U.S. Politics - Government shut-down edition (repeat)

[TheKitttenGuard]

Does subtle also include the signing of a bill that removed over 900 federal gun laws.

There is great comfortability with Liberals with current policy.

It can be stated that their really is not too much difference in stated policy for international and military affairs and the actions that Obama has taken. People pay too much attention to political rallies and not enough to those policies speeches.

[Guest Raidne]

Cryptile - Gun control issues have been covered *at length* in those threads. If people here don't know the details of every objection to "assault weapon" bans by now, it's because they don't want to.

FYI, caution might dictate not discussing details of what you personally own here if you can be ID'd from what you've posted or will post as a standing threat to report that and other information to ATF upon any ban or new restriction was issued by one of our own members. He's probably not really savvy or organized enough to do it, but then you can never be too careful with these people.

[awesome possum]

They're not used to defend Obama's policies. They're used to show how hypocritical so many Republicans are that so many of them were 100% in support of these policies when Bush ran them but suddenly became the worst things ever when Obama continued them.

It's like being at a restaurant and raving over the meal so much you order seconds, only shift change has happened while you were eating and the new waiter is one that you personally dislike so you decide the food is shitty and has always been shitty.

If you think Obamacare is going to ruin American way of life, shouldn't you be trying to repeal it?

If you truly thought that you should be able to explain why. I haven't heard any explanations as to why and instead just random rantings about socialism.

edit - this board formatting is going nuts

[Guest Raidne]

Does subtle also include the signing of a bill that removed over 900 federal gun laws.

I don't know what bill passed by Democrats and signed by Obama you are referring to.

[Merentha]

Was it right when Bush did it? If the answer is "no", then Bush's actions can't be used to defend Obama's policies. Besides, didn't Obama run on being different from Bush? IIRC, it was "Hope and Change!" not "I'll do what Bush does!"

This argument is largely to deflect criticism from the right, who had supported Bush's policies and loudly told anyone who disagreed that you needed to either git aht or that it was just plain unAmerican of you to criticize the president in any way. Now, when someone was arguing against it then and against it now, it is a silly argument. But to have the same party just obstinately refuse to work at all with a pretty damn centrist president when the past eight years had essentially been some incoherent spasm of Republicanism defended almost solely by cries of "respect your president and support him even if you didn't vote for him!", is frustrating.

Hypocrisy is just infuriating. Its bad when liberals suddenly support policies they would have hated under Bush, and its worse to deal with personally when people who unconditionally supported Bush now unconditionally hate Obama, then claim Obama is "immune to criticism."

[Guest Raidne]

Hypocrisy is just infuriating. Its bad when liberals suddenly support policies they would have hated under Bush, and its worse to deal with personally when people who unconditionally supported Bush now unconditionally hate Obama, then claim Obama is "immune to criticism."

Er, saying "it's worse when Republicans do it" is, by definition, hypocritical....

[Inigima]

I missed this on Friday, but Dave Weigel highlights a bit of Ted Cruz Crazy: In his long speech on the Senate floor, Cruz said he wants to "stand and fight for the more than 1.6 million Americans who signed a national petition against Obamacare and to the millions more who did not sign because they were told by a politician it is not possible."

Leave aside for the moment that Cruz is proposing throwing out a law because of an Internet petition, as Weigel notes, as opposed to the weight of two consecutive elections and federal statute. Look at those numbers. 1.6 million people is a bunch of people, sure. But the population of the US was about 313.9 million in 2012, so that's about 0.05% of that number who signed this petition. Last I checked we didn't make federal policy based on what 0.05% of the population wants. (Yes, yes, there are easy punchlines here to be made about Congress or the President or lobbyists. Please try to restrain yourself.)

Or perhaps you'd like to base this on the number of voters -- after all, not everyone is of voting age, plenty more are ineligible for other reasons like being a convicted felon, and a lot of the people who are left just don't vote. This figure is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but they should be about right and the page is well-sourced. That puts your number at about 129 million, so that petition is signed by about 1.2%. Again, not e numbers you'd hope for if you want to cite them for policy, and that's assuming those 1.6 million signatures are all perfectly valid and signed by eligible voters, and there are no duplicates.

Weigel makes this observation, and another involving comments by Paul Ryan, in the service of a larger point: some major-name Republicans, including Cruz and Ryan, are proposing something a bit shocking. Specifically, that the Obama administration lacks legitimacy by way of the consent of the governed. They propose this despite two consecutive presidential election wins including one ten months ago. Ryan's comments are about the debt limit -- he says that this debt limit fight is a bigger deal than last time because "we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves." This sounds relatively innocuous until you consider two points.

First: We just had an election, and to the extent that you wish to view elections as referenda on administration policy, Republicans lost.

Second: Look at the language. He no longer has an election coming up where he can "fix it." Ryan regards his position as self-evidently right, such that no opposing position can have legitimacy, by definition. Dollars to donuts, this attitude is shared by others in his caucus. Understanding this may shed some light on Republican attitudes.

[thecryptile]

They're not used to defend Obama's policies. They're used to show how hypocritical so many Republicans are...

That's a good argument against people who supported Bush, but it doesn't work on me- I didn't vote in 2000, and in 2004 I voted for Kerry. I hated Bush for the PATRIOT Act. In the last two presidential elections, I "threw my vote away" on Libertarian candidates Michael Badnarik and Gary Johnson, respectively.

Until 2010, I always voted for Democrats in [House] elections, because I knew the Democratic House Representative for my district (Rick Boucher) personally and agreed with most of his policies. Now conservative Democrats are almost as rare on the ground as liberal Republicans.

Both major parties have more than their fair share of hypocrites.

[Guest Raidne]

Ryan regards his position as self-evidently right, such that no opposing position can have legitimacy, by definition.

Just Ryan though, right? Ha.

I mean, I think it's more entertaining to read Shryke's feigned confusion at the apparent incomprehensibility of any position not his own, but it's all the same thing. And 19/20 posts in these threads, at a minimum (though your own ratio is closer to the inverse), evince the same lack of openmindedness or acknowledgement of falliability as Ryan, only more egregiously, if anything. And our livelihoods and access to campaign cash doesn't even depend on it - it's that bad on pride alone.

When turning yourself in a barking head parroting talking points became something to be proud of is a question someone else will have to answer.

[Merentha]

Er, saying "it's worse when Republicans do it" is, by definition, hypocritical....

I didn't say that. I said it is more frustrating to deal with personally.

[TrackerNeil]

I mean, I think it's more entertaining to read Shryke's feigned confusion at the apparent incomprehensibility of any position not his own, but it's all the same thing. And 19/20 posts in these threads, at a minimum (though your own ratio is closer to the inverse), evince the same lack of openmindedness or acknowledgement of falliability as Ryan, only more egregiously, if anything. And our livelihoods and access to campaign cash doesn't even depend on it - it's that bad on pride alone.

Unlike most of the people on this board, Paul Ryan is creating policy.

[Guest Raidne]

I didn't say that. I said it is more frustrating to deal with personally.

I know. Do you mean, "as a hypocritical liberal, it's personally more frustrating..."

I'm a liberal and I find it personally more frustrating when liberals are hypocritcs because I don't remember the party being that way before 2008.

[Guest Raidne]

Unlike most of the people on this board, Paul Ryan is creating policy.

Exactly. He has a *reason* to play political games and pretend like the other side is illegitimate. What's yours?

[TheKitttenGuard]

I don't know what bill passed by Democrats and signed by Obama you are referring to.

I think if you are looking to take people guns you will be vetoing something like that.

Obama and the Democratic Congress did not take up any major leglislation on gun control either.

[Durckad]

Nobody really thinks that the 60 year old man wearing a tricorne goes home and has his boyfriend teabag him. You say that to ridicule and to anger. Same with the Kenya bumper sticker.

Well then we agree? I don't know why we're arguing about it then.

This is another liberal tactic I find puzzling- "Bush did it first, so it must be OK". Drones, domestic spying, IRS shenanigans- whatever the accusation, the defense is often "Bush did it first!"

Was it right when Bush did it? If the answer is "no", then Bush's actions can't be used to defend Obama's policies. Besides, didn't Obama run on being different from Bush? IIRC, it was "Hope and Change!" not "I'll do what Bush does!"

I'm not sure whose post you read but it wasn't mine. My comment has nothing to do with what Bush or Obama did or did not do. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the right getting all bent out of shape at Obama's untouchability when they spent 8 years doing that same thing for Bush.

Now you're right that some people will mindlessly defend Obama for whatever he does but don't act like this is something unique to one side. Every side does it. Doesn't make it right though.

[Shryke]

I missed this on Friday, but Dave Weigel highlights a bit of Ted Cruz Crazy: In his long speech on the Senate floor, Cruz said he wants to "stand and fight for the more than 1.6 million Americans who signed a national petition against Obamacare and to the millions more who did not sign because they were told by a politician it is not possible."

Leave aside for the moment that Cruz is proposing throwing out a law because of an Internet petition, as Weigel notes, as opposed to the weight of two consecutive elections and federal statute. Look at those numbers. 1.6 million people is a bunch of people, sure. But the population of the US was about 313.9 million in 2012, so that's about 0.05% of that number who signed this petition. Last I checked we didn't make federal policy based on what 0.05% of the population wants. (Yes, yes, there are easy punchlines here to be made about Congress or the President or lobbyists. Please try to restrain yourself.)

Or perhaps you'd like to base this on the number of voters -- after all, not everyone is of voting age, plenty more are ineligible for other reasons like being a convicted felon, and a lot of the people who are left just don't vote. This figure is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but they should be about right and the page is well-sourced. That puts your number at about 129 million, so that petition is signed by about 1.2%. Again, not e numbers you'd hope for if you want to cite them for policy, and that's assuming those 1.6 million signatures are all perfectly valid and signed by eligible voters, and there are no duplicates.

Weigel makes this observation, and another involving comments by Paul Ryan, in the service of a larger point: some major-name Republicans, including Cruz and Ryan, are proposing something a bit shocking. Specifically, that the Obama administration lacks legitimacy by way of the consent of the governed. They propose this despite two consecutive presidential election wins including one ten months ago. Ryan's comments are about the debt limit -- he says that this debt limit fight is a bigger deal than last time because "we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves." This sounds relatively innocuous until you consider two points.

First: We just had an election, and to the extent that you wish to view elections as referenda on administration policy, Republicans lost.

Second: Look at the language. He no longer has an election coming up where he can "fix it." Ryan regards his position as self-evidently right, such that no opposing position can have legitimacy, by definition. Dollars to donuts, this attitude is shared by others in his caucus. Understanding this may shed some light on Republican attitudes.

They've been saying this since Obama was elected. The Daily Show mocked them for several weeks around Obama's original inauguration for it.

The GOP has never seen Obama's election as legitimate. Because he's a democrat.

I would suggest this is tied to the same issues that led to the hilarious clusterfuck on election night 2012 where they didn't realise they were gonna lose and the whole "permanent Republican majority" thing.

[Shryke]

Just Ryan though, right? Ha.

I mean, I think it's more entertaining to read Shryke's feigned confusion at the apparent incomprehensibility of any position not his own, but it's all the same thing. And 19/20 posts in these threads, at a minimum (though your own ratio is closer to the inverse), evince the same lack of openmindedness or acknowledgement of falliability as Ryan, only more egregiously, if anything. And our livelihoods and access to campaign cash doesn't even depend on it - it's that bad on pride alone.

When turning yourself in a barking head parroting talking points became something to be proud of is a question someone else will have to answer.

There's a difference between openmindedness and ignoring evidence.

But acknowledging that would force you to reconsider this "pox on both your houses" schtick, so I guess that kind of thinking is out of the question.

[Shryke]

"Many" is probably overstating it, and it cannot be done without weathering the most fascist, no holds barred, counterattack from other liberals that I have ever dealt with on any subject - and that includes pro-lifers with dead baby picket sign outside of planned parenthood.

You must not talk to many liberals. Or read many articles by them or watch many shows with them in it.

Many issues like that most definitely reveal the differing philosophies underlying the left, but there's most definitely alot of people on either side of the issues. You can see it on this board.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I want to Admire Republicans as only as a contrast to Democrats in dealing with the prosecution and/or impeachment of Bush and his officials.

Of course they are against their own idea in the individual mandate.

I am just waiting for the Eurasia/Eastasia moment.

In the end it could all be a adding 3 billion to the deficet with repealing medical equipment tax which of course will be a corporate win. So it goes.

[Reny of Storms End]

I know. Do you mean, "as a hypocritical liberal, it's personally more frustrating..."

I'm a liberal and I find it personally more frustrating when liberals are hypocritcs because I don't remember the party being that way before 2008.

Do you mean "I'm a hypocritical liberal and I find it personally..."?