You are entirely free to post sweeping statements without so much as a hint of substantiation, a freedom I will defend at the cost of mild discomfort, if need be.
I would remind that you leave your many fans and admirers wondering. Could be that your objection is semantic, since one cannot say “never” about politics in any meaningful way. Some time ago, one might have said that the Republicans, the party of Lincoln! would never impede or obstruct racial progress. For instance.
Or you could be invoking Republican mythology, about the party of Big Government being by nature incapable of any action that might limit the power of government. Or you might have just received your approved Certificate of Precognition, but neglected to mention it.
Of course, you are not obliged to clarify. Just as I am not obliged to pretend that you have.
Actually, the claim that something would never happen doesn’t typically place the burden on the claimant. It’s not for elucidator to prove anything in this context: it’s for anyone who disagrees to provide a single example that shows he’s wrong.
At that point, of course, he will admit error.
(Ha! Hilarious, I know.)
But seriously, this is not a valid request. He can’t provide a cite that something will never happen).
Once, long ago, I tried a piece of licorice, under the delusion that it was a form of candy. That was before I knew that I hated the anise seed and all of its surly cousins. I can assure you, as Eugene V. Debs is my witness, that I shall never again make that mistake.
Anyway it seems strange to “fire” someone for voting on something, when their job is basically to vote on things. Also I don’t consider it a “job” as such, they aren’t employed and they have no real boss. They have a mandate to vote for a group of people and get compensated for doing so. As long as they aren’t breaking the law, it’s up to the electorate to “hire” or “fire” them, isn’t it?
This thread may have begun in Great Debates, but now that a Mod has actually seen it, it will be relocated to its more appropriate home in The BBQ Pit.
1987 for a day, due to opposition to funding the Contras and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, and then 1990 for 5 days, when President Bush vetoed a continuing resolution after first warning Congress he would unless it included deficit reduction. It took Congress a few days to override the veto.
Partial credit for pretty much every year from 1981-1986, when the Democratic controlled House fought with President Reagan over the budget, which led to one of two day shutdowns each year as the House and Reagan would inevitably play chicken.
Well, y’all could run against all those Congressmen, on a platform of “I will never act like these pigheaded yahoos, I will never put ideological purity ahead of the interest of the nation” . Watch those campaign donations pour in and the army of volunteers rush to campaign for you!
A bunch of these people were elected on a platform promise to do just this, to (we’re in the Pit now? oh, good) fuck with the system. Ain’t democracy grand?
I’d say that shutting down the government for 1 or 2 days is “acceptable”. It allows one to make a point without having major negative consequences. 5 days… way too much.
Robert163 Seriously, you do understand that even a one day shutdown has a tangible effect on the most vulnerable and the effect is lessened as people become less vulnerable.
When Democrats shut down the Wisconsin government over Scott Walkers actions, I absolutely supported them. I would have done exactly the same thing believing it to be in the best interests of my constituents and the state as a whole. It didn’t work, of course, and the opposition just called it petulant foot stomping, but who knows what can rally the electorate and bring focus for a movement.