Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
See I have not said what I am referring to but you have filled my mouth with lots of anti-republican speak that I never spoke
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
See I have not said what I am referring to but you have filled my mouth with lots of anti-republican speak that I never spoke
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Ignoring people on political grounds is why we are at the sorry state of things we have at present.
If anything, you and Jasc should both be trying to see each other's points and, while you don't have to agree, acknowledge that there are legitimate feelings and beliefs behind them or, if they are based on fallacious information, express that clearly and openly without vitriol.
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
I'm just going to point out that it's explicitly against the rules to accuse people of trolling or calling them a troll.
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
It's not even written into the rules. It's a loophole, an inconceivable problem that shouldn't occur with functioning congress. Looking at something that is considerably damaging to the long term stability and health of the nation as a tool for short term political points is a detriment to all parties and political goals.
If this shutdown leads to the US dollar losing international reserve currency status, which it could with a default (or, more likely, be a major contributing factor to the Euro or the Yuan taking that role over the next 10-15 years) that would make both parties in the shit as we lose our economic hegemony and have to rely more and more on our military hardware to preserve our international status.
Just speaking for me, I don't think this kind of economic brinkmanship is responsible governance. I just don't. There are other ways to make a point and a whole host of other legislative processes that you can use to work out the kinks of a law that you don't like.
Eh, the debt limit has to be one of the dumbest fucking ideas our glorious system of checks and balances has ever had but it ain't a loophole. Although in my completely inconsequential opinion it's unconstitutional.
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason.
"Give me what I want or I blow up the country" is not a workable strategy for the survival of a Democracy.
Not like "oh that's rude" unworkable. Like "end of the American Empire, world in chaos, financial ruin across every first world economy" unworkable.
Regardless of changing the views of one outspoken person that clearly has an opposing viewpoint, I think that the conversation takes place is important for potentially changing the minds of people on the fence (edit: or people who are still malleable, regardless of their current position). Debates don't just occur for the participants, they're often for the bystanders.
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
edited October 2013
look, it's not like jasc is sitting in here, insulting people's mothers
he's expressing an opposing political position in a thread that's highly hostile to his point of view
occasionally, he makes a point that's worth listening to. more often, he's playing devil's advocate in the echo chamber and making people reconsider their preconceptions
if you want to express your opinion on a serious subject, you should always be ready to defend it against challenges. if you aren't, you should think about what that means
I am willing right now to call John Boehner and tell him to end this if one of you can convince Barack Obama to agree to start pronouncing "Pakistan" as "Pack-ih-stan" instead of "Pocky-Stan"
You have the power, SE++
+2
Options
Snowbeati need somethingto kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered Userregular
I am willing right now to call John Boehner and tell him to end this if one of you can convince Barack Obama to agree to start pronouncing "Pakistan" as "Pack-ih-stan" instead of "Pocky-Stan"
You have the power, SE++
Finally, a Jasconius post I can agree on completely and without inhibition
Somehow that pronounciation grates on me worse than nuke-u-lur
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
The Souls of the Koch brothers?
0
Options
I Win Swordfightsall the traits of greatnessstarlight at my feetRegistered Userregular
i am not saying having a republican in the thread is bad
that is no what i am saying nor is it what i have ever said nor did i say you should never engage him or if i did or implied that it's not what i meant
my point is that at a lot of times i question his sincerity, and a post at the end of the thread i saw in response to him said "christ you're a piece of work"
and so i wanted to ask the question
why not just ignore him instead of letting him ruffle your feathers because this is literally what he always does
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
The Souls of the Koch brothers?
Seems like a bad idea to demand something that doesn't exist
i am not saying having a republican in the thread is bad
that is no what i am saying nor is it what i have ever said nor did i say you should never engage him or if i did or implied that it's not what i meant
my point is that at a lot of times i question his sincerity, and a post at the end of the thread i saw in response to him said "christ you're a piece of work"
and so i wanted to ask the question
why not just ignore him instead of letting him ruffle your feathers because this is literally what he always does
because it's good to have your feathers ruffled once in a while?
+4
Options
I Win Swordfightsall the traits of greatnessstarlight at my feetRegistered Userregular
i do not see getting annoyed/frustrated/angry as productive
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
The Souls of the Koch brothers?
And a unicorn
also a sandwich
and John Boehner has to wear a dress every day for the rest of 2013
and Firefly comes back, but its good not bad and if its bad we force Joss to try again
and vests are popular again.
DEAR REPUBLICANS do all of the above or I will be forced to make the country explode, even though I don't want to and it would be super bad and I never would ever do that but you're making me do it.
Love,
- President Obama.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Just speaking for me, I don't think this kind of economic brinkmanship is responsible governance. I just don't. There are other ways to make a point and a whole host of other legislative processes that you can use to work out the kinks of a law that you don't like.
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger? What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
He can make whatever demands he wants. He can blow the country up literally, not just economically (assuming people carried out orders, which, hopefully, they wouldn't).
i am not saying having a republican in the thread is bad
that is no what i am saying nor is it what i have ever said nor did i say you should never engage him or if i did or implied that it's not what i meant
my point is that at a lot of times i question his sincerity, and a post at the end of the thread i saw in response to him said "christ you're a piece of work"
and so i wanted to ask the question
why not just ignore him instead of letting him ruffle your feathers because this is literally what he always does
That was me!
And it was in response to the fact that Jasc looooves to put words in people's mouths so that he can place them in a nice neat category that opposes him
Doesn't really have anything to do with his republican-ness though
Real talk time Jasc ignores all points that specifically ask him for specific responses to things we specifically already know and have quotes and videos of republicans to back up the specific points we (and I use the royal we because I haven't made one single productive post in these threads)
He doesn't say anything
He ignores the posts that explicitly prove him wrong and quotes other posts and says more dumb things
This is not political affiliation
This is a troll at best and an actual republican at worst
Why guys
Why
There were a whole bunch of posts at the end of that compared republicans so some sort of murders or criminals of something, I didn't reply to each one of those sorry
I wish I had the time to respond to every individual post, which come at a rate of about 10-15 posts for every post I make, but I do actually have a job to do
However, I hope you are all sitting down for this. YoSoWalrus is right, I made a bad, bad misreading of the corporate mandate and I was wrong about it. He is right, uncovered corporate workers will be required to use the exchanges
If the GOP's private transcript is to only block the CR to halt Obamacare on the basis of the individual mandate, then that is wrong, however I don't think that's the real goal of GOP leadership
those are not what I was referring to
you actively say things that do not jive with reality and when presented with evidence that this is the case, you ignore the post and move on to another one that has less support at the moment
I am not referring to the murderers comments
maybe if I feel like putting my back into it I'll go grab the posts im talking about to show you.
But I also think you know exactly what I'm talking about
If you're talking about the use of the debt limit as a weapon then I don't know what else to tell you. The GOP has a right to do that. They were elected. The house has been empowered with that ability. It's that way for a reason. They take major political risks by doing it. There've been 17 shutdowns, only 2 at the hands of a Republican speaker, so they hardly invented it. That it has only happened twice since 95 has more to do with political coincidence than anything.
What I'd appreciate is a little more debate substance than a careful mixture of "well they only have the house because of gerrymandering" and "it's a law so they should just roll over"
yes, the GOP should do exactly nothing because you don't like them, sorry dawg, I'm not eager to debate you on those terms
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
He can make whatever demands he wants. He can blow the country up literally, not just economically (assuming people carried out orders, which, hopefully, they wouldn't).
Also the Senate
they get to filibuster stuff
so I guess they get a long list of demands for not blowing up the country too
This is obviously a viable long-term strategy for the survival of a first world country.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
I Win Swordfightsall the traits of greatnessstarlight at my feetRegistered Userregular
i am not saying having a republican in the thread is bad
that is no what i am saying nor is it what i have ever said nor did i say you should never engage him or if i did or implied that it's not what i meant
my point is that at a lot of times i question his sincerity, and a post at the end of the thread i saw in response to him said "christ you're a piece of work"
and so i wanted to ask the question
why not just ignore him instead of letting him ruffle your feathers because this is literally what he always does
That was me!
And it was in response to the fact that Jasc looooves to put words in people's mouths so that he can place them in a nice neat category that opposes him
Doesn't really have anything to do with his republican-ness though
i do not see getting annoyed/frustrated/angry as productive
all those angry posts get buckets of agrees
well as mentioned, echo chambers are not productive either
i am not suggesting we make it an echo chamber
i am suggesting we keep our posters in perspective
0
Options
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
If this works, and the Tea Party gets what they want, what is the fucking point of voting on laws anymore? If a group of people, not even a majority in their own party, can just go "nope not happening" when something they don't like is brought up, how does the government even continue to function? Nothing of any importance would ever get enacted unless it was universally approved, and nothing ever is universally approved, ever.
People have posted stories about approval of republicans dropping because of this, but is that true in the places that elected these tea party guys? The people that voted for them are probably fucking psyched about all this. What if the repubs that aren't in the tea party are the ones to lose their seats? Would the people that stop voting for them jump parties, or would they just vote for whatever R challenges them? What if that person is in the TP?
+3
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
Again, all I can think of when I see the title of this thread.
I am willing right now to call John Boehner and tell him to end this if one of you can convince Barack Obama to agree to start pronouncing "Pakistan" as "Pack-ih-stan" instead of "Pocky-Stan"
You have the power, SE++
Finally, a Jasconius post I can agree on completely and without inhibition
Somehow that pronounciation grates on me worse than nuke-u-lur
If this works, and the Tea Party gets what they want, what is the fucking point of voting on laws anymore? If a group of people, not even a majority in their own party, can just go "nope not happening" when something they don't like is brought up, how does the government even continue to function? Nothing of any importance would ever get enacted unless it was universally approved, and nothing ever is universally approved, ever.
There are tons of people who believe that if we just think really really hard we can come to a consensus about everything and have a perfect society.
Posts
The other side of the aisle is only interested in pooping down chimneys.
See I have not said what I am referring to but you have filled my mouth with lots of anti-republican speak that I never spoke
if I don't get what I want
I will be forced to poop down this chimney.
I don't want to poop down this chimney
it would be horrible for America
it would be horrible for me
sootbutt is a real problem that affects us all
but if I don't get what I want
this chimney
its gettin' pooped in.
What does it taste like?
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
If anything, you and Jasc should both be trying to see each other's points and, while you don't have to agree, acknowledge that there are legitimate feelings and beliefs behind them or, if they are based on fallacious information, express that clearly and openly without vitriol.
Being elected doesn't make using national debt as a weapon excusable, just possible.
Just because it is written in the rules does not make it right, as you well know.
If this shutdown leads to the US dollar losing international reserve currency status, which it could with a default (or, more likely, be a major contributing factor to the Euro or the Yuan taking that role over the next 10-15 years) that would make both parties in the shit as we lose our economic hegemony and have to rely more and more on our military hardware to preserve our international status.
"Give me what I want or I blow up the country" is not a workable strategy for the survival of a Democracy.
Not like "oh that's rude" unworkable. Like "end of the American Empire, world in chaos, financial ruin across every first world economy" unworkable.
Obama was elected too--
What demands does he get to make for not blowing up the country?
Maybe we should start a list of suggestions.
he's expressing an opposing political position in a thread that's highly hostile to his point of view
occasionally, he makes a point that's worth listening to. more often, he's playing devil's advocate in the echo chamber and making people reconsider their preconceptions
if you want to express your opinion on a serious subject, you should always be ready to defend it against challenges. if you aren't, you should think about what that means
You have the power, SE++
Finally, a Jasconius post I can agree on completely and without inhibition
Somehow that pronounciation grates on me worse than nuke-u-lur
The Souls of the Koch brothers?
that is no what i am saying nor is it what i have ever said nor did i say you should never engage him or if i did or implied that it's not what i meant
my point is that at a lot of times i question his sincerity, and a post at the end of the thread i saw in response to him said "christ you're a piece of work"
and so i wanted to ask the question
why not just ignore him instead of letting him ruffle your feathers because this is literally what he always does
Seems like a bad idea to demand something that doesn't exist
because it's good to have your feathers ruffled once in a while?
that is my point
that is my whole point
i do not think jasc is a bad person
And a unicorn
also a sandwich
and John Boehner has to wear a dress every day for the rest of 2013
and Firefly comes back, but its good not bad and if its bad we force Joss to try again
and vests are popular again.
DEAR REPUBLICANS do all of the above or I will be forced to make the country explode, even though I don't want to and it would be super bad and I never would ever do that but you're making me do it.
Love,
- President Obama.
And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:
1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).
Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:
A) What is the danger?
What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?
Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.
He can make whatever demands he wants. He can blow the country up literally, not just economically (assuming people carried out orders, which, hopefully, they wouldn't).
That was me!
And it was in response to the fact that Jasc looooves to put words in people's mouths so that he can place them in a nice neat category that opposes him
Doesn't really have anything to do with his republican-ness though
all those angry posts get buckets of agrees
Since I'm eligible for paying for it through my dad's military service, I only get to keep it for another 5 months anyway.
Glad obamacare stuff is finally rolling out
Also the Senate
they get to filibuster stuff
so I guess they get a long list of demands for not blowing up the country too
This is obviously a viable long-term strategy for the survival of a first world country.
nor does my point
well as mentioned, echo chambers are not productive either
i am not suggesting we make it an echo chamber
i am suggesting we keep our posters in perspective
People have posted stories about approval of republicans dropping because of this, but is that true in the places that elected these tea party guys? The people that voted for them are probably fucking psyched about all this. What if the repubs that aren't in the tea party are the ones to lose their seats? Would the people that stop voting for them jump parties, or would they just vote for whatever R challenges them? What if that person is in the TP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf8ELeZDhy8
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
?
There are tons of people who believe that if we just think really really hard we can come to a consensus about everything and have a perfect society.
It's bizarre.
it's correct-er
That's basically why the President's position is "fuck off, you get nothing, give me a clean bill or go home."
Also the only viable solution if you're interested in the continued health and prosperity of the United States of America.
thorlevitatesgianttwizzler.gif