Meme & Quote Thread

Jaw said:
I wasn't disagreeing with you OH. Just saying 'Yeah, it sucks, they're all like that now.' There was a time when the Senate acted a bit more like grown ups than the HoR did. I think McCain and Graham, as much as I disagree with them both, were big advocates of that. I also recall Obama shutting McCain down in a televised Obamacare meeting when McCain questioned some flaw in the plan. Obama basically told him the election was over and to shut up. In typical McCain fashion, he did.

I agree with you that we would all be better off if McConnell, Reid, Pelosi all went home. I think Schumer and Ryan would actually try to do things the right way. I also think they are in a time and a place where they would fail, be overthrown, or both. DC is a cesspit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to take it out on you, I just see these childish buffoons just making things worse and worse, on both sides, and I see the radical talking heads on both sides getting more and more extreme and their followers just eating it up and tearing the nation further and further apart and it seems as though most people can only recognize bad behavior when it's the other side doing it, or even if they happen to recognize it they twist things around until they can justify it in their own minds. This will be the death of us, not ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or North Korea, or whomever...

Again, sorry for taking it all out on you. :)
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Even though your political sentiments and affiliations are obvious, you've always stood out as being above the partisan Kool-Aid fog, but to be honest, since Trump has been elected and aholes like McConnell , Cruz, and Ryan have been playing their games I just don't know anymore. I realize politics is about "winning" above all things, but you know what, it shouldn't be. Doing the right thing and doing the partisan thing are often not the same thing. It's OK though, I absolutely support your rights to feel, believe, and support whatever course of political games you want. I just thought you were a little more constructionalist or old school regarding the Constitution and the ideals and intentions of the founding fathers. Oh well, live and learn.
Click to expand...

Let's not automatically conflate my support for Trump (which I've gone through painstaking detail to explain as a kind of bull in china shop, necessary evil) with my "political sentiments and affiliations". I think Ryan and McConnell are jokes, and have called for their heads on numerous occasions. I mocked Cruz relentlessly throughout the primary process and would take the opportunity to do so again whenever he re-achieves a semblance of relevancy.

If you want to label someone who vigorously supports universal healthcare, big government, and most modern socialist principles as a Republican ... then you should feel free to do that - at your own hazard. I'm all over the board and my "political sentiments and affiliations" are not traditional and not American. I play devil's advocate around here a lot because the groupthink sometimes is flimsy and, like you, I enjoy challenging people on issues that I believe deserve thoughtful consideration (and not automatic towing of the party line).

Now, back to the original topic of discussion; I readily accept strict interpretations of the constitution. That's why I'm asking you to show me where you see the Republicans having transgressed with respect to the Garland appointment, because what you are suggesting is not an "old school" interpretation of the document. It's heavily inferred - not to say inaccurate - but it's not explicit.

I agree with you that the evolution of the political system in this country has gone down a path that is abhorrent and most definitely not in the best interests of the people. But I also don't believe that we can snap our fingers and automatically choose to devolve from it.
 
Hawk said:
Let's not automatically conflate my support for Trump (which I've gone through painstaking detail to explain as a kind of bull in china shop, necessary evil) with my "political sentiments and affiliations". I think Ryan and McConnell are jokes, and have called for their heads on numerous occasions. I mocked Cruz relentlessly throughout the primary process and would take the opportunity to do so again whenever he re-achieves a semblance of relevancy.

If you want to label someone who vigorously supports universal healthcare, big government, and most modern socialist principles as a Republican ... then you should feel free to do that - at your own hazard. I'm all over the board and my "political sentiments and affiliations" are not traditional and not American. I play devil's advocate around here a lot because the groupthink sometimes is flimsy and, like you, I enjoy challenging people on issues that I believe deserve thoughtful consideration (and not automatic towing of the party line).

Now, back to the original topic of discussion; I readily accept strict interpretations of the constitution. That's why I'm asking you to show me where you see the Republicans having transgressed with respect to the Garland appointment, because what you are suggesting is not an "old school" interpretation of the document. It's heavily inferred - not to say inaccurate - but it's not explicit.

I agree with you that the evolution of the political system in this country has gone down a path that is abhorrent and most definitely not in the best interests of the people. But I also don't believe that we can snap our fingers and automatically choose to devolve from it.
Click to expand...

Hawk said:
Let's just stick to these 2 paragraphs as they offer the most area for agreement/conciliation.

Now, back to the original topic of discussion; I readily accept strict interpretations of the constitution. That's why I'm asking you to show me where you see the Republicans having transgressed with respect to the Garland appointment, because what you are suggesting is not an "old school" interpretation of the document. It's heavily inferred - not to say inaccurate - but it's not explicit.

1.) Name me one time in our nation's history when any party in control of Congress went against the wishes of a sitting and duly elected president's nomination for a SCOTUS Justice just because it was an election year and they felt like they could get away with it.
2.) Totally agree on McConnell, Cruz, Ryan, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and lots of others, I just can't think of their names right now. Oh and Hilldog.

I agree with you that the evolution of the political system in this country has gone down a path that is abhorrent and most definitely not in the best interests of the people. But I also don't believe that we can snap our fingers and automatically choose to devolve from it.

Again, I agree, but as I said for years on here (and it's never gotten me anywhere so you'd think I'd quit saying it), when you vote for a bad person simply because they aren't a different bad person, you're still voting for a bad person. To go along with the main theme of your argument, your record of supporting/not supporting people and/or policies, I think my record would show that I support those who help give people the opportunity to achieve the American dream, IF they're willing to work for it. I realize the Clintons aren't those people, but ask yourself this, how many "regular folks" has Trump ever helped" I guess we'll see. I think you'll agree that I have not made very many damning posts of him, I've pretty much stayed out of the whole fray, after all good or bad we're stuck with him for at least 3 more years, and to paraphrase John Kasich, I support him and root for him for the same reason that I support and root for the guy who's flying the airplane I'm a passenger on at the time.
Click to expand...
.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
1.) Name me one time in our nation's history when any party in control of Congress went against the wishes of a sitting and duly elected president's nomination for a SCOTUS Justice just because it was an election year and they felt like they could get away with it.
Click to expand...

My counter; name me one time in our nation's history when a sitting and duly elected (and, sorry, I've got to: lame duck) President tried to appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year after the primary season had already commenced. As a member of the minority government, too, mind you.

Again, though, you aren't speaking to the Constitutional aspect of all of this, which was your original (and refined/restated) point of contention.

Again, I agree, but as I said for years on here (and it's never gotten me anywhere so you'd think I'd quit saying it), when you vote for a bad person simply because they aren't a different bad person, you're still voting for a bad person. To go along with the main theme of your argument, your record of supporting/not supporting people and/or policies, I think my record would show that I support those who help give people the opportunity to achieve the American dream, IF they're willing to work for it. I realize the Clintons aren't those people, but ask yourself this, how many "regular folks" has Trump ever helped" I guess we'll see. I think you'll agree that I have not made very many damning posts of him, I've pretty much stayed out of the whole fray, after all good or bad we're stuck with him for at least 3 more years, and to paraphrase John Kasich, I support him and root for him for the same reason that I support and root for the guy who's flying the airplane I'm a passenger on at the time.
Click to expand...

You vote for a 'bad' (ugh, really?) person because they represent the best option available (and possibly, ever) towards achieving the ends you desire. For me, personally, I gravitate towards candidates who eschew the trappings of systemic government (which is the root cause of this ****-storm). All of them - from the bogus ideal of Chief Executive decorum to the idea that career politicians/Washingtonians are the best options to fulfill governing roles. And, of course, all of these things could never shake down perfectly, but even if it's a nudge in the right direction toward dismantling our skewed notions of what democracy actually stands for, I'll gladly take it.

This guy happened to be Trump. But it just as easily could have been Sanders, for example. Liberals traditionally push this kind of candidate (see Kennedy or Carter or Clinton ... or Tony Blair or Nick Clegg in England). They've gotten away from that. They should go back to it.
 
Hawk said:
My counter; name me one time in our nation's history when a sitting and duly elected (and, sorry, I've got to: lame duck) President tried to appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year after the primary season had already commenced. As a member of the minority government, too, mind you.

This one is easy, "every time any president has had the opportunity to nominate a justice during his lame duck year. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't bang every hottie he ever met, but it probably wasn't because he didn't want to, just because he didn't have the chance.



Again, though, you aren't speaking to the Constitutional aspect of all of this, which was your original (and refined/restated) point of contention.

You vote for a 'bad' (ugh, really?) person because they represent the best option available (and possibly, ever) towards achieving the ends you desire. For me, personally, I gravitate towards candidates who eschew the trappings of systemic government (which is the root cause of this ****-storm). All of them - from the bogus ideal of Chief Executive decorum to the idea that career politicians/Washingtonians are the best options to fulfill governing roles. And, of course, all of these things could never shake down perfectly, but even if it's a nudge in the right direction toward dismantling our skewed notions of what democracy actually stands for, I'll gladly take it. Honestly, I don't think anybody knows how to nudge anymore, it's either a slight brush or a full blown blitz type push.

This guy happened to be Trump. But it just as easily could have been Sanders, for example. Liberals traditionally push this kind of candidate (see Kennedy or Carter or Clinton ... or Tony Blair or Nick Clegg in England). They've gotten away from that. They should go back to it. IMO the Dems should go back to, or maybe just actually really go to for the first time, a real economic program that really does help most Americans instead of just criticizing the Repubs plans. The Dems are literally the Repubs on repealing Obamacare as far as developing and implementing a real economics program and for anyone who's interested this latest Repub plan, another variation on Reaganomics is only going to provide a few years of boom followed by more years of bust, just like it always has. IMO it's just up to each of us to lay aside as much grain as possible for these boom years so that we can still have something to eat when the bust hits.
Click to expand...

.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
This one is easy, "every time any president has had the opportunity to nominate a justice during his lame duck year. Remember, Bill Clinton didn't bang every hottie he ever met, but it probably wasn't because he didn't want to, just because he didn't have the chance.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how many times has that been?

Honestly, I don't think anybody knows how to nudge anymore, it's either a slight brush or a full blown blitz type push.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd take a blitz. I'm advocating for revolution, though.

IMO the Dems should go back to, or maybe just actually really go to for the first time, a real economic program that really does help most Americans instead of just criticizing the Repubs plans. The Dems are literally the Repubs on repealing Obamacare as far as developing and implementing a real economics program and for anyone who's interested this latest Repub plan, another variation on Reaganomics is only going to provide a few years of boom followed by more years of bust, just like it always has. IMO it's just up to each of us to lay aside as much grain as possible for these boom years so that we can still have something to eat when the bust hits
Click to expand...

Not just an economic program - they need an entire platform is markedly different than the Republican agenda. Meaningful differentiation can't exist solely in the realm of social policy.

I don't like this tax bill, but I also don't believe that trickle-down is inherently bad or pre-determined to fail.
 
https://newrepublic.com/article/144180/single-payer-wonks

“Historically conservatives, particularly the Koch network, have been better at thinking of policy as a way to not only achieve technical ends but to also change the political landscape, either by weakening their opponents or strengthening their allies,” Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, political scientist at Columbia University, told me. Hertel-Fernandez sees an opportunity for the left to learn from the right by conceiving of policy as a way to shift politics in a durable way. He points to the payroll tax cuts in Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan, which achieved a technical end of providing workers with more disposable income, but failed to convince Americans that the equivalent of handing out cash to people is a great way to fight recessions. A majority of voters did not even know that their taxes had actually gone down. “People fixate on what are the technical fixes, but policies have to be popular,” Hertel-Fernandez says.
 
Hawk said:
Ok, so how many times has that been? See my Bill Clinton analogy.

Well, I'd take a blitz. I'm advocating for revolution, though. Sweet, specifics?

Not just an economic program - they need an entire platform is markedly different than the Republican agenda. Meaningful differentiation can't exist solely in the realm of social policy.

I don't like this tax bill, but I also don't believe that trickle-down is inherently bad or pre-determined to fail.
Click to expand...

Agree, after all it was Bill Clinton and company who gave us NAFTA. OK, it's my turn, how many times has trickle down actually worked more than 7-10 years without causing an economic meltdown and stock market upheaval?
 
D6ZiJ3h.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Ez1Ai41.png


This is the very essence of freedom because what is and isn't a good choice is not always crystal clear and the government would be the one deciding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top