Its on the senate website. See, I said Senate this time.
It’s probably more a le roi est mort kind of thing. All we know about your presumptive heir is that he likes Pokemon games and is a Boy Scout.
Besides, since you’re so flexible in your views, you’d be oft-swayed by consultation with your learned advisors. That is, us. You’d rule according to shura- a principle of Islamic monarchial governance.
Islamic governance! Imagine how hard your political bedfellows would freak the fuck out! It would be the whole imaginary sharia takeover times a million. They’d start advocating for the return of the republic. They’d be… Republicans!
You’ve missed the point of the post you’re responding to, then, which was about Republican control of the House.
ETA: Never mind. I missed the point, because I didn’t see the part about filibusters.
…You know what? If I actually thought this had a snowball’s chance in hell of working, this would be quite possibly the single best argument ever for slashing government spending / defaulting on our debt. Unfortunately, I see approximately 10 different plans the republicans could use to turn this around and say “BUT IT WAS THEIR FAULTS!”, so it probably wouldn’t actually work.
Yes. As smart as the anti-war measure may or may not have been, the full faith and credit of the nation was not something to play off of. However, this is assuming that the two cases were equivalent. Somehow… I get the feeling they weren’t. For example, I really have to wonder – how many democrats genuinely wanted the bill to fall through? But giving you the benefit of the doubt that there wasn’t some large change in the variables… Yeah, I will condemn them.
Shame that that was over 40 years ago, and that things have changed dramatically since then.
Seriously, this is kind of a throwaway question. It’s akin to asking Romney to distance himself from Ted Nugent – pointless and unnecessary. It’s pointless to “keep score” for 40 years in politics. Hell, 10 is pushing it, save for issues that have a continued impact / have not changed.
After getting about half of what they wanted. And keep in mind, they didn’t exactly lose much, either. Aside from the occasional person who should be incarcerated for psychological illnesses that cause them to be a harm to themselves and society, the Republicans didn’t want the debt ceiling to crash down on our heads. They weren’t holding a stranger hostage – they were holding their wife hostage, and pretending it wasn’t her. No shit there was a “compromise”! The republicans didn’t want to “kill the hostage” either way!
This is a really good post. 
Terr seems to be… what’s the word I’m looking for… err… Ah, right – completely fucking batshit insane.
Yes. A filibuster is when something does not get voted on. Sixty senators need to agree to vote on most bills before the Senate, or they don’t come to the floor.
Certainly, principles should not be compromised. But that’s the problem: reducing the size of government is not a “principle”. It’s a goal, a political philosophy, an end to be achieved through political discourse.
When it becomes a Glorious Cause and an Unwavering Stand Which Cannot Be Compromised, then we get partisan idiocy.
First of all - if only. With the perverted commerce and general welfare clauses, the states’ sovereignty is non-existent. Second - what you described here is not “joint sovereignty”. It is two separate sovereignties.
No, it’s not.
I’ll go one step further than you, and provide some support for that assertion: while there are certain areas in which the federal government exercises sole power (such as foreign relations) and some in which states exercise sole power (such as family law), the vast majority of powers are shared by the government and the states.
In any event, the “perversion” of the commerce and general welfare clauses (the latter of which has almost never been invoked by the courts to justify the expansion of federal power, incidentally) happened after the fact. Your claim is that there is no such thing as joint sovereignty, not that we don’t have it now.
That’s just a quick scan of today. Can’t find the (R) who retracted the “Obama isn’t a citizen” speech yesterday…
I mean, seriously?
I think there are several topics in this thread. I wish they would give out programs with the responses. LOL:D
I think the whole idea of a debt ceiling is pointless when it can be easily raised. Yeah, I know it is SUPPOSED to set a limit to government borrowing (e.g. you have $100 to spend and can’t spend any more after that unless you make more money), but it becomes pointless if they can just raise it (and results in a fiasco like last year if there is opposition). Case in point - other countries don’t have a debt ceiling (except for Denmark, according to this article, and they set it so high that it doesn’t really matter). Nor has it prevented the U.S. from having by far the largest federal debt in the world (one would think that a ceiling would help curb debt growth; of course, some countries have a higher debt/GDP ratio, a more accurate measure of debt, but not many).
Here ya go, Brazil:
“I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American,” - Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) at a recent fundraiser. Coffman immediately apologized when the recording of his words surfaced last night, but his apology repeats the big lie that Obama denies American exceptionalism.
I could go on, but I won’t, I expect I’ve supported my contention sufficiently?
It’s an election year. Many people here things enough, they believe it. Thinkers wont buy into this, but there are non thinking voters out there of both parties that will lasciviously slurp the red or blue kool aid and vote based on capital letters.
I’ll vote for the first guy that comes along and says that American Exceptionalism is a bunch of narcissistic crap and that we’re neither better nor worse than anyone else.
( In response to DNGNB8)
I was arguing that the GOP has moved, perhaps irretrievably, past the point of ‘loyal opposition’.
This makes my case more coherently:
The Money Quote:
“In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.”
(Hope that wasn’t too long of an excerpt to run afoul of Board guidelines) Please note that the coauthors come from both sides of the political spectrum.
I had the same feeling when Dems had Congress the last two years of Bushs Admin.
In fact, Ive felt this since Daddy Bush’s years. It just doesnt seem “new” to me.
Bullshit. Did Bush ever have problems getting debt ceilings raised? Did the Democrats ever hold anything hostage? Did Democrats ever pledge to oppose everything Bush favored? Did Senate Democrats ever filibuster everything?
Are you contending that the Democrats refused to compromise with Bush on anything, the way the Republicans have been with Obama? Because you are flat out wrong. The Democrats pretty much bent all the way over for the Republicans during Bush’s term. I mean what didn’t they compromise on? Can you name anything? Can you name anything that the Democrats had previously proposed, but then voted against just because Bush was the one now proposing it?
There is zero equivalence here.
I knew that the Obama-era debt ceiling fight (round 2) was upcoming, but I didn’t think there would be much noise about it until October or thereabouts. The ceiling will need to be raised likely around January 2013 give or take a month depending on Treasury income.
The problems again will be that Democrats will refuse to make serious budget cuts without raising taxes, Republicans will refuse to raise taxes but demand spending cuts greater than the amount of ceiling increase. Once again, there will be abundant finger pointing and blaming the other side. Once again, the Simpson-Bowles committee recommendations (both tax hikes and spending cuts) will be largely ignored.
Boehner announced that he expects to have a deal with Bush era income tax rates extended before the November elections, but I would be surprised if that happened. Boehner must be afraid of the GOP losing the House if he insists on the debt ceiling vote to be completed before November.