Jump to content

US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

Why is Warren presumed to be sincere, but not Cruz?

Talk is cheap. Unlike Cruz/Lee who incurred the wrath of the entire ruling class and the DC media, Warren put up no fight to get a vote on her amendment.

Because Warren is primarily concerned with advancing the liberal agenda, Cruz is primarily concerned with advancing his own career, not the conservative agenda. By talking a lot, Warren raised awareness of what's in the bill and possibly galvanized the liberal wing of the Democratic party a bit, which is useful in trying to the move the party back to the left. However, by not fully stopping the bill, she also ensured that it, the most liberal bill possible (not that it was remotely liberal, just the least conservative), passed. If she had stopped it, we'd end up with a three-month clean CR, and in February Republicans would have passed an omnibus bill with significantly more conservative policy riders, that, if they were careful not to overreach, Obama would've probably caved in to signing.

In other words, she didn't sabotage her own ideological interests like Cruz so often does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS did it again ... this time sticking it to the freedom-hugging anti-cop crowd:



http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/14833906-95/court-rules-police-may-make-reasonable-mistakes-in-law





The Supreme Court was forgiving of a police officer’s misunderstanding of the law yesterday, ruling that it did not invalidate a traffic stop that led to a drug bust.


The justices ruled 8-1 that a North Carolina officer made a reasonable mistake when he pulled over a car with a broken brake light, which led to the arrest of Nicholas Brady Heien for attempted trafficking in cocaine.


It turns out that North Carolina’s antiquated law requires only one functioning “stop lamp,” not two. But that doesn’t mean that the search of Heien’s vehicle violated the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.


“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection,” Roberts wrote.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

We dumped some water on KSM, got OBL's courier name which led to OBL. KSM who planned the murder of thousands of innocents and cut off Daniel Pearl's head.

Hardly anyone loses any sleep over that tradeoff.

It's like gun control, all the sanctimony in the world isn't going to change people's minds. Don't know why Dems keep beating that drum.

Oh so all the torture was worth it because it stopped terrorism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Warren presumed to be sincere, but not Cruz?

Talk is cheap. Unlike Cruz/Lee who incurred the wrath of the entire ruling class and the DC media, Warren put up no fight to get a vote on her amendment.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't engage in parliamentary hijinks. Elizabeth Warren didn't propose to close down the government over nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so all the torture was worth it because it stopped terrorism?

Specifically, Americans are fine with pouring water on the types of men who killed all those children in Pakistan today, if the purpose is to extract intelligence about future attacks. You're howling at the wind trying to convince them it's not a reasonable moral trade off.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't engage in parliamentary hijinks. Elizabeth Warren didn't propose to close down the government over nothing.

It wasn't nothing, it was $1 trillion of our money, written behind closed doors, given away without reading it, without debating it, without any chance to amend it. Passed a few weeks after an election by a lame duck Congress, so the voters have no chance to respond.

And when two senators exercised their prerogative to object to this abomination, they were pilloried for it. By the cabal of political/media ruling class in DC.

And Warren stood silent (hell, she presided over the vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, Americans are fine with pouring water on the types of men who killed all those children in Pakistan today, if the purpose is to extract intelligence about future attacks. You're howling at the wind trying to convince them it's not a reasonable moral trade off.

This American isn't. Don't speak for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, Americans are fine with pouring water on the types of men who killed all those children in Pakistan today, if the purpose is to extract intelligence about future attacks. You're howling at the wind trying to convince them it's not a reasonable moral trade off.

It wasn't nothing, it was $1 trillion of our money, written behind closed doors, given away without reading it, without debating it, without any chance to amend it. Passed a few weeks after an election by a lame duck Congress, so the voters have no chance to respond.

And when two senators exercised their prerogative to object to this abomination, they were pilloried for it. By the cabal of political/media ruling class in DC.

And Warren stood silent (hell, she presided over the vote).

Are you rewriting history of Ted Cruz shutdown?

All throughout summer of 2013 Conservative action groups wanted to force a shutdown to defund the healthcare law and Ted Cruz took their cause and made it happen.

You are really trying to make it some last moment stand against a backroom last minute add-on?

Considering you "won" the last election, why are doing it?

On the first part, I am an American and No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the whole "good guy with a gun" line of thinking is largely false as well. You can find way more stories of the "good guy" either being no help or making things worse.

Oh no. not this shit again.

if you are going to keep saying this, provide some data to back it up.

here's an example of how you might back up this kind of argument: Guns are used successfully in self defense somewhere between 100k and 500k times a year, depending whose estimates you believe.

now you try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...