back to people, of the people, and for the people.
For the record, I am not looking forward to going back to more contentious style of debate we had earlier. I am trying to be as civil as humanly possible in a political debate. I will appreciate if you could extend me the same courtesy.
Ok
Its not grandstanding when they are doing what millions of their constituents called, wrote and told them to do.
'Obamacare' as we know it today is largely republican legislature that was passed by democrats trying to reach bipartisan compromise.
You must be joking. You claim to want civility in our discussions and then you whip out your flame thrower and proceed to liquify your credibility. Obamacare is such a "bipartisan compromise" that they couldn't even legally pass it out of the Senate without resorting to tools that are reserved for passing budgetary measures.
Senator Max Baucus takes credit for writing Obamacare and he admitted in an interview that he hasn't even read it, he "hire[s] experts" for that kind of "menial task." Whoever these "experts" are, they are obviously not Congressmen.
Do you think ideal democratic legislature would have been anything short of single-payer?
No, but they knew that the American people would not allow that to happen. Even their "compromise" garnered such public outcry as has seldom been heard over legislation in this country.
shouldn't GOP own up to Bush's crazy spending years and pick up political cost check?
You're deflecting but... When have you read any of us defending Bush's spending? But just for shits and giggles, what do you propose that "check" consist of?
And lastly, I have said this before and I will say it again. Both parties are fucking us over, both parties have been lyeing to us for generations. Thier power comes from setting us against each other. We are all on the same side, the day we stop with this petty fan boy apporach for one party or anthoer, is the day we can start takeing the steps needed to return the power of this country back to people, of the people, and for the people.
You're right Red, and the parties do try to keep us contentious with each other so they can do what they want while we're busy tilting at windmills.
But, and this is a pretty big but, as a people we do fundamentally disagree on the best way forward. Sinij would have the government assume control of large swaths of our lives because we're just not capable of taking care of ourselves or our neighbors. Derid would have as small a government as possible to allow us to succeed or fail by our own devices and still be big enough to protect us from outside forces. There are myriad viewpoints in between and many even on the fringes of those two.
Too often here (Derid is least likely to be guilty) we, myself included (hell, just look at my previous post), attack each other or each other's political affiliations without addressing the actual subject of debate. I think we should stop blaming the parties and start discussing what change we would like to effect and why. We should debate
OUR ideas rather than the latest attempt by the politicians to keep us from thinking or looking behind the curtain. Assessing, challenging and reassessing our ideas is how we will grow and how we can truly compromise.
I have tried that in the past kaotic, even with jetstar, but alast, a conversation of that sort can happen when 2 people want to do it, with just one person, I am talking to a brick wall.
No, but they knew that the American people would not allow that to happen. Even their "compromise" garnered such public outcry as has seldom been heard over legislation in this country.
You are projecting and/or assuming your opinions are representative. As to healthcare legislature - even bill to approve rainbows and smell of fresh laundry on a sunny day would have generated "outcry" from Fox nation.
Obama's mistake was to actually attempt to follow on his election promise and to reach his hand across the isle. It got bitten.
So you make a general assumpation and statement against a whole selection of people? This is what I am talking about.
If his opinions were not representative of a larger section of the population then why the massive landslide of 2010?
A major section of the population does not like the job Obama has done, they do not like his policys. It has nothing todo with the party he is in. It has nothing todo with race.
If he had done a good job his first 4 years then I would vote for him. But he has not, he has failed. He has changed his tactics from hope and change to mud slinging. Its time to rotate the next guy/gal in. Give them 4 years, and if they fail bring in some one else. Americans want leaders not what we have at this time.
You are projecting and/or assuming your opinions are representative. As to healthcare legislature - even bill to approve rainbows and smell of fresh laundry on a sunny day would have generated "outcry" from Fox nation.
No, I'm simply recalling what was being reported on in EVERY news outlet in the country.
Obama's mistake was to actually attempt to follow on his election promise and to reach his hand across the isle. It got bitten.
If you're going to continue to simply be part of the propaganda machine for the Democrat party then I'm not sure what the point is in having conversations with you. I can get that same (bullshit by the way) talking point by turning on the television.
For the record, I am not looking forward to going back to more contentious style of debate we had earlier. I am trying to be as civil as humanly possible in a political debate. I will appreciate if you could extend me the same courtesy.
I now see what Derid is saying, at a glance it is coherent argument. Derid, what do you think going to happen if Democrats come out with a democratic budget proposal originated in Senate? I think very much the same process that happened with Affordable Healthcare Act - filibustering and grandstanding. 'Obamacare' as we know it today is largely republican legislature that was passed by democrats trying to reach bipartisan compromise. Do you think ideal democratic legislature would have been anything short of single-payer? Why do you think Dem-proposed budget, that _has to have_ a lot of bitter pills in it in order to balance, would turn any different? Bitter pills like tax hikes on middle class and social program cuts that are at this point are unavoidable. Plus, shouldn't GOP own up to Bush's crazy spending years and pick up political cost check?
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt. My point is that instead of giving them the opportunity to do so, or to not do so - the Dems have seized on the media meme of some years back painting the GOP as obstructionist and ensured that nothing can happen either way. The epitome of passive-aggressive politics.
Rhetorical grandstanding is a mainstay of both parties. Who knows what would happen today, years later, if the Dems were willing to deal? Maybe you are right and the GOP would not, maybe you aren't -honestly we will never know. I am not trying to say the GOP is awesome, but rather am pointing out that the media perception being floated is just that - a perception, and not one particularly reflective of reality.
As far as picking up the political tab for Bush spending... well, did not that happen in 08? Isnt that how we got Obama and Obamacare in the first place? If The Dems had made any effort to help the situation when they had total control, then I would be temped to agree with you. However the debts have accumulated even faster under Obama than under Bush. Obama has basically been Bush++ in most regards , not just spending. I find it hard to keep wanting to stick the GOP as a whole with the political bill when the Dems have embraced and expanded upon the same policies that got us here.
Now, if we were to get more granular and target specific Bush loving politicians during their re-election then I am all for that. Few things make me happier than seeing a Bush-flunky congresscritter get ousted during a primary by a Tea Party or Liberty candidate, even if the Dems go on to win the seat.
Also, a +1 for civility as well. I forgot to mentioned that in my quoted post.
Things are more interesting when they are civil.
If his opinions were not representative of a larger section of the population then why the massive landslide of 2010?
We can argue until we are blue in the face as to who is more representative of the population, but lets wait until election results are in and we will know for sure.
More objective response: Both of us are not very representative because we are informed and can formulate our political opinions, majority of population is not and won't ever move past voting based on 1-2 sound bites. In effect this is failure of democracy due to apathy of broader voter base.
Obama's mistake was to actually attempt to follow on his election promise and to reach his hand across the isle. It got bitten.
If you're going to continue to simply be part of the propaganda machine for the Democrat party then I'm not sure what the point is in having conversations with you. I can get that same talking point by turning on the television.
You could demonstrate me how and where I went wrong. I promise I will make an effort to consider your point of view. At the very least both of us have to do some additional research and will be more educated in our unchanged opinions.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt. My point is that instead of giving them the opportunity to do so, or to not do so - the Dems have seized on the media meme of some years back painting the GOP as obstructionist and ensured that nothing can happen either way. The epitome of passive-aggressive politics.
Yes, this is valid criticism.
Still, lets go through mental exercise of what would happen if Dems proposed functional, balanced budget. Such budget would include cuts to social spending, cuts to military spending, across-the-boards tax increases. In effect such budget would a) alienate Dem base (your average voter is not smart enough to understand necessity), energize GOP base (Tea Party and all) and all but guarantee _undeserving_ 2-house majorities to Republicans. Plus it is not even guaranteed to get passed, it can get voted down (not solving the problem) and still used to full extent as a political weapon.
Now, if we were to get more granular and target specific Bush loving politicians during their re-election then I am all for that. Few things make me happier than seeing a Bush-flunky congresscritter get ousted during a primary by a Tea Party or Liberty candidate, even if the Dems go on to win the seat.
Something both of us can agree on. I'd go even farther, while I acknowledge that crisis-era bailouts were necessary to prevent complete meltdown, I still want to see anyone voting for them gone. I also want to see people responsible for de-regulation that lead to this crisis voted out as well.
I actually do not think the bailouts were needed, just the people who have been painted as the "authority" as to their necessity were mostly people who had everything to gain by the bailouts happening.
If the market had been allowed to correct naturally, and the "too big to fail" had been allowed to fail - the immediate correction would have been harsher but we would have been able to have a real recovery and not be still sitting here waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Just because a few cronies of the corrupt system like Geithner and Bernanke and some ultra Keynesian loudmouths like Krugman say something is needed does not make it so. Their doomsday predictions of the world ending if the ultra corrupt politically tied segment of the banking industry was left to burn were much exaggerated.
If the market had been allowed to correct naturally, and the "too big to fail" had been allowed to fail - the immediate correction would have been harsher but we would have been able to have a real recovery and not be still sitting here waiting for the other shoe to drop.
This was tried during Great Depression, only this time around there isn't Great Britain empire and Hitler's Europe burning through all reserves to wage war. US without WW2 would probably still be suffering from Great Depression well into 50s.
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt. My point is that instead of giving them the opportunity to do so, or to not do so - the Dems have seized on the media meme of some years back painting the GOP as obstructionist and ensured that nothing can happen either way. The epitome of passive-aggressive politics.
Yes, this is valid criticism.
Still, lets go through mental exercise of what would happen if Dems proposed functional, balanced budget. Such budget would include cuts to social spending, cuts to military spending, across-the-boards tax increases. In effect such budget would a) alienate Dem base (your average voter is not smart enough to understand necessity), energize GOP base (Tea Party and all) and all but guarantee _undeserving_ 2-house majorities to Republicans. Plus it is not even guaranteed to get passed, it can get voted down (not solving the problem) and still used to full extent as a political weapon.
Now, if we were to get more granular and target specific Bush loving politicians during their re-election then I am all for that. Few things make me happier than seeing a Bush-flunky congresscritter get ousted during a primary by a Tea Party or Liberty candidate, even if the Dems go on to win the seat.
Something both of us can agree on. I'd go even farther, while I acknowledge that crisis-era bailouts were necessary to prevent complete meltdown, I still want to see anyone voting for them gone. I also want to see people responsible for de-regulation that lead to this crisis voted out as well.
I am not so sure your analysis of what would happen is entirely accurate. But its not provable either way.
If you want to talk about pertinent deregulation, you have to go back to Clinton.
But I blame Fed bubble economy combined with Bush spending combined with the culture of corruption for the previous and the coming crash. Deregulation may have helped shaped the way in which it manifested but with such unsound fundamentals in terms of govt and monetary policy bad things were going to happen. You cant just control the side effects of such poor fundamentals with a bit of regulation.
I have read many sides to the regulation debate.. and in many regards much of it is six of one, half a dozen of another. My end take is that while some regulation can certainly be useful, getting overly mired in which regulations or lack thereof are the "culprits" is missing the forest for the trees.
If the market had been allowed to correct naturally, and the "too big to fail" had been allowed to fail - the immediate correction would have been harsher but we would have been able to have a real recovery and not be still sitting here waiting for the other shoe to drop.
This was tried during Great Depression, only this time around there isn't Great Britain empire and Hitler's Europe burning through all reserves to wage war. US without WW2 would probably still be suffering from Great Depression well into 50s.
Its interesting that you bring that up, because FDR was a Keynesian extremist who attempted all sorts of bailouts and stimulus.
Hoover raised taxes to extreme levels. The overall response was very interventionist.
None of it worked. The country suffered for a decade under the type of remedies that the left proposes today as panacea.
As far as bailing out the actual banks, well the situation was completely different in terms of the way the acute problem was structured. But the fundamentals of inflationary monetary policy and malinvestment in a bubble economy are shared as underlying causes.
All the banking bailouts have done is kick the can down the road, and ensure that the next crash is even more devastating.
To dovetail on what Derid said, it's worth noting that for the rest of the world the Great Depression, was just a depression lasting a couple of years. How much shorter might ours have been if not for FDR's Keynesian policies?
I like how effortlessly we migrate to different topics, but it is interesting discussion so lets keep going.
Great Depression "what ifs" is nothing but a speculation, so lets not go down that mental masturbation path.
We do have couple valid comparisons - Great Depression in US, and Great Depression elsewhere in the world. I'd say comparing France Australia that went with austerity and New Zealand that went with welfare state to US during Great Depression would be valid comparison. Any idea how this compares?
Second comparison - austerity vs. bailouts during recent crisis. EU is on the verge of collapse, and they decided to go austerity direction. By comparison US is in much better shape.
If you indicate you are really interested, I will go into it further later. There are many extreme differences in the US and EU situation. A few quick points:
First, not all of the EU is in dire crisis. Countries that acted more responsibly are not in such a crisis... and countries that have abundant natural exports are also ok.
Second, the currency itself is in crisis (Euro) - and its situation is much different than that of the dollar. Going into the differences, beyond the obvious is an endeavor of many many pages not a couple quick paragraphs.
Third, much of the EU problems were enabled by our own corrupt malfeasance.. see the effect of Goldman Sachs dishing out Fed printed money to Greece for example. It really resembled a crack dealer a lot more than it did a healthy banking relationship.
Fourth, Greece stopped the Keynesian spending because noone would lend them money anymore - and leaving the Euro would create complications... they wouldnt be able to import hardly anything , and they have nowhere near the resources to become an autarky. Greece austerity is their last resort aside from withdrawing from the Euro and printing their own unbacked currency. If they did that, who would trade anything for such a currency?
Fifth, regarding Spain.. there is a great clip here on this forum where a Spanish economist details for Krugman exactly how Spain got in the mess its in. Things like handing out thousands of dollars to anyone who wanted to rent a flat.. bubble economy, etc
I will have to look at New Zealand/Australia , since their fundamental economic makeup is so different from ours and they are small economies relatively speaking so I typically do not pay them much mind and would have to look and see if I thought a valid comparison could be made.
Just to clarify, I am talking about Great Depression of 20th century and trying to draw parallels between that and crisis of 2008-now.
Point I am trying to make is that austerity isn't necessary best policy in crisis situation, and that by 2007 bailouts were all but inevitable with alternative of having Great Depression II and 50%+ unemployment and complete lights-off @ banking system.
I also disagree with you labeling any stimulus as Keynesian, I think you are stretching that term past its breaking point.
No, Keynesian economics revolves around the basic concept that depressions and recessions are a demand problem.
Thats what "stimulus" tries to address.
Now, it is technically possible to do a "stimulus" without being Keynesian per se... but that isnt the case in modern economics which has been dominated by Keynesian thinking. The "non-Keynesian" type of stimulus is basically boiled down to "times are tough so I am going to hand money to my allies". Maybe this is what you are referring to?
Either way, its justified by Keynesian thinking - the claims are that it will help the economy.
Keynesian economics revolves around the basic concept of the "demand problem" - that is, that there is insufficient demand. To combat this, Keynes recommended two courses of action.
1) Tax those that "have", and redistribute to those that do not. This is to "free up" idle capital and inject it back into the market.
2) Run deficit spending, to put money in the hands of those who do not have it - and thus "create" capital , and increase aggregate demand.
---
Please, tell me how our stimulus efforts are not Keynesian and how I am stretching the word. Because I am not, I actually know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to economics.
Austerity is not necessarily the best policy in "all" crisis situations. Because "all" is a pretty encompassing word.
I realize you are trying to make a comparison between the GreatD and 2008-now.
What I was pointing out to you earlier in the euro example, is what happens when the deficit spending tactic to keep demand up finally runs its course... people stop loaning you money. That is why Germany was the source of all that hubbabalooo - everyone was wanting Germany to keep bailing out the failed Eurozone countries... which would basically require Germany to embrace the same types of deficit spending policies.. and Germany has understandably been giving them the finger. Because what is the point, if the people you are bailing out refuse to get their heads on straight? As soon as Germany ruined itself , then they would all be hosed.
So Germany said "no cash for you, unless you adhere to a budget that is actually reasonable" which was massive austerity compared to the prior bouts of spending. The resulting pain induced is not because "austerity" isnt needed, but rather illuminates how unsustainable the previous spending was. In simple terms, its what happens when a normal guy makes 30k a year and puts 60k a year on his credit cards. Eventually... his credit dries up/becomes to expensive to sustain... except where an individual would just declare bankruptcy a country typically wants to avoid that at all costs.
The Euro zone is our ultimate fate if we continue with our current policies.
----
Now, talking about no bailouts = lights out @ banking system.
This is really pretty inaccurate. There were actually plenty of healthy banks... even though the Govt tries very hard to makes banks unhealthy. ( See things like EHL / HUD /etc regulations )Also, many people think that the default swaps would have worked just fine had they been allowed to take their course.
I am really not sure what basis you have for saying that we would have faced 50% unemployment and no banking industry without bailouts. Sure, thats what the bailoutees claimed... but I hardly feel inclined to take *their* word for it.
There are plenty of well thought out rebuttals of that assertion out there. Maybe you will get interested to read some of them.
So his election results do not count but the ones that favor your argument are the only valid ones we should agree with?
Please, tell me how our stimulus efforts are not Keynesian and how I am stretching the word.
What you say is not exactly wrong, but main point of Keynesians is that economic return on $1 of spending could be more than $1 (concept:spending multiplier). According to Keynesian thinking you should be able to get out of recession only with stimulus and never run out of money. This coincidentally increases %GDP of government spending, but this isn't the main point but rather side-effect.
You can have stimulus without subscribing to this ideology, typically with infrastructure spending.
Actually that is not so much the main point, but rather exogenous spending changes are a mechanic by which Keynesian types seek to increase demand.
Supply-side economics also uses this concept, but in terms of tax cuts rather than spending increases. I consider the mechanic faulty , and attempts to manipulate it as one of several primary causes of malinvestment - that is, misplacing resources.(which is a prime driver of bubble economies... which are incedentally caused by inflationary and stimulative monetary and fiscal policies). I also think that Keynesians have a poor understanding of the effects of interventionist spending in a global economy and also frequently mistake capital flow with wealth creation. But I digress.
But anyhow - govt spending is the mechanism by which Keynesians frequently like to attempt to influence the multiplier, simply because it is an easy lever to pull via centralized control. But the purpose of pulling this lever, is still to address the Keynsian concept of the "demand problem".
To dovetail on what Derid said, it's worth noting that for the rest of the world the Great Depression, was just a depression lasting a couple of years.
This is not the case way I understand history. Feel free to correct me with factual links.
To dovetail on what Derid said, it's worth noting that for the rest of the world the Great Depression, was just a depression lasting a couple of years.
This is not the case way I understand history. Feel free to correct me with factual links.
"I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack."
So Red, what do you think about Ryan's voting record on fiscal issues? What about Ryan's plan deficit spending plan? Oh, I forgot "you built it!" this fiscal crisis and deficit spending with 8 years of GOP presidency and your poster boy Ryan cheering for every unfunded tax cut and deficit spending program. He even sponsored some.
I'm sure he will do better this time, simply because its damn hard to top such massive clusterfuck again.
So Red, what do you think about Ryan's voting record on fiscal issues? What about Ryan's plan deficit spending plan? Oh, I forgot "you built it!" this fiscal crisis and deficit spending with 8 years of GOP presidency and your poster boy Ryan cheering for every unfunded tax cut and deficit spending program. He even sponsored some.
I'm sure he will do better this time, simply because its damn hard to top such massive clusterfuck again.
"I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack."
More spam? Is that the depth of your intellectual curiosity?
More spam? Is that the depth of your intellectual curiosity?
"I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack."
Just matching spam per spam buddy.
'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers' Romeny's campaign only now catches up in hypocrisy to Red's political posting.
lol, my hypocrisy is dwarfed by the mountion you have built around yourself by your own hypocrisy.
ps, thank for spelling hypocrisy for me, been to lazy to look it up the last few days.
I will take this as a sign of starting recovery. First step is to admit that you have a problem.
Also, why won't you give a browser with a built-in spell checker a try? Firefox 15 has one.
I will take this as a sign of starting recovery. First step is to admit that you have a problem.
Also, why won't you give a browser with a built-in spell checker a try? Firefox 15 has one.
Everyone has some hypocrisy to one degree or anthoer. I notice you have yet admitted to yourself that you too have some.
My download connection is limited to 250megs per 24 period. I try to keep it as open as possible to be able to game, and only download stuff if it is very important. That means my porn collection is back from the late 70's.
I think Firefox15 is under 20 megs. If you find a chance try downloading it.
Then that would take away your fun or correcting my spelling and grammer, and kaotic would stop cussing me every time I post. He can't stand reading what I write due to his mind attempts to auto correct it.
Red has me pegged :)
What does an add about welfare have to do with race? Why is it that the left always assumes the the right wants to fix welfare because they hate black people, when MOST welfare recipients are white? Doesn't that say more about the mindset of the left than the right?
Recently read
this Forbes article. Short synopsis - US cargo ship is held in Venezuela. Nobody died, nothing was seized, just a potential (<-- key word) of minor international incident if Venezuela keeps holding the ship.
Here is what comments section looks in this right-leaning publication.
i dont need to see a movie about the traitor lier america hater in chief….i could smell the stench he was giving off a mile away before he was elected…if ever there was a mole hiding in the white house waiting for his big chance to bring america to its knees he is it….hes not only the worst pres ever but hes dangerous and the only one in history that despises his own country.
IDIOT! LIB-TURD or whatever undesireable you are! Future damage done by O’useless includes the $186,000 debt that each person, our children and theirs faces at this point by this half ngr looser from Kenya! That is the start and if re elected it is all downhill.
Mr. cooked spaghetti spine will do the “Apology” routine in keeping with his belief in always “Leading from behind with weakness.” Or, to really show what a “Commander in Chief” he is, he’ll send a rowboat armed with nineteen, ready-to-go paper airplanes to threaten Chavez. (Wink, wink.) This incident shows how much respect Chavez has for our fearless leader.
It goes on and on like that... Plus a bunch of warmongering, calls for invading/nuking Venezuela.
This is what passes for conservatism these days.
Trying to make a point with random comments on an online article?
Do you really want the next meme on this board to be dumpster-diving in the comments area of various online periodicals for extreme right or left wing commentary?
I wish it was dumpster-diving. Sadly this is the norm in "mainstream" right publications. I do read Forbes/WSJ and this type of drivel is very typical.
I've taken a spin through the comments sections on some of the sites you've posted, sinij, and they are equally vitriolic. Obviously that doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does illustrate the fact that typically, only the lunatic fringe can be bothered to post their opinions in an such an open way on the internet. The more sane posts are rare and usually get buried in the mire of partisanship on both sides, after they get flamed for not being extreme enough.
Your assertion that this type of drivel is "mainstream" is absurd and, frankly, beneath even you.
Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists? In a survey of more than 1,000 readers of websites related to climate change, people who agreed with free market economic principles and endorsed conspiracy theories were more likely to dispute that human-caused climate change was a reality.
So it looks that that article takes an unscientific polling of blog goers to say that hard core disbelievers of anything they are told also disbelieve MSM reports on climate science... and then tries to use word association to launch an ad hominem attack on all people of a general libertarian persuasion.
Clever line of attack.
Interestingly enough, the papers link between cultural cognition (to use the papers term) and dispensation to believe facts and opinions from certain sources was *precisely* the case I was making in the other thread, where you jumped on me with the massive ad hominem attacks. So suffice to say, that is one assertion made by the paper that I agree with - as I have pointed out elsewhere.
I find it humorous and ironic that the type of example used to make the point will so completely dominate your reaction. If the example used revolves around an "example case" you agree with then you are happy to make the same point - however if the "example case" is something you do not agree with, you go nuclear ad hominem and assault the decision making process of the person. Except in regards to the fact that WTC7 is unexplained you actually appeared to agree with that and I seem to recall you saying that the video hammering on it was justified - so you did not even seem to be in rabid disagreement with the example used.
Curious.
So if I make a point that cultural cognition has an effect on what people are predisposed to readily accept as truth and that people should be aware of that very human tendency I am a conspiracy nut. Yet if a paper uses an unscientific poll of blog goers to make the same point but simultaneously bashes your own ideological foes its something you feel is worth posting?
so i will be the one to state the obvious in clear terms.
1. sinij does not want a debate, because he will lose, as he has lost every debate
2. he will use any method, no matter how craven, to paint "the right" in a bad ligt
3. there is no point posting things that he disagrees with. he wont read them or will change the subject
4. "dumpster diving" is an apt term for the desperate "tactic" of mining hateful comments. however, the tweets of so called comedians and other celebrities, always of a leftish tilt, dont even need to be dug up. if someone wants to compare hate, i will match you post for post
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Out of well-deserved respect for Derid I chose not to engage any further with his WTC "discussion". This is the only time I actively chose not to address any of the point that right brought up.
So far track record of debates for your side is not any good. Only Derid has something other than a record of a long string of humiliating losses, rest of you, are running screaming like a little girls straight into denial after few rounds with me.
I know it isn't nice to point out, but you have a lot of studying to do before you could hold your own against me on my bad day.
This is how some one backs out of a losing debate once they realize they've been arguing against folks who aren't making any of the allegations he's claiming.
Kaotic, what are you opinions on moon landing and Kennedy assassination?
so i will be the one to state the obvious in clear terms.
1. sinij does not want a debate, because he will lose, as he has lost every debate
2. he will use any method, no matter how craven, to paint "the right" in a bad ligt
3. there is no point posting things that he disagrees with. he wont read them or will change the subject
4. "dumpster diving" is an apt term for the desperate "tactic" of mining hateful comments. however, the tweets of so called comedians and other celebrities, always of a leftish tilt, dont even need to be dug up. if someone wants to compare hate, i will match you post for post
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf I could not disagree with you more here, and would make the same accusation against you and the other conservatives in this forum.
Kaotic, what are you opinions on moon landing and Kennedy assassination?
So, you're playing right into Cheerio's plan and trying to change the subject or make this some sort of character assassination. Impressive.
We landed on the moon. There is tons of evidence for this.
Kennedy was killed by a whack job who was in love with the Soviet Union.
What difference does it make? Your insinuation is that I'm claiming there's some sort of government conspiracy about the WTC buildings and the NIST report, which simply demonstrates that you have some preconceived notions about anyone who disagrees with the official line and you're not reading my posts. I only alleged that NIST did not do a thorough job in their report and that that sort of slip-shod work is typical of a government bureaucracy. That's it. I don't believe there is some great government coverup. I just enjoy pointing out the failures of big government and watching you try to justify them or mock me and ignore the point.
so i will be the one to state the obvious in clear terms.
1. sinij does not want a debate, because he will lose, as he has lost every debate
2. he will use any method, no matter how craven, to paint "the right" in a bad ligt
3. there is no point posting things that he disagrees with. he wont read them or will change the subject
4. "dumpster diving" is an apt term for the desperate "tactic" of mining hateful comments. however, the tweets of so called comedians and other celebrities, always of a leftish tilt, dont even need to be dug up. if someone wants to compare hate, i will match you post for post
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf I could not disagree with you more here, and would make the same accusation against you and the other conservatives in this forum.
Or you Jet that refuses to answer questions till some one else does, so you can sit there and critce what they said. ha, you sit on a high horse Jet, but at the end of the day your tone is as intolrante as sinij. But in the end that is ok, we love you and sinij all the same. How can we not measure our own thoughts and actions with out comparing them to others. And that is the purpose of both Jet and Sinij.
I only alleged that NIST did not do a thorough job in their report and that that sort of slip-shod work is typical of a government bureaucracy. That's it.
And we all agreed on that part, but please note topic did not die there.
After watching video I concluded: a) Government report was half-assed b) National response was botched due to understandably being unprepared for something like 9/11
Above is quote of my saying exactly this in that other thread.
So what did we not address? We did not address "controlled demolition" and "building 7" claims from the video.
Now please tell me how can you make "controlled demolition" claim and NOT make it some sort of a conspiracy? Buildings don't "controlled demolition" on their own. This is the point where one would cross from healthy skepticism into conspiracy theory.
Red, I think I can safely speak for the group here and let you know that your line of '...but we still love you' flaming officially jumped the shark. You used it so much it made a hole in the forms.
Red, I think I can safely speak for the group here and let you know that your line of '...but we still love you' flaming officially jumped the shark. You used it so much it made a hole in the forms.
Its not flaming if I really love ya'll, and I really do love ya'll. You cant seem to understand that I have love for just about everyone and everything. You cant accept that, and must think I am flaming. But in the end I do love you and Jet, with out pretense, or desire to need the love returned. My love is an open love.
Now either you are going to answer the question or run from it, your choice.
I only alleged that NIST did not do a thorough job in their report and that that sort of slip-shod work is typical of a government bureaucracy. That's it.
And we all agreed on that part, but please note topic did not die there.
After watching video I concluded: a) Government report was half-assed b) National response was botched due to understandably being unprepared for something like 9/11
Above is quote of my saying exactly this in that other thread.
So what did we not address? We did not address "controlled demolition" and "building 7" claims from the video.
Now please tell me how can you make "controlled demolition" claim and NOT make it some sort of a conspiracy? Buildings don't "controlled demolition" on their own. This is the point where one would cross from healthy skepticism into conspiracy theory.
Considering AlQ had bombed WTC buildings before with explosives... the idea that they might possibly try again except try harder to target vulnerable areas of a building did not strike me as a particularly conspiratorial idea.
Given the chaos of the day, and the fact that the NIST report was slipshod it seems entirely plausible that such a bombing could have occurred and not made its way into the public record.
I consider "conspiracy theory" in this case to be speculation that Bush and Co. intentionally destroyed the WTC buildings. Not speculation on how or why the criminals generally known to have masterminded the events of that day in the first place might have gotten away with more than we originally thought, where there are holes in the official account.
In any case, it was completely a hypothetical to demonstrate the effects of cultural cognition (to borrow that Australian psych paper term) on how people assimilate and judge information. Some elements here seem to have missed the point, and decided that proving X or Y was what "really happened" was the point of that thread.
The random speculation was just that - idle speculation to prove that engaging in such type of idle speculation can trigger an extreme emotional response from people who have been told that any such speculation is a sign of a malfunctioning mind and needs to be quashed right away.
From the extreme lengths some elements went to assault me on that thread, you would think I had been trying to make some particular controversial assertion regarding what "really" happened... instead of conversationally engaging in idle speculation of what "theoretically might" have happened given our lack of concrete info.
The fact that even idle discussion of the event, in the same manner we might discuss any other topic elicits such strong emotional reactions from people is what is important here and the phenomena I was trying to demonstrate - which I did with the help of the (oddly and unexpectedly) the left-wing faction on this this forum.
The irony is that I engineered the topic with the idea that I would probably end up debating the right wing faction on the forum. I had been debating the left wing for quite some time and felt like a change of pace, so I phished around for a new controversial topic that I thought I could make a general point with. A topic that I thought would elicit strong reactions from all segments.
However as it turned out, the right wing faction around here seemed to understand pretty early at least what I was trying to do and generally passed on the topic and did not "take the bait" so to speak. So it fell to the left wing faction to swoop in and get in a tizzy over the fact that someone had the temerity to discuss the topic in public. And thus the point was made.
I'm declaring myself the victor in this thread, and every other thread where you have avoided my direct points. so thats all of them.
college knowitall hippies are notorious for having a tenuous grasp of reality, and an inability to see in themselves what they despise in others
#win
Sorry Derid if my reply to Kaotic mislead you into thinking that I would be willing to return to that debate topic.
No worries, the topic wasnt about you - you and Jet just served yourselves up as examples to help me prove a point.
I am quite aware you have nothing further to say on the topic, and was not expecting anything.
Or you Jet that refuses to answer questions till some one else does, so you can sit there and critce what they said. ha, you sit on a high horse Jet, but at the end of the day your tone is as intolrante as sinij. But in the end that is ok, we love you and sinij all the same. How can we not measure our own thoughts and actions with out comparing them to others. And that is the purpose of both Jet and Sinij.
Now guys, come one. I just try to give you guys a taste of your own medicine. Some times a little shock value makes it a better debate. Haven't you been watching the Left vs Right debates?
Would it even be fun if we all just agreed.
Do you want me to "The boring I agree with everyone" forum.
TO be honest, I try to stay out of here, but dabble for a while until you guys all piss me off, then I swear I always will. HONESTLY, debating these points just helps me reinforce why I believe the way I do. Being able to argue your opinions means that you really believe in what you do. I still say that I am open minded enough to change my mind of one of you convinces me. That is the real problem today. I think we are all so polarized, that we just can't see the other side. My opinion is that we have moved so far to the left and right, there is not middle ground. /rant off.
I'm declaring myself the victor in this thread, and every other thread where you have avoided my direct points. so thats all of them.
college knowitall hippies are notorious for having a tenuous grasp of reality, and an inability to see in themselves what they despise in others
#win
Case in point
California as Bellwether, for the GOP and for Us All One of the reasons for California going with open primaries, with top two vote getters on the November ballot (adopted through the initiative process), is because the GOP would punish any member who stepped out of line and was accused of working with the Democrats. Same with removing redistricting control from the Legislature.
Having worked for the County of Orange for 15 years, my take isn't that the California GOP is resigned to losing. It's just that they hold ideological purity higher than election results and have the true believer's faith that if they hold firm their time will come.
Today's GOP has many similarities with the communist and other rigid dogma type parties in that they require their members to continually prove their fidelity to the "cause" even if it keeps changing.
I only got about half way through it before I was overwhelmed with the authors delusional lines of reasoning.
The underlying point - that GOP of today values "ideological purity" above anything else is undeniably spot-on.
I dont see how you get to that point. The GOP has governed like crap in the past because it didnt stick to its principles.
I can see how it might be frustrating for a liberal who sees that the GOP often adheres to ideology only when doing so makes life inconvenient for Dems , especially if it will play well in the next election. You might even call it cynical and self serving.
But its not like the Dems do any differently. Nor do the Dems make things easy. As far as the Obama vs House goes... Boehner is actually a lot more of a pushover, and more moderate than Newt. Obama just to incompetent to deal with him.
I think you misunderstand what these principles are - they are FUCK women, FUCK middle class, MORE warmongering, CROTCHETY OLD MAN POWER!!!
I think you misunderstand what these principles are - they are FUCK women, FUCK middle class, MORE warmongering, CROTCHETY OLD MAN POWER!!!
Oh damn, Sinij has figured us all out. Whatever will we do now?
So, what about the gay people that are replublicans? How does that fit your stereotype?
So, what about the gay people that are replublicans? How does that fit your stereotype?
Really? Now there are some smart folks!
