lokisnow Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 the real problem with the debt cieling was Obama's administration thought it would be fun to negotiate something from republicans over it. and it's been chaos ever since they introduced that particularly moronical tactic into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That someone hasn't done something yet isn't proof that they will never do that thing. You could just, you know, acknowledge that you have no basis for your sureness that they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Absolute 100% certain proof? No. 'Proof' in the conversational sense? Yes, the fact that they never have absolutely constitutes proof that they won't in the future. If I said that I think all the House Republicans will support Obama's legislative agenda starting tomorrow, and someone replied that they have never supported Obama's legislative agenda in the past, it would be pretty silly of me to respond that their past complete lack of support for Obama's agenda wasn't proof that they wouldn't start supporting it tomorrow, wouldn't it? By this logic, there is also proof the Republicans will also never actually push us to default, or that the US will never default, because neither has ever happened. So why are you worried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 By this logic, there is also proof the Republicans will also never actually push us to default, or that the US will never default, because neither has ever happened. So why are you worried? I'm not, as I said on the previous page of this thread: Maybe crediting the Republican Party with any rationality whatsoever is a mistake, but I really can't see it happening. Even if it has to be done with a handful of Republicans and lots of Democrats, the debt ceiling will be raised. I think the brinksmanship is nonetheless harmful (and frankly a big part of the harm done is due to Obama wrongly choosing to negotiate over it), and is only one symptom of the Republican Party's broad intransigence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I'm not, as I said on the previous page of this thread: I think the brinksmanship is nonetheless harmful (and frankly a big part of the harm done is due to Obama wrongly choosing to negotiate over it), and is only one symptom of the Republican Party's broad intransigence. My bad. I agree with your sentiment that it's probable that the debt ceiling will always get raised, at least as things currently stand. I don't think the Republican party as a whole is that crazy yet. But I have to admit that I think they appear to be getting crazier, and we ended up getting really close to default the last time. If the Republicans get even more crazy, I could see them forcing a default (or the creation of the trillion dollar coin or some other crazy solution). I'm not convinced that they would never do so just because they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Anyone see this? Or is it just same-ol, same-ol as far as offensive conservatives are concerned? The rhetoric itself is nothing new, so it's not surprising, but still a little jarring to see these stories pop up in the general flow of greater acceptance that gay people are, well, people. I can't remember if I posted this or not, but the Texas GOP did just amend its state platform and included language similar to what Perry's babbling about -- calling it a "lifestyle" and expressing a belief in therapy "curing" homosexuality. That's probably why Governor Goodhair is talking about it. Sadly for Perry, being a congenital moron is not something he can overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 That someone hasn't done something yet isn't proof that they will never do that thing. No, but it gives you a fairly good idea of the things they tend to do. When Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they didn't dare cut off funding to the Iraq adventure even though they were elected in opposition to that policy. Pelosi and Reid knew that to simply defund the military activities would have been catastrophic, and there were no serious calls that the party go down that path. I can't see why the Democrats would then be willing to cause a global economic collapse over cap-and-trade, or something. That's just not how that party functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 No, but it gives you a fairly good idea of the things they tend to do. When Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they didn't dare cut off funding to the Iraq adventure even though they were elected in opposition to that policy. Pelosi and Reid knew that to simply defund the military activities would have been catastrophic, and there were no serious calls that the party go down that path. I can't see why the Democrats would then be willing to cause a global economic collapse over cap-and-trade, or something. That's just not how that party functions. No one is saying that the Democrats are willing to cause a global economic collapse over the debt ceiling. And ultimately, even the Republicans don't appear willing to cause a global economic collapse either. It took until the last minute, but Republicans eventually signed a clean debt ceiling bill. If both parties just stick with clean debt ceiling bills, things should go a lot smoother. The next debt ceiling deadline is in 2015, so it'll be interesting to see if we have to go through all that drama again, or whether both parties just pass another clean debt ceiling bill. Really, the best thing would be to remove the debt ceiling entirely. If both parties agree that the debt ceiling has to be raised or the world economy may collapse, then why waste time going through this pointless procedure over and over? It doesn't appear that either party seriously wants to get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The Democrats did get rid of it. Then Republicans brought it back. More recently, Mitch McConnell proposed authorizing the President to essentially unilaterally raise the debt ceiling- of course that went nowhere because House Republicans weren't having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 That someone hasn't done something yet isn't proof that they will never do that thing. Which is why I am quite convinced you will soon be a serial killer. I mean we have all the proof we need. You have never done such a thing, but some people have, and those people have twisted world views that you clearly do not share. Therefore, by your own logic, your descent into killing people serially is inevitable. </sarcasm> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The Democrats did get rid of it. Then Republicans brought it back. More recently, Mitch McConnell proposed authorizing the President to essentially unilaterally raise the debt ceiling- of course that went nowhere because House Republicans weren't having it. Interesting, thanks for the links. I wouldn't say they really got rid of the debt ceiling, but I guess people have tried implementing some work arounds. The debt ceiling limit doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. It's obviously not doing anything to control spending since everyone knows it has to be raised, so it seems pointless. Which is why I am quite convinced you will soon be a serial killer. I mean we have all the proof we need. You have never done such a thing, but some people have, and those people have twisted world views that you clearly do not share. Therefore, by your own logic, your descent into killing people serially is inevitable. </sarcasm> Uh, no idea what your point is, because your post doesn't follow logically from either my post or Onion's post. Are you meaning to post nonsense because you think my post is nonsensical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh Harry Reid, you make it hard to have contempt for you sometimes:“I believe the Republicans should follow the lead of Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham was part of the Gang of Eight to come up with immigration reform. He never backed down, backed up. He kept going forward on this issue,” Reid said. “We need more Republicans who are Lindsey Grahams,” he added. “Lindsey Graham is a very conservative man, but I’ve worked with him on a number of issues, some of which we don’t even talk about publicly.” http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208995-reid-we-need-more-lindsey-grahams Trolling Graham with Cantor's loss is such a beautiful dick move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh my god oh my god oh my god http://the-toast.net/2014/06/10/ayn-rands-alice-wonderland/“A society that robs an individual of her head,” Alice continued, “or in any way attempts to limit the freedom of her head, is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang rule. You cannot promote the aristocracy of non-value at the expense of individual liberty.”The Duchess fell silent.“I am going to build a railroad here,” Alice said. “There is nothing you can do to stop me.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh my god oh my god oh my god http://the-toast.net/2014/06/10/ayn-rands-alice-wonderland/ :rofl: I think this may have been my favorite: “Dinah,” Alice said, shaking her blond hair loose over her naked shoulders, “is my cat. She provides for herself. I love her because she requires nothing of me, and I require nothing of her. This is the highest form of love that can possibly exist. She adores herself next to me, and I do the same.” The Field Mouse fled in terror. “You are right to fear her,” Alice called after him. “She is an individual.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightysnake88 Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The Toast does this all the time. Look up their Ayn Rand's Harry Potter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 The Toast does this all the time. Look up their Ayn Rand's Harry Potter... That was the best thing I've read all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Oh Harry Reid, you make it hard to have contempt for you sometimes: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208995-reid-we-need-more-lindsey-grahams Trolling Graham with Cantor's loss is such a beautiful dick move. Graham had no real challenger. Those guys were nobodies and he had huge advantage in funding, yet still was able to get "just" 59% of voters. He was predicted to get around 80%. Of course the same can be said about Cantor, but in Cantor's case his opponent became much more visible in media during last pariod of campaign. Graham is just very very lucky. If he had some serious opponent, I believe he would have been toast too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Shryke,Oh Harry Reid, you make it hard to have contempt for you sometimes:http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208995-reid-we-need-more-lindsey-grahams Trolling Graham with Cantor's loss is such a beautiful dick move.Lindsey, "I'd support the government opening and reading your mail" Graham. I'm so proud to have him as my States' senior Senator.I'm reading a very interesting book right now called The Rule of the Clan. It points out that empiricaly societies with strong individual rights usually occur in States with strong governments. That in societies with weak or non-existent governments clans will arise quickly to fill the vacume of power left as the State weakens or fails. The irony is that to have strong protection of individual rights you need a State that is strong enough to ignore individual rights if it so chooses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 A friend reminds me: This is what we're "losing" in the Cantor affair. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/03/789381/cantor-labor-management/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Is there a reason the US Politics thread isn't discussing at all what is happening in Iraq? The more time goes on, the worse Bush's decisions appear for the US and the world. Why oh why couldn't Gore have won. :( Graham had no real challenger. Those guys were nobodies and he had huge advantage in funding, yet still was able to get "just" 59% of voters. He was predicted to get around 80%. Of course the same can be said about Cantor, but in Cantor's case his opponent became much more visible in media during last pariod of campaign. Graham is just very very lucky. If he had some serious opponent, I believe he would have been toast too.Wasn't the main reason Cantor's opponent got into the media because Cantor was running negative ads about him? So that people actually knew who he was due to those ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.