Govt. Shutdown

sturg33 said:
All in the messaging.

For example, if Mitt Romney went on a debate stage and said "This President signed a bill that allows the US military to indefinitely detain ANY US citizen for ANY reason, with no trial to that citizen" I believe he would have won the election.

But Mitt Romney agreed with NDAA

ACA was pretty unpopular - yet the Republicans put up the man who implemented it first.

Obama won in 2008 bc of his opposition to the war, unbalanced budget, and attacks to civil liberties. But Ron Paul was the only Republican who could have made an argument against him in 2012

If Ron Paul discussed how we are broke, can't afford wars, the wars on drugs, etc etc, that message resonates.

And Ron Paul laid out his plans for SS, did you not see it? He basically said that congress is constutionally forced to pay the benefits it has promised, but he would offer an opt out for anyone under 25 years old - and eventually the program would have died on its own, but voluntarily.

In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was crazy because... everyone told me he was crazy. When I actually listened to what he said, I realized he was brilliant
Click to expand...

Perhaps the ACA isn't as unpopular as the Republican Party would have you believe...

Goes back to the whole which one do you dislike more, Obamacare or ACA?

LOL Obama won in 2008 because of his views on habeus corpus, patriot act, and opposition to war? Absolutely not. The economy crashed 2 months before the election, and the country did NOT want McCain in because they viewed him as Bush 3. There was no way any Republican was going to win the election in 2008. Country was tired of Republicans by 2008, the 2006 historic landslide mid-term elections were just the beginning. The fact of the matter is, the economy was the major issue on election day 2008, not civil liberties or anti-war sentiments. The banks collapsed just a few weeks before, and the economy is what every middle class person was worried about and they felt the Republicans had their time and blew it.

I actually liked Ron Paul, until I realized that most of his views were asinine, crazy, and unrealistic.
 
sturg33 said:
Paul is not in favor of *** marriage because he doesn't care. In his view, anyone who wants to marry someone else should be allowed to, and that we don't need a law to give us permission. I think that is a very strong argument FOR the cause.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean he's for the cause, it just means he doesn't care.

Youth would vote for someone who says they're FOR IT and want to legalize it, not someone who says "I don't mind nor care if it does or doesn't get passed." Leaving it up to the states means you want to deflect responsibility to someone else instead of owning up to it, and that's playing chance because it's likely it won't get passed in many states.

Just because you look the other way on something, doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences.

And you can't just say regular republicans would've voted for Paul just because he's not Obama. Assuming Paul wins the nomination by June or July like Romney did, that gives Obama's team 4 months to tear down Paul's hype. If we are the two party system and country of choosing between lesser of two evils, military families are gonna vote for the guy who wants to continue funding the military, as opposed to the guy wanting to shrink the military.
 
Julio3000 said:
in the House, sure. Gerrymandered districts cut both ways. The republicans have been more successful winning the state legislatures recently, so they've carved out a few more on their side, but yes, of course there are lefties in congress, and of course they play to their bases.

You're still kind of sliding around the point, though. The far right is driving policy and strategy on the republican side. They have organization and access to money that has no analogue on the left. The far left has been shut out of D policymaking since, well, pretty much since before I was of voting age.
Click to expand...

What are you considering to be far left? Communism? What are you considering to be far right? To me far right is anarchy. I guess you are saying that libertarianism is far right? I don't really think that's taken off like maybe you think it has? I don't think wanting to cut tax rates by 5% at the highest progressive rate is far right. I don't think being against national healthcare is far right. I don't think being against *** marriage is far right. I don't think being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is a far right position. So I guess I need to understand what your definition is.

I mean... Rand and Cruz have gotten a lot of support lately, but a lot of that is because of the filibustering thing. They're doing well in Iowa, but Iowa is maybe the furthest right state.

This is a party whose base just elected Romney.
 
KeithLockhart said:
That doesn't mean he's for the cause, it just means he doesn't care.

Youth would vote for someone who says they're FOR IT and want to legalize it, not someone who says "I don't mind nor care if it does or doesn't get passed." Leaving it up to the states means you want to deflect responsibility to someone else instead of owning up to it, and that's playing chance because it's likely it won't get passed in many states.

Just because you look the other way on something, doesn't mean you're immune to the consequences.

And you can't just say regular republicans would've voted for Paul just because he's not Obama. Assuming Paul wins the nomination by June or July like Romney did, that gives Obama's team 4 months to tear down Paul's hype. If we are the two party system and country of choosing between lesser of two evils, military families are gonna vote for the guy who wants to continue funding the military, as opposed to the guy wanting to shrink the military.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand Paul's position at all.

He doesn't believe the government has ANY say in marriage, thus ***s would be allowed to be married in any circumstance. However, if government INSISTS on being involved, then do it at the state level, like the constitution demands.
 
sturg33 said:
??

g.a.y.s we're talking about *** marriage. am i not being politically correct enough for you?
Click to expand...

this is why censorship is dumb on the internet for words 99% for the time

didn't know g.ay was censored

i was guessing it was f.ag

carry on
 
weso1 said:
What are you considering to be far left? Communism? What are you considering to be far right? To me far right is anarchy. I guess you are saying that libertarianism is far right? I don't really think that's taken off like maybe you think it has? I don't think wanting to cut tax rates by 5% at the highest progressive rate is far right. I don't think being against national healthcare is far right. I don't think being against *** marriage is far right. I don't think being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest is a far right position. So I guess I need to understand what your definition is.

I mean... Rand and Cruz have gotten a lot of support lately, but a lot of that is because of the filibustering thing. They're doing well in Iowa, but Iowa is maybe the furthest right state.

This is a party whose base just elected Romney.
Click to expand...

They did not nominate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. They nominated Romney after he made a public show of repudiating his former moderate positions and adopting party orthodoxy.

Iowa is maybe the furthest right state? Since when?

Far right is anarchy and far left is Obama? Sweet Jesus.

How about comparing the conservative Republican president who created the EPA with the mainstream republican position that it should be abolished?

How about comparing the two Republican presidents in the 80s who raised taxes when economic conditions warranted it with a generation of Republican elected officials who sign a pledge never to vote for a tax increase?

How about a party that, unlike other parties of the right in the western world, denies anthropogenic climate change? ****, there's a pretty strong constituency that still denies evolution.

How about a party whose mainstream presidential candidates supported not a 5% cut in the top marginal rate, but cutting by half or a third the rate that the richest Americans pay (post-Bush), and eliminating taxes on investment income?

Come on, man. I've got plenty more.
 
Julio3000 said:
They did not nominate Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. They nominated Romney after he made a public show of repudiating his former moderate positions and adopting party orthodoxy.

Iowa is maybe the furthest right state? Since when?

Far right is anarchy and far left is Obama? Sweet Jesus.

How about comparing the conservative Republican president who created the EPA with the mainstream republican position that it should be abolished?

How about comparing the two Republican presidents in the 80s who raised taxes when economic conditions warranted it with a generation of Republican elected officials who sign a pledge never to vote for a tax increase?

How about a party that, unlike other parties of the right in the western world, denies anthropogenic climate change? ****, there's a pretty strong constituency that still denies evolution.

How about a party whose mainstream presidential candidates supported not a 5% cut in the top marginal rate, but cutting by half or a third the rate that the richest Americans pay (post-Bush), and eliminating taxes on investment income?

Come on, man. I've got plenty more.
Click to expand...

I ain't no monkey. :icwudt:

You're right about Romney. I think his inconsistency hurt him as much as anything. It's a bit hard to run effectively when the other side can paint you as a flip-flopper, and justifiably so. Just ask John Kerry. Obama and the Dems used the "We crafted the ACA after Romney's system in Massachusetts" as well as Bush and the Republicans did "I actually voted for the War in Iraq before I voted against it."

They also were able to scare people into thinking Romney would take all the poor people's money, much like Bush's people beat down the doors in Ohio in 2004 saying "We ain't gonna be a Christian nation no more if Bush don't win. Don't let these g.a.y.s get married!"

And I'll own up to being selfish when it comes to taxes. I don't get much taken out in taxes anyway with my puny salary, but if they take any more, I'm gonna slap someone.
 
When did I ever say that the far left was Obama itt? I don't believe Obama is a communist. Although I guess he could be in secret. I've said before that I don't even think Obama is a socialist. I don't think wanting to limit the power of the EPA is a far right issue...not sure there's ever been a serious push to abolish it. I mean even if only 30% of the population agree with limiting the EPA then that's still a pretty good chunk of people. You're talking about presidential candidates who wound up getting annihilated by their moderate peer who always had moderate policies and had zero personality. Every politician says they aren't going to raise taxes. So not sure how that fits into your agenda to make republicans appear far right when they aren't. Look, we can go through all these issues one by one on both sides, but it seems incredibly boring and pointless.

I'd rather just stick with what the republican party actually does rather than what they say in polls. Fact is that they're voting for the moderate folks on a national stage. Look at what Ryan, Christie and Rubio have been doing lately prerepublican nomination. They are moving toward the middle, each in their own way. The true far right guys like Paul Johnson are still ignored for the most part just like they are ignored on the left. In this next election you'll see that another moderate will be elected in the primary.

Truth be told when a republican becomes president again you'll see the dems try to block everything and all of a sudden they'll become the out of touch "far left" party. It all goes in cycles.
 
the math for a republican president

doesn't add up any time soon

but the democrats don't have the balls to do what republicans pull in this country
 
weso1 said:
It was an extremely partisan vote.
Click to expand...

Well, you're moving the goalposts a bit there. I wasn't arguing that. I explicitly agreed the vote itself was partisan, in fact. Your original statement was that the legislation was partisan, not just the vote. The legislation itself end up much closer to the center than the original Obama proposal.

And the public option was dropped because of Lieberman; I wouldn't call him a blue dog; he's always been more of a basset hound.

weso1 said:
Of course the pubs are offering something. They're offering him funding. They're witholding it because the dems aren't negotiating right now. This is something that has been done many times in the past by both parties.
Click to expand...

This has been done once in the past 23 years; it happened fairly frequently after the idea was invented in the late 70s, but by the late 80s it the popularity of the tactic had waned, and the 1995 one should have cemented that opinion among rational people that it was a bad idea.

weso1 said:
They just asked for a simple delay in the implementation of Obamacare. Reid is unwilling to go to the negotiation table on it. At the very least there are significant concerns about the Obamacare implementation. So what's so bad about a one year delay. Get the kinks worked out and then implement the horrible policy.
Click to expand...

All they are asking is that on the day the program starts, you actually shut it all down so they can have another year to figure out someway to destroy it. Why that does sound reasonable! It's so simple!

"Kinks"? Are you ****ting me? The only "kink" they want to fix is that it exists at all. There is no middle ground to negotiate towards. What are these mythical fixes that will suddenly make them approve of Obamacare?

weso1 said:
Let me ask you this question? If the Pubs are petty by doing this governmental shutdown thing, then is the President not being petty by refusing to consider bills that would partially restore nonnecessary governmental services? Is it petty of the president to allow as much pain as he can allow, like he did during the sequester? The truth is that both sides are playing politics here.
Click to expand...

I mean, I guess? Maybe? It's certainly a political move, but it's not really petty (those aren't synonyms) the to same degree, in my opinion. The Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Why would anyone in his shoes let them do that? If he let's them off the hook for their actions, they are just going to do it again.

weso1 said:
With all of that in mind... I think this is a pure political move to appease to the majority who don't like Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government. At least Newt thought he would win.
 
weso1 said:
The liberals have to appease to their base as well. It cuts both ways. I mean you have to be a pretty big homer not to see that. For Every moderate liberal there's a steaksauce.
Click to expand...

Not really. Those guys are gonna vote for the Dem no matter what; they are so scarred and guilty about Nader and Bush. Plus, they will turn out, because unlike right wing extremists they actually like government.

I mean, just look at your example. Is there any chance at SteakSauce doesn't vote for Hillary or whatever moderate Dem gets nominated? On the other hand, half this board's conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul.
 
Metaphysicist said:
I mean, I guess? Maybe? It's certainly a political move, but it's not really petty (those aren't synonyms) the to same degree, in my opinion. The Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Why would anyone in his shoes let them do that? If he let's them off the hook for their actions, they are just going to do it again.

Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government.
Click to expand...

That is certainly the party line yes... well stated.

So answer this question then. Why do you hate kids who have cancer and want them to die?
 
Metaphysicist said:
Not really. Those guys are gonna vote for the Dem no matter what; they are so scarred and guilty about Nader and Bush. Plus, they will turn out, because unlike right wing extremists they actually like government.

I mean, just look at your example. Is there any chance at SteakSauce doesn't vote for Hillary or whatever moderate Dem gets nominated? On the other hand, half this board's conservatives want to vote for Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Chopcountry.com is a good barometer.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Which is a ****ty reason to shutdown the government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it is too. But I think the impacts of it are being largely overstated and dems are doing whatever they can to make the impacts as painful as possible. So both sides are playing a rather ****ty game of politics here. With that in mind I think the pubs in congress have gone too far on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top