What definition of either “reasonable” OR “dialogue” includes one side simply saying “No” to everything?
Well, you don’t seem to fucking realize that it actually is fucking possible to have fucking reasonable debate, but that your assertion that it isn’t effectively prevents it from fucking happening.
Your labeling of Republican disagreement with the Democrats as to where the country should go underscores where the problem lies. You see, what you’re doing is belittling the other side’s arguments by painting them as “obstructionist”–in other words, WE have a noble, shining vision for America, but THEY are only opposing us for the sake of opposing us.
You can’t possibly be so obtuse as to see how this extremist point of view may not be…um, entirely accurate. Are you unwilling to concede that the Republicans may truly, honestly feel that Obama’s policies are bad for America? Do you really think that their opposition is mindless and reflexive? Or are you just using fucking hyperbole to try to tell us (as if we couldn’t figure it out) to tell us that you hate all things Republican?
(By the way, I actually favor most of what Obama has done and wants to do.)
Dude. They’ve consistently opposed* their own fucking ideas *just because Obama supported them. Health care is only one example.
Don’t you believe in American exceptionalism? We’re the exception!
That’s the way the Democrats have painted Republican responses to their agenda, and it’s a childishly inaccurate oversimplification. The Republicans have propsed alternatives to every major Obama initiative, but those alternatives have never been given ANY consideration by the Democrats. Now, THAT’S saying “no” to everything–the Demos crapped on the Republican version of the health care bill, the stimulus bill(s), the bailout(s), every single federal budget, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The Obama administration has given short shrift to everything the Republicans propose.
Although much dialogue does, in fact, occur “behind the scenes,” and thus, neither side actually “says ‘no’ to everything,” it’s closer to the truth that BOTH sides say “no” to each other than that one does and the other doesn’t.
I am amused by how you folks dig in your heels and refuse to relent on your position, because of the Republicans’ inflexibility. People who don’t realize the irony of their own utterances are a rich source of humor.
Not only that, what exactly do you think Republicans were elected to do? Back in 2008, we heard that elections have consequences. Then in 2010, we were supposed to pretend that the election never happened.
When did they put forward the system they say they want to “repeal and replace” ACA with? I must have missed that day in school.
What “alternatives” can you point to from the Republicans that are anything other than “We propose you go fuck yourselves”? Where can we find something more than a list of vapid platitudes that you laughingly call “policy proposals”? Where?
Dude. There weren’t any. :rolleyes:
Act responsibly. What, do you think they were elected to throw nonstop tantrums?
…No, that’s not it. :rolleyes: I think it has a little more to do with the actions the republicans have taken, thanks.
No! For fuck’s sake, are you even listening? Did you read a thing I said? This is not what I’m arguing! I am not laying a blanket over republican actions and labeling them “obstructionist”. I am citing specific examples of where republican policy is intentionally obstructionist or destructive. The debt ceiling being the #1 case.
I don’t object to what the republicans have done out of principle. I never asserted that. In fact, I’ve made it immensely clear on multiple occasions that my hatred for the republican party comes specifically from their current policies, and my hatred for those policies is assessed on a one-by-one basis. It just so happens that said policies are overwhelmingly destructive, and the party would have to be filled with complete jackasses to do half of what they’re doing in good will. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that they are not all completely pants-on-head retarded.
Fanatics can’t think in rational terms - if they could, they wouldn’t be fanatics.
This kind of thing always happens on the SDMB during a Presidential election - during the primaries, whoever is ahead for the GOP is the worst person who ever lived. Then someone sews up the nomination, and that person becomes the worst person who ever lived.
There is a contingent of out-and-out nutcases hereabouts for whom “I hate Republicans” is the sum and pinnacle of their thinking. I think they are a little more vocal now, because there is a chance that Obama might lose. Even if he wins, the House is likely to remain Republican, and the GOP is likely to pick up some seats in the Senate as well. So BHO and Co. is not likely to achieve much next term either. And that rankles.
A lot of folks around here can’t disagree without being disagreeable. It’s too bad, but it’s not universal. Some people are idiots, and most of the idiots around here are lefties. So they blow a gasket every time they see a threat to their world view.
It will be damned entertaining to watch the meltdowns if Romney wins.
Regards,
Shodan
This is very, very funny for several reasons.
Not entirely. It should be possible to have a reasonable dialog over whether the assertion was true.
Much of this thread appears to have consisted of evidence in support of the validity of the assertion. I could point to examples of you gainsaying the assertion, but not to examples of you posting evidence that supports a counter-assertion that it is not valid.
I could be mistaken, however. If I am, would you be so kind as to link to the posts in which you have provided such evidence?
No it isn’t.
Well, in fairness, adaher, you did include Republican budget proposals. Those did exist. They did include shutting the government down and downgrading its credit rating for no clear, stated, overriding reason. And later there was the one that proposed killing Medicare to pay for ending virtually all taxation on the wealthy, but I didn’t include them as serious because they fucking couldn’t have been fucking serious. Are you saying they were? :eek:
Oh, wait, they just picked the guy who wrote it as their VP candidate. They *were *serious.
Just not responsible.
[QUOTE=Budget Player Cadet;15384085I am citing specific examples of where republican policy is intentionally obstructionist or destructive. The debt ceiling being the #1 case. [/QUOTE]
This is a great example of what I mean. The Republicans were demonized for opposing yet another reflexive raising of the debt ceiling. But what good is a “ceiling” if it can be raised at will? The Republicans who opposed it that time around were saying, look, the administration that exists at the time of a proposed debt ceiling raise–Republican or Democrat–raises the specter of a government shutdown to essentially blackmail Congress into raising the debt ceiling, because if they don’t vote to raise it, Grandma won’t get her check in the mail and she’ll be very very mad come election time.
Now, raising the debt ceiling essentially moves the crisis over the event horizon, thereby making it temporarily invisible. But it isn’t exactly a smart move in the long run. It’s like signing up for a new credit card to pay off the balance on all the others (or, more accurately, to pay the minimum monthly payment).
So the Republicans believed they were acting out of a sense of fiscal responsibility, however misguided that may have been. The Democrats, being the party that depends on the continuance of government largesse to keep its core constituency happy, viewed a shutdown of government services as the ultimate disaster.
So things were, in this instance, not as simplistic as you make them out to be.
One need not, nor will I bother to, provide “evidence” to refute an assertion that is already ludicrously self-refuting.
If there really was “no reasoning” with the Republicans, than no debate, dialogue, or discussion between them and the Democrats would have taken place in the entire last four years.
The more wild-eyed on this board may assert that that is the case, but reality refutes that assertion. (And I realize, of course, that “no reasoning with them” is code for “they didn’t cave in to any of the Democrats’ demands.”)
No, even the rest of the world noticed that it is your simplistic idea here the one that is out of whack.
Let’s see…one editorial cartoon in a magazine is “the rest of the world”…
And what exactly do you think is my “simplistic idea”?
I’ll refresh your memory: that the two political parties should move on from personal attacks to an examination of issues and policy.
Please read the OP.
Agreed on all points.
The simplistic idea is precisely to think that the democrats had one there, that and many issues are more complex than it “depends on the continuance of government largesse to keep its core constituency happy” The economy of many others was affected and simplistic ideas that “both where just intransigent” just allows for simplistic retelling of what actually took place.
Also, It is too simple in claiming an equality that it is also illogical, simple logic should tell you that it would be hard to find that in **all **occasions, particularly the ones I pointed out, that both sides on an issue treated each other the same, or that the evidence supported both sides equally.