Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Impending Government Shutdown

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me preface this with a small restriction: If you know you are a conservative or liberal sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand, please refrain from forwarding an opinion.

So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate. What I want you to consider, regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, is whether or not the actions taken by the GOP were improper or disrespectful of the legislative process.

1. If the government does shut down, who or what is most at fault?

2. Even if Obamacare is a failure, in whatever manner that failure may come about, wouldn't Democrats pay the price? Why not just let it take its course?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:11:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Democracy, as we seem to need to make clear once more, is not a good in itself, but a beneficial way to make the ends of fair representation of the people and their consent to rule. Endless blocking of legislation by a leader who is legitimised by the consent of his voters, and even those who are not by their support of democracy and their nation and using its public goods, is stating that their consent is meaningless. In other words, the endless blocking is anathema to the purpose of democracy, for it undermines consent.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:17:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:11:10 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Democracy, as we seem to need to make clear once more, is not a good in itself, but a beneficial way to make the ends of fair representation of the people and their consent to rule. Endless blocking of legislation by a leader who is legitimised by the consent of his voters, and even those who are not by their support of democracy and their nation and using its public goods, is stating that their consent is meaningless. In other words, the endless blocking is anathema to the purpose of democracy, for it undermines consent.

Who's responsible for this blockage: the leader or the legislature?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:22:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends on the situation: legislature if they are blocking for its own sake, the executive if they are trying to force impossible legislation. I personally in this example blame both for not being clearly open to compromise, but moreso on the legislature for not working behind the executive branch.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:28:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:22:51 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Depends on the situation: legislature if they are blocking for its own sake, the executive if they are trying to force impossible legislation. I personally in this example blame both for not being clearly open to compromise, but moreso on the legislature for not working behind the executive branch.

The president is to compromise his landmark accomplishment that has been already consecrated by every branch of government? .... A bill that has already become the law in the United States?.......
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
if they think it's in the best interest of their supporters to block something, they should be blocking it. Not stop blocking to make the other side happy.

And just because you are moderate, 000ike, doesn't mean you are smarter than people on the left or right. Calling Liberals and Conservatives "sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand" is generalized and lacks conduct.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:45:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Use a cheat code to make this go indefinitely.
#Liberty #EconomicEfficiency
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:46:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:43:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
if they think it's in the best interest of their supporters to block something, they should be blocking it. Not stop blocking to make the other side happy.

And just because you are moderate, 000ike, doesn't mean you are smarter than people on the left or right. Calling Liberals and Conservatives "sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand" is generalized and lacks conduct.

That's not what I did. I firstly put the discretion of that judgment in the reader's hands, and secondly, specified that I was referring to liberals and conservatives of a certain species. There was neither generalization nor misconduct in my doing so.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:53:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

A three+ party system wouldn't be that good. We continue to have a 2 party system because that's the best way to insure the majority wants one over the other. With three parties, you would end up with the President often having less than the majority wanting him more. You could even end up with someone in office that only 35% voted in.

The Constitution rightly requires the majority.

You would also have FAR too many divisions in Congress to do anything... The best way to fix deadlock is to not divide up the parties even more. And imagine if you had a Democratic President, a Republican Congress, and a Tea Party Judicial Branch... 2 parties ensures that no matter what, a group holds the majority, as opposed to having too many opposing opinions. Too many groups arguing, and you will have constant deadlock, and won't be passing any laws.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:56:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

But if there were multiple voting blocks and factions the power would be de centralized and this one party that you are speaking of (and doing a bad job of veiling your partisanship, may I add) had only 20% of the vote, how effective would they be?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:57:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:46:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:43:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
if they think it's in the best interest of their supporters to block something, they should be blocking it. Not stop blocking to make the other side happy.

And just because you are moderate, 000ike, doesn't mean you are smarter than people on the left or right. Calling Liberals and Conservatives "sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand" is generalized and lacks conduct.

That's not what I did. I firstly put the discretion of that judgment in the reader's hands, and secondly, specified that I was referring to liberals and conservatives of a certain species. There was neither generalization nor misconduct in my doing so.

So long as you weren't saying that anyone on either side was stupid for not being independent. People in the center tend to be like that, so much so that they have a whole fallacy for that very train of thought.

Sorry for the confusion.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 6:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:53:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

A three+ party system wouldn't be that good. We continue to have a 2 party system because that's the best way to insure the majority wants one over the other. With three parties, you would end up with the President often having less than the majority wanting him more. You could even end up with someone in office that only 35% voted in.

The Constitution rightly requires the majority.

You would also have FAR too many divisions in Congress to do anything... The best way to fix deadlock is to not divide up the parties even more. And imagine if you had a Democratic President, a Republican Congress, and a Tea Party Judicial Branch... 2 parties ensures that no matter what, a group holds the majority, as opposed to having too many opposing opinions. Too many groups arguing, and you will have constant deadlock, and won't be passing any laws.

You are forgetting Instant Runoff elections, where the president would still be consistent with the majority. It's just people wouldn't have to say "Well, I like such and such a president better, but since this president has a better chance of winning I'll vote for him to stop this party from winning the presidency", essentially the system I am promoting dissolves the bitter partisan divide.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:09:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:57:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:53:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

A three+ party system wouldn't be that good. We continue to have a 2 party system because that's the best way to insure the majority wants one over the other. With three parties, you would end up with the President often having less than the majority wanting him more. You could even end up with someone in office that only 35% voted in.

The Constitution rightly requires the majority.

You would also have FAR too many divisions in Congress to do anything... The best way to fix deadlock is to not divide up the parties even more. And imagine if you had a Democratic President, a Republican Congress, and a Tea Party Judicial Branch... 2 parties ensures that no matter what, a group holds the majority, as opposed to having too many opposing opinions. Too many groups arguing, and you will have constant deadlock, and won't be passing any laws.


You are forgetting Instant Runoff elections, where the president would still be consistent with the majority. It's just people wouldn't have to say "Well, I like such and such a president better, but since this president has a better chance of winning I'll vote for him to stop this party from winning the presidency", essentially the system I am promoting dissolves the bitter partisan divide.

No. It just adds more divisions. The President would be wanted in by too few people. Democracy or Constitutional Republics require the majority... not just the side with the most. If the side with just 25% of voters win, than the President, or any branch of government, would lack the needed support.

And you left out the part where it would be deadlocked continuously. The problem with centralized parties is that there are too many opinions and ideas for any combination to likely ever find enough agreement. You would end up with a completely divided Government, divided in Congress, and divided in all 3 branches. Like it or not, but you need to be able to have a party hold majority each round to be able to pass laws at best efficiency.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:14:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 7:09:37 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:57:50 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:53:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

A three+ party system wouldn't be that good. We continue to have a 2 party system because that's the best way to insure the majority wants one over the other. With three parties, you would end up with the President often having less than the majority wanting him more. You could even end up with someone in office that only 35% voted in.

The Constitution rightly requires the majority.

You would also have FAR too many divisions in Congress to do anything... The best way to fix deadlock is to not divide up the parties even more. And imagine if you had a Democratic President, a Republican Congress, and a Tea Party Judicial Branch... 2 parties ensures that no matter what, a group holds the majority, as opposed to having too many opposing opinions. Too many groups arguing, and you will have constant deadlock, and won't be passing any laws.


You are forgetting Instant Runoff elections, where the president would still be consistent with the majority. It's just people wouldn't have to say "Well, I like such and such a president better, but since this president has a better chance of winning I'll vote for him to stop this party from winning the presidency", essentially the system I am promoting dissolves the bitter partisan divide.

No. It just adds more divisions. The President would be wanted in by too few people. Democracy or Constitutional Republics require the majority... not just the side with the most. If the side with just 25% of voters win, than the President, or any branch of government, would lack the needed support.

Under Instant runoff elections, people would just list their preferences (as in if there are four candidates, you would list in order which ones you would prefer), and the preferences would be averaged and the four candidates would be cut down to two based on these averages.

And you left out the part where it would be deadlocked continuously. The problem with centralized parties is that there are too many opinions and ideas for any combination to likely ever find enough agreement. You would end up with a completely divided Government, divided in Congress, and divided in all 3 branches. Like it or not, but you need to be able to have a party hold majority each round to be able to pass laws at best efficiency.

In multi-party states, usually parties form varying coalitions for certain ideals, (i.e the Libertarian party might form a pro gay rights voting bloc with the progressive party, and a pro laissez faire bloc with the conservative party).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate.

So the authority of government is legitimized by the opinion of the government? Interesting, I always thought the authority of government was legitimized by the government's constitution, and the people who the government body represents.

The legitimate authority of a Government is limited by its constitution (written or unwritten), and further limited by the people. Any power grab that goes beyond those limitations is illegitimate.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 7:31:11 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate.

So the authority of government is legitimized by the opinion of the government? Interesting, I always thought the authority of government was legitimized by the government's constitution, and the people who the government body represents.

The legitimate authority of a Government is limited by its constitution (written or unwritten), and further limited by the people. Any power grab that goes beyond those limitations is illegitimate.

Someone didn't read my preface.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:52:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 6:56:22 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:41:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/30/2013 6:34:06 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
This is just another inherent flaw of a two party system where deep partisan divides end up being the detriment of our nation and causing apathy.

The same flaw could exist in a three party, four party, or even one party system if there are ideological factions inside them who are so embittered in watching the other person fail they do so to the detriment of the nation.

But if there were multiple voting blocks and factions the power would be de centralized and this one party that you are speaking of (and doing a bad job of veiling your partisanship, may I add) had only 20% of the vote, how effective would they be?

I am partisan to a democracy which works, yes. If you had a leadership with 20% of the vote, such as what the Tea Party pretends to have (seeing as you've decided I ought to be partisan), then you must compromise heavily with other parties, which is also known as "negotiation", to represent all of those who voted. Then, all other members of Parliament (note by severe apathy for US Politics, so I'm not referring to it again) would compromise and negotiate, and find a solution to best represent their interests. This is called "politics". The Tea Party are not politicians; they are obstructors and children playing with people's lives and jobs by seriously preferring revolution over any move reaffirming or going further to the not-100%-right.

I don't know where what I said above had partisanship (not in this post but my previous one) seeing as I did not refer to any nation at all because of my severe apathy to US Politics, but please don't randomly call be some form of bias and then leave it alone with no evidence or reasoning. It is childish.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 7:58:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 7:47:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/30/2013 7:31:11 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate.

So the authority of government is legitimized by the opinion of the government? Interesting, I always thought the authority of government was legitimized by the government's constitution, and the people who the government body represents.

The legitimate authority of a Government is limited by its constitution (written or unwritten), and further limited by the people. Any power grab that goes beyond those limitations is illegitimate.

Someone didn't read my preface.

Actually I did. I am just pointing out a major error in your opinion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:02:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Let me preface this with a small restriction: If you know you are a conservative or [progressive] sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand, please refrain from forwarding an opinion.


Just so you know, I hate hypocrites.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:05:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This whole incident just makes me want to Falcon Kick congress in their collective genitalia. I mean really, congress is bickering like 12 year olds.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 8:39:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Senate rejects budget!
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 9:14:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Let me preface this with a small restriction: If you know you are a conservative or liberal sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand, please refrain from forwarding an opinion.

So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate. What I want you to consider, regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, is whether or not the actions taken by the GOP were improper or disrespectful of the legislative process.

1. If the government does shut down, who or what is most at fault?

2. Even if Obamacare is a failure, in whatever manner that failure may come about, wouldn't Democrats pay the price? Why not just let it take its course?

...so ... you're not allowed to espouse your opinion. GOT IT!

Anyways ..

I think that this is a bad idea .. for Republicans. Mark my words, I'm guessing that if they do manage to get this shut-down, the general populace will not be happy with them. The question isn't if Obamacare is going to be around or not anymore, the question now is, is the state justified in freezing/stopping money from going to other people whom got it through legal means. I think you'll find that's going to be a massive NO, and the last time a government shut-down happened was in 96 under the Clinton administration prior to election time. They got burnt on that one too.

Look folks, as far as I'm concerned, even if it does get passed in the Senate (which it will not) the President will veto it. It would hurt his party not too, otherwise he is to blame as well for this mess. Besides, if he does veto it, it would be very unlikely that other members of his own party are going to 1) betray him and 2) gain enough support for a super-majority and counter the President.

This is all hoopla and show. The funniest one is Ted Cruz who after filibustering for 20 hours, voted against himself (100-0 Yay). This is the single most opposed piece of legislation by the republicans who have tried to fight it over 40 times now.

They need to learn when they've lost, and focus on new issues, otherwise they're gonna lose another election to the Dems. And godd@mn it! They need to absolve themselves of these Tea Party @$$hats. Barry Goldwater called it himself in the 50's stating "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
.....
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""
Thank you for voting!
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 8:05:55 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
This whole incident just makes me want to Falcon Kick congress in their collective genitalia. I mean really, congress is bickering like 12 year olds.

wiser words have never been spoken.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Let me preface this with a small restriction: If you know you are a conservative or liberal sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand, please refrain from forwarding an opinion.

So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate. What I want you to consider, regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, is whether or not the actions taken by the GOP were improper or disrespectful of the legislative process.

1. If the government does shut down, who or what is most at fault?

Both are at fault, but the GOP is so much more at fault that it makes the Dems look like they did nothing wrong at all. The GOP's history of retardedly continuing to repeal and defund obamacare despite failing well over 3 dozen times is making them look like partisian hacks to the point that even fellow Republicans are getting tired of their sh**.

Theyre in for a public relations nightmare when the people are asked which side is more to blame for the shut down.

2. Even if Obamacare is a failure, in whatever manner that failure may come about, wouldn't Democrats pay the price? Why not just let it take its course?

Because the GOP cant afford the chance for people to actually like Obamacare. A party that cant appeal to women, youth, immigrants, or minorities wont have a shot in hell of winning their favor if Obamacare, the thing theyve been crucifying for years now, turns out to be well liked.

The GOP looks at Obamacare the same way a man might look at a guillotine meant to chop off his balls.......
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 5:45:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 5:57:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
Let me preface this with a small restriction: If you know you are a conservative or liberal sheep whose opinions express no thoughtful analysis of the conflict at hand, please refrain from forwarding an opinion.

So, out of curiosity, I want to know what DDO thinks of the Republican strategy for holding Obama's landmark legislation in abeyance - and I think it fair to mention that this law has been legitimized by all 3 branches of government as well as the U.S electorate. What I want you to consider, regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, is whether or not the actions taken by the GOP were improper or disrespectful of the legislative process.

1. If the government does shut down, who or what is most at fault?

A certain faction of the GOP; the Tea Baggers. That is not to say, however, that I agree or disagree with what they're doing.

2. Even if Obamacare is a failure, in whatever manner that failure may come about, wouldn't Democrats pay the price? Why not just let it take its course?

The reasons that the new Republicans are recalcitrantly defying the other branches of government are principally because of the incentives that those, and only those, congressmen face. The first incentive is the "mandate" they think they have, perhaps best put by Paul Ryan after Obama won reelection but the GOP did not loose the house, was to continue on their war path against the President's legislative agenda. The second incentive is the fear that they will loose their seat of power because political groups will throw money at their opposition or because they will be subject to a primary challenger. It is also the case that some within this lot see themselves as the new face of the Republican party, and believe that they have a moral imperative to redefine the platform of the GOP as they see fit because of their shared belief that the Republican establishment have lost their way.