I asked twice. You prefer to change the subject with no substantive comments, so I’m left with the conclusion that you have no real defense for why 30 Tea Party members should have the power to force the government into a shutdown.
Thank you for your implicit support of what President Obama and Senator Reid have been saying for three days.
Do you concede the first part?
No, and even if I did, it wouldn’t change my point, and it wouldn’t make you right.
Its still not a CONCESSION.
Are you refusing to answer me until I admit that you are right about something, even if I don’t think that you are? Are you engaging in the same tactics as the tea party?
If you don’t have an answer admit it. If you do provide it. Don’t make your answer conditional on me agreeing to your demands.
OK, but it’s still not a concession- a concession would be if the Republicans offer something they oppose.
No, you didn’t “ask twice”. You irrelevantly commented on a post of mine and expected me to jump on it.
In response to you - I don’t know if they “should” have the power. That’s kind of a “meta” question. Our system of government gives them the power. They are exercising it, in a democratic and legal manner. Does that answer your question?
If you don’t concede even a simple point that 30 Democrat Senators being in favor of something is indicative of Democrat support for that something, there isn’t much to talk about, is there?
No, because you’re restricting your comments to such a narrow and insignificant issue. You’re clearly ducking any substantive position here.
If you make a post saying that it’s stupid that Charlie Rangell introduced a bill to require a military draft in the United States, I would say: “Yep, that’s a dumb proposal.” I wouldn’t fill my posts with weasel words and technical comments about the Constitution guaranteeing congressmen the right to propose bills.
I think you’re also implicitly accepting that these 30 Tea Party members are the reason why government is shut down and can’t reopen despite what appears to be majorities in both houses of Congress, of both parties, who support the end of the shutdown.
If you can’t offer a substantive defense of why 30 or so Tea Party members should be able to force 800,000 Americans out of work, I’m left to believe that you know in your heart of hearts that this shutdown is the fault of Republicans, and that in a democratic republic like ours, it’s a crying shame that 7% of the elected membership of the House of Representatives can exercise so much power in an irresponsible way.
What the hell is democratic about what they are doing? Have you not seen the polls? They talk about listening to the people, but the people do not want this.
The ACA was passed democratically through both houses, signed by the President, held up by the supreme court, and the people voted Obama back in, so to act like the Tea party are the ones acting democratically? It is to laugh.
That’s an extremely simplistic (and wrong) view of a complex situation. The 30 (if you’re right) Tea Party members do not hold any physical restraints over their Republican colleagues. The Republican colleagues are not afraid of the 30 Tea Party members. They are afraid of voters who elected them to their position disapproving and not re-electing them if they give in. That’s a healthy and necessary fear, and THAT is how representative democracy works.
I will not be held hostage to you sir. You cannot force me to admit something just to get you to answer my point. My point stands whether your 30 Senators shtick is valid or not. Once again, offering something that you yourself want is not a CONCESSION! Its only a concession if you OPPOSE it.
Your utter failure to even acknowledge this point let alone answer it is an admission that you have nothing to offer this conversation. So yes for that reason, there is nothing to discuss. Your hostage demands are not discussion, its childishness gotcha ya crap that noone here is buying.
If you decide you want to actually debate like an adult let me know.
I’m not looking for an explanation. I’m asking you for a justification, and so far you haven’t offered anything but “Our laws allow the Tea Party to do this, and they happen to have a political advantage.” You haven’t even attempted to explain why it is right for the Tea Party politicians to exercise power in this way… and that continues to speak volumes.
Welcome. I generally call it like I see it. And I have known highly educated idiots, they are so intent that they know absolutely everything that their brain seems to lock at the idea that something they learned in books is not how it works in real life. Ask any enlisted in the military - they get their A, B and C schools, then they go to their first duty station abd have t get retrained for how it is in the real world. Officers go through the same process, they get to the boats as a peeping little chick of an ensign, and basically have a senior enlisted assigned to them to hold their hands and make sure they get trained not to fuck up. [20 years as a Navy dependent, watching the process happen.]
And book larning ain’t real world larning as a hillbilly would put it. You know, them that can does, then that can’t teaches, them that teaches get jobs in Government Think Tanks where they can really fuck things up.
How often have you seen word come out of Washington about something and wondered what the FUCK were they thinking …
Buh.
Ah you want justification. It’s because they are opposed to Obamacare. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Completely unsurprising reply.
Are you trying to embarrass yourself as much as the House Republicans are right now? If so, good job.
Well, there’s “opposed” and then there’s “opposed”. I am “opposed” to ObamaCare in that I don’t think it goes nearly far enough. Other guys are “opposed” in the sense of shrieking, rolling about on the floor and setting the curtains on fire. I submit that the level of justification required varies.
Are you saying that opposition to Obamacare justifies putting 800,000 people out of work? And cutting off NIH experimental treatments to children with cancer?
Tell me, when Reid refused to even consider the Republican bill that would have continued those experimental treatments to children with cancer yesterday - was that justified? Or when he rejected the Republican proposal that would continue paying Veterans just a couple of hours ago?
Do you mean those proposals that were designed to circumvent established law?
That’s a very silly argument.
The shutdown effects hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions. The children with cancer are just one small sliver. Pointing at them and fixing it piecemeal is utterly stupid because it ignores all the others.