Politics

[DSully1995]

It was not a question. I do not give a rats a** where the moron graduated from.

His statement did make sense, its not like the US stumbled upon being the richest nation on earth..

 

[95NDAlumNM]

His statement did make sense, its not like the US stumbled upon being the richest nation on earth..

Exactly, and it was not because of these right wing wackos who are holding our country and the world economy hostage. It was because of the strong middle class who worked their asses off to better themselves and this country. Something that the rich a** white Republicans seem to have forgotten.

 

[connor_in]

Exactly, and it was not because of these right wing wackos who are holding our country and the world economy hostage. It was because of the strong middle class who worked their asses off to better themselves and this country. Something that the rich a** white Republicans seem to have forgotten.

Why do you and so many prominent D politicians and talking heads want to Kill Gabby Giffords?

#civility

 

[phgreek]

Exactly, and it was not because of these right wing wackos who are holding our country and the world economy hostage. It was because of the strong middle class who worked their asses off to better themselves and this country. Something that the rich a** white Republicans seem to have forgotten.

Come on man...respect your point of view just like most of the rest of the Liberal folks...but this is just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

Bemoan the existence of the Tea Party all ya want...or Rich White people...or however you personify the packaging of your frustrations...but its attitudes behind words like yours which have us where we are today.

 

[potownhero]

Not the founding documents, but it is the 14th amendment. It should be damn important to the Tea Party people as it is part of the constitution even if it was added later.

The House is responsible because they refused to appoint people to the conference committee when both the House and Senate passed budgets. If you were an honest person instead of a Republican hack you could see that. The Republicans purposefully drove us to this point thinking it would give them leverage. If you can't see that then you need to open your eyes. Sorry. Democrats agreed to pass a clean CR at the funding levels that Republicans wanted (Reid and Boehner had an agreement) and then Boehner backed out. Sorry they can pass all the small CRs they want but we are here because they refused to appoint people to the conference committee, then demanded that defunding Obamacare be a part of any CR, and now are bitching that Democrats wouldn't budge. Sorry to point out the facts.

While I vote democrat it is more because of social issues then fiscal issues. I think lowering the debt is important (I think a balanced budget amendment however is crazy). I really liked the original idea of a grand bargain with $3 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in taxes. I believe that we have to do something about Social Security and Medicare, but having said that, do it under normal circumstances not by trying to take the government hostage and then pretend like you are being the reasonable one.

First, let me say that I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this conversation. Often times when people disagree, they resort to ad hominem attacks. I'm encouraged that hasn't happened here.

OK - back to topic at hand; to define me as a republican hack is way off base. I despise and disagree with “leaders” like Mitch and John almost (but not quite) as much as I despise and disagree with Harry and Barrack. I don’t like what our political process has become and believe that the political parties and the media are mostly to blame.

That said, I end up calling out what I consider “democratic hacks” because they only see fault with one side and fail to recognize the inconsistencies and falsehoods that come out of their own side. That’s why I point them out over and over again. It seems like there are many more “crazies” on this site that are of the “D” brand, where they can do no wrong, than the “R” brand. You’ll see that many of the “R’s” on this board are very critical of their own party. Again, my point relating to our conversation is that you stated that it was only the R’s holding the country hostage. (Furthermore, the crazy “D’s” on this site all too often state things that are just factually wrong.) As I proved in my previous post, an honest assessment would be that you could say that both sides are holding the country hostage.

Now to move on to why?

What about the House tactics of attaching conditions to funding the government? This isn’t something that’s new. In fact, it’s not always a party thing either; the “D” congress did this to Carter, a “D” president. This is the way the House exercises the power it has and has been done over and over again.

You never addressed why Reid and wants people to suffer? He could relieve the suffering by passing the segmented resolutions already passed in the House. Can you answer why he, Reid wants to inflict pain on innocent people? (Repeated for effect)

To reiterate: The House passed CRs that would specifically fund and not hold hostage the following:

National Park Service Operations; Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art;
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
District of Columbia
Veterans Benefits
National Institutes of Health
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
Food and Drug Administration
Head Start
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Pay for Federal Employees

The Senate Hasn't moved on these.

Why won’t Harry Reid allow Federal Employees to be paid?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow the National Parks to stay open?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow Veteran’s benefits be funded?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to be funded?
…and, etc.

 

[potownhero]

You are a moron. What community college did you graduate from.

Wow, YOU must be THAT guy.

The smartest guy in the room with the argument that's so good that you don't have to say it...so smart in fact, that you have to resort to calling people names. In my experience, it's typically because the opposite is true; you're intellectually bankrupt. You can't support your argument, so out comes the ad hominem attack.

I'll wait for your argument while you ask all the friends that live in your head for some help.

 

[DSully1995]

Exactly, and it was not because of these right wing wackos who are holding our country and the world economy hostage. It was because of the strong middle class who worked their asses off to better themselves and this country. Something that the rich a** white Republicans seem to have forgotten.

Ill ignore the slander, but yes. The question is how do you return to that? Is it through a generous welfare safety net (which didnt exist back then) or is it through limited government that allows the hard work of individual citizens to manage the economy instead of politicians. The approach of the tea party is way more similar to what worked back then than what progressives are calling for.

 

[GowerND11]

Exactly, and it was not because of these right wing wackos who are holding our country and the world economy hostage. It was because of the strong middle class who worked their asses off to better themselves and this country. Something that the rich a** white Republicans seem to have forgotten.

You do realize that a middle class essentially didn't exist until ~1900 thanks in large part to rich *** white men who built America. Seriously, watch that miniseries from the History Channel, Men Who Built America. Without these rich men fueling the economy by industrializing the nation and creating jobs for the poor Americans who then were eventually able to move towards a new middle class being developed at the time, also thanks to other rich white men who invented many new commodities. It was thanks to a relatively hands off (laissez faire) government that allowed the nation to prosper and grow and support a middle class. The government got their money thanks to some taxes which kept it happy, but for the most part government intervention was nonexistent, even after the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in the 1880s. It was until Teddy Roosevelt was in office that "trust busting" actually started happening, ~20 years AFTER legislation to regulate big business was passed.

Now today we know more regulations are a neccessity, pollution, workers rights, etc, yet big business still dominates. The Democrates have no problems taking money for their campaigns from rich white guys, even though they "stand for the little guy." Look both parties suck balls right now there is no way around that. To come on here and just blatantly insult other board members and asking what community college they graduated from because they have different political views as you is pretty low and doesn't really go along with the D's view of "equality."

 

[connor_in]

First, let me say that I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this conversation. Often times when people disagree, they resort to ad hominem attacks. I'm encouraged that hasn't happened here.

OK - back to topic at hand; to define me as a republican hack is way off base. I despise and disagree with “leaders” like Mitch and John almost (but not quite) as much as I despise and disagree with Harry and Barrack. I don’t like what our political process has become and believe that the political parties and the media are mostly to blame.

That said, I end up calling out what I consider “democratic hacks” because they only see fault with one side and fail to recognize the inconsistencies and falsehoods that come out of their own side. That’s why I point them out over and over again. It seems like there are many more “crazies” on this site that are of the “D” brand, where they can do no wrong, than the “R” brand. You’ll see that many of the “R’s” on this board are very critical of their own party. Again, my point relating to our conversation is that you stated that it was only the R’s holding the country hostage. (Furthermore, the crazy “D’s” on this site all too often state things that are just factually wrong.) As I proved in my previous post, an honest assessment would be that you could say that both sides are holding the country hostage.

Now to move on to why?

What about the House tactics of attaching conditions to funding the government? This isn’t something that’s new. In fact, it’s not always a party thing either; the “D” congress did this to Carter, a “D” president. This is the way the House exercises the power it has and has been done over and over again.

You never addressed why Reid and wants people to suffer? He could relieve the suffering by passing the segmented resolutions already passed in the House. Can you answer why he, Reid wants to inflict pain on innocent people? (Repeated for effect)

To reiterate: The House passed CRs that would specifically fund and not hold hostage the following:

National Park Service Operations; Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art;
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
District of Columbia
Veterans Benefits
National Institutes of Health
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
Food and Drug Administration
Head Start
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Pay for Federal Employees

The Senate Hasn't moved on these.

Why won’t Harry Reid allow Federal Employees to be paid?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow the National Parks to stay open?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow Veteran’s benefits be funded?
Why won’t Harry Reid allow the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children to be funded?
…and, etc.

I am a fiscal conservative and have a large problem with many of the R's in DC...
That said, my understanding of why the D controlled Senate and the administration won't pass the items listed is that they simply want a clean CR and then THEY SAY they'll negotiate (aka give me what I want first, then we'll talk). Also, I believe they figured that the shutdown hurt the R's and thought they would come off as the white knights. However, it appears that they overplayed their hand and are catching a lot of the same guff from the public as the R's. Where they went awry is two-fold: 1) the way they inflicted the "shutdown"...especially with the National Parks and the WWII Memorial...at the WWII Memorial (a completely open area) they used more manpower than usually exists there to erect a completely fabricated blockade...so they essentially spent more money than normal to intentionally hurt veterans...not camera friendly...similar items are true with many of the other park areas...closing down private businesses...closing down places that remained open in previous govt shutdowns...showed them to be spiteful in how they handled the 17% shutdown that exists; 2) the other problem for them was them adopting the strategy of no negotiating...this might have seemed like standing firm, but the R's played the gambit that said, OK you don't like the CR w/out ACA, fine..how about CR with delay individual mandate for a year...like you did for businesses (see Sebelius on Jon Stewart)...Senate NO; OK then how about we take care of those who may be hurt most and started passing the individual appropriations...next thing you know, the press is asking Reid why he would rather let a cancer stricken child die...that along with President Obama originally saying he would not negotiate with R's, BUT then he starts negotiating with the leader of Iran...another not good visual and why he is now talking about negotiating...bt only if he gets what he wants first....the R's trying time and again to do something/anything is making them come off as reasonable

I also feel that D's are overplaying the rhetoric. The ever increasing amount of horrible things said is truly incredible. Anyone want to go back and listen to how D's were begging for civility in public discourse in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting...and then look at what D's say every day now (including the president). If the MSM was truly non-biased, I think that the slight lead R's have in blame for the shutdown (and it ain't much) would be tilted the other way.

 

[ACamp1900]

I am a fiscal conservative and have a large problem with many of the R's in DC...
That said, my understanding of why the D controlled Senate and the administration won't pass the items listed is that they simply want a clean CR and then THEY SAY they'll negotiate (aka give me what I want first, then we'll talk).

The D's have played this card a number of times in my adult life... I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I honestly do not remember when the 'then we'll talk' part actually worked out afterwards...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just read a great AmCon article titled "What Is an American Conservative?":

Earlier this week I began a series of lectures in one of my classes on the thought of the Anti-Federalists. I began by echoing some of the conclusions of the great compiler and interpreter of the Anti-Federalist writings, Herbert Storing, whose summation of their thought is found in his compact introductory volume, What the Anti-Federalists Were For. I began with the first main conclusion of that book, that in the context of the debate over the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were the original American conservatives. I then related a series of positions that were held by the Anti-Federalist opponents of the proposed Constitution. To wit:

They insisted on the importance of a small political scale, particularly because a large expanse of diverse citizens makes it difficult to arrive at a shared conception of the common good and an overly large scale makes direct participation in political rule entirely impracticable if not impossible. They believed that laws were and ought to be educative, and insisted upon the centrality of virtue in a citizenry. Among the virtues most prized was frugality, and they opposed an expansive, commercial economy that would draw various parts of the Union into overly close relations, thereby encouraging avarice, and particularly opposed trade with foreign nations, which they believed would lead the nation to compromise its independence for lucre. They were strongly in favor of “diversity,” particularly relatively bounded communities of relatively homogeneous people, whose views could then be represented (that is, whose views could be “re-presented”) at the national scale in very numerous (and presumably boisterous) assemblies. They believed that laws were only likely to be followed when more or less directly assented to by the citizenry, and feared that as distance between legislators and the citizenry increased, that laws would require increased force of arms to achieve compliance. For that reason, along with their fears of the attractions of international commerce and of imperial expansion, they strongly opposed the creation of a standing army and insisted instead upon state-based civilian militias. They demanded inclusion of a Bill of Rights, among which was the Second Amendment, the stress of which was not on individual rights of gun ownership, but collective rights of civilian self-defense born of fear of a standing army and the temptations to “outsource” civic virtue to paid mercenaries.

As I disclosed the positions of the Anti-Federalists, I could see puzzlement growing on the faces of a number of students, until one finally exclaimed—”this doesn’t sound like conservatism at all!” Conservatism, for these 18-to-22-year-olds, has always been associated with George W. Bush: a combination of cowboy, crony capitalism, and foreign adventurism in search of eradicating evil from the world. To hear the views of the Anti-Federalists described as “conservative” was the source of severe cognitive dissonance, a deep confusion about what, exactly, is meant by conservatism.

So I took a step back and discussed several ways by which we might understand what is meant by conservatism—first, as a set of dispositions, then as a response to the perceived threats emanating from a revolutionary (or even merely reformist) left, and then as a set of contested substantive positions. And, I suggested, only by connecting the first and third, and understanding the instability of the second, could one properly arrive at a conclusion such as that of Storing, who would describe the positions of the Anti-Federalists as “conservative.”

First, there is the conservative disposition, one articulated perhaps most brilliantly by Russell Kirk, who described conservatism above all not as a set of policy positions, but as a general view toward the world. That disposition especially finds expression in a “piety toward the wisdom of one’s ancestors,” a respect for the ancestral that only with great caution, hesitancy, and forbearance seeks to introduce or accept change into society. It is supremely wary of the only iron law of politics—the law of unintended consequences (e.g., a few conservatives predicted that the introduction of the direct primary in the early 1900′s would lead to increasingly extreme ideological divides and the increased influence of money in politics. In the zeal for reform, no one listened). It also tends toward a pessimistic view of history, more concerned to prevent the introduction of corruption in a decent regime than driven to pursue change out a belief in progress toward a better future.


Conservatism—as a conscious political philosophy, rather than simply as a way of being in the world—begins as a reaction to the revolutionary movements arising from the Enlightenment, culminating in the French Revolution. Its “founder,” of course, was Edmund Burke, whose opposition to the French Revolution was the embodiment of this conservative disposition, displaying, with rhetorical brilliance, a prophetic vision of the tendencies of this revolutionary ideology toward barbaric inhumanity in the name of progress.

Conservatism also takes a more problematic form—one of simple reaction to the opposition. As a reaction to the left, conservatism has always been prone to drift—it will tend to articulate its position in opposition to the current stances of progressives. Thus, today it is far from the positions once held by the likes of the Anti-Federalists: rather, it has assumed a series of positions that can only be described as closer to the vision of Hamilton—the most nationalist and commercial-minded of the Federalists—now aligned in opposition to a left that has since embraced the historicist philosophy of Progressivism. Where once American conservatives opposed an expansive commercial economy, today they are its champions. Where they once decried identification with the nation over localities, states, and regions, today they are the most vociferous nationalists. (Long forgotten is the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was originally written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, cousin of the utopian novelist, Edward Bellamy, during the high-water mark of the Progressive era.) Where they once deeply mistrusted “foreign entanglements” and insisted upon a citizen militia, fearing that a standing army would become subservient to the ambitions of a distant elite political class, today they are the close allies of the “military-industrial complex.” In each instance, they have moved to occupy the positions once occupied by the left. No wonder my students were puzzled.

Only by linking a conservative disposition with relevant substance can we avoid the tendency of conservatism simply to march a step behind the left, of becoming a ship buffeted by historicist winds with a permanently leftward drift. The Anti-Federalists were conservatives not only because they were wary of the introduction of political innovation in the form of the Constitution; they saw its basic “tendency” as one of “consolidation,” a solution born of a purported political emergency that called for the scuttling of the then-inadequate political document, the Articles of Confederation. They believed especially that emergency powers would be constantly invoked by the executive, and that these powers would never stand down—that accumulation of power to the center would increase steadily, irreversibly, and with gathering strength. They predicted that the Supreme Court would eventually invalidate laws of the states, becoming a powerful unelected star chamber that would advance the liberal agenda on a national scale. The very argument that “times” would demand a fundamental change would be used later by the Progressives to discover a “living Constitution,” an eventuality predicted by the Anti-Federalists. Like Burke, their conservativism gave them a special gift of prescience, an awareness of both unintended—but also intended—consequences.

Today’s conservatives are liberals—they favor an economy that wreaks “creative destruction,” especially on the mass of “non-winners,” increasingly controlled by a few powerful actors who secure special benefits for themselves and their heirs; a military that is constructed to be only loyal to the central authority in the capital, frequently moved about to avoid any rooted loyalty, and increasingly isolated from most fellow citizens; an increasingly utilitarian view of education aimed at creating individuals who will become able cogs in a globalized industrial system, largely without allegiance or loyalty; proponents of an increasingly homogenized society whose allegiance is to a set of ideas, especially a “more perfect union,” which Francis Bellamy expressed, was inspired by the example of the French Revolution.

One reaction to my previous article, denouncing an economic system creating a two-class society, suspected me of not being conservative at all, even of harboring Marxist inclinations. This constitutes a logical error—just because Marx was a critic of crony capitalism, that does not make all critics of crony capitalism Marxist. To such criticisms, I can only reply—if what you seek to conserve is liberalism, then you’re right, I’m no conservative. And by today’s definition, who, except a few discredited neo-conservatives (a.k.a., paleo-liberals) trying to reignite the good old days of the Cold War, would want to be so defined?

If conservatism is broken today, we need only blame liberalism. There is only one party in America—your choice is liberalism with deliberate speed, or liberalism in a hurry. What is needed is a new, doubtless very different, American conservatism.

This is relevant to the government shutdown. "Conservatism" in American today is nothing more than a reaction against liberalism; it offers nothing substantive on its own. Which is why I don't identify myself as a "conservative"-- that label is devoid of meaning now. But I definitely identify with Burke and the Anti-Federalists.

 

[chicago51]

This whole Democrats won't negoiate thing is a bunch of crap.

If the Democrats were to attach for instance a background check on gun sales measure (after all it has popular support) to the CR and say we will shut down the government if we don't get this Republicans would be up in arms too.

Since when is opening up the government "unconditional surrender" as Speaker Boehner puts it? I didn't realize they were giving up a concession by keeping everything on auto pilot at the spending levels they want?

As far as the Speaker goes he can end all this and give the clean CR a vote. It will get a majority vote. Either that or 2 dozen or so Republicans have lied to their districts back home saying they would support one. And if the speaker didn't have the votes like he says he doesn't wouldn't a clean CR failing give him more crebility?

 

[phgreek]

Just read a great AmCon article titled "What Is an American Conservative?":



This is relevant to the government shutdown. "Conservatism" in American today is nothing more than a reaction against liberalism; it offers nothing substantive on its own. Which is why I don't identify myself as a "conservative"-- that label is devoid of meaning now. But I definitely identify with Burke and the Anti-Federalists.

I really can't argue...

I've used the football field analogy before to try and articulate what conservatism is doing/ has done over time...but obviously this is far more detailed...and just better.

As I get older I tend to become more of the Burke/Antifederalist as described here.

 

[ACamp1900]

So, some interesting things just vanished... were any infractions given or did someone just sweep up some liberal transgressions as though they never happened??

 

[GowerND11]

.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

95 was infracted for racism. Then I deleted the offending post and every post in response to it so we can (hopefully) get back to civil discourse.

 

[wizards8507]

I really can't argue...

I've used the football field analogy before to try and articulate what conservatism is doing/ has done over time...but obviously this is far more detailed...and just better.

As I get older I tend to become more of the Burke/Antifederalist as described here.

Just read a great AmCon article titled "What Is an American Conservative?":



This is relevant to the government shutdown. "Conservatism" in American today is nothing more than a reaction against liberalism; it offers nothing substantive on its own. Which is why I don't identify myself as a "conservative"-- that label is devoid of meaning now. But I definitely identify with Burke and the Anti-Federalists.

Absolutely agree. "True" conservatism, as in small-government, free-market, liberty-based self-governance is actually closer to the classical liberalism of Adam Smith and John Locke than anything else. Today it would be something along the lines of Ron Paul-ish libertariansim. George Bush, Karl Rove, and Mitt Romney are not conservatives in this sense.

The distinction can most easily be seen in an issue like gay marriage. A "modern" conservative like Bush and others would want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. A liberal wants to institutionalize gay marriage. Neither of these answers are the true conservative/classical liberal solution. Big government is big government, regardless of whose version of morality it endorses. The TRUE conservative solution to gay marriage would be to throw out ALL marriage from the realm of government and say to the people, "do what you want." If you want to sign a contract that so-and-so makes your medical decisions, go for it! If an employer wants to offer health insurance to a spouse or domestic partner of any sex, they're free to do so. If "marriage" to you happens in a Catholic church, get married in a Catholic church. If "marriage" is a secular promise in front of family and friends, make a secular promise in front of family and friends. Whatever you think "married" means, do that thing. Different tax rates for married couples of any orientation? No, sir. Everyone is equal. When our "rights" come from the government, the government can take them away. Rights come from God and/or are inherrent in our nature.

It's not exactly light reading, but I'd invite everyone to read FA Hayek's "Why I Am Not A Conservative." Hayek uses "liberal" to mean "libertarian," "socialist" to mean "liberal," and "conservative" to mean big-government crony-capitalism hacks who want to instill their morality on the population like Karl Rove and Rick Santorum.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.

 

[BobD]

So, some interesting things just vanished... were any infractions given or did someone just sweep up some liberal transgressions as though they never happened??

95 was infracted for racism. Then I deleted the offending post and every post in response to it so we can (hopefully) get back to civil discourse.

Thanks Whiskey.

 

[phgreek]

So, some interesting things just vanished... were any infractions given or did someone just sweep up some liberal transgressions as though they never happened??

...still laughing...reminded me of Bill and Ted...

Strange things afoot at the Circle K

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

They insisted on the importance of a small political scale, particularly because a large expanse of diverse citizens makes it difficult to arrive at a shared conception of the common good and an overly large scale makes direct participation in political rule entirely impracticable if not impossible.

We have over 300 million people living in America...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is the first time I've ever posted something sent to me via PM, but I think it's justified in the interest of transparent moderation.

Dear 95NDAlumNM,

You have received an infraction at Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion.

Reason: Racism.
-------
We're pretty tolerant of controversial takes in the political thread, but we can't let blatant racism slide.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
https://www.irishenvy.com/index.php?posts/1132402/

White, male, cracker, Honkeys are always right. Lucky there are less and less of you in America all the time. Can't wait till they are the minority and then they can be treated like other minorities in the past have been treated. Unfortunately I will long have passed but my kids or grand kids sure will be in a better America. The Tea Party and Republicans are sure helping speed their demise.

All the best,
Irish Envy | Notre Dame Football Discussion

Understandable coming from Arizona. Really hard to shake those confederate based origins. It is OK to slam on others but you mention anything against the white man and it is taboo.

95's response to his very lenient 1 point infraction for blatant racism is bolded above.

I hope you've enjoyed your time here on IE, 95. Best of luck to you in the future.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We have over 300 million people living in America...

And they're all living in distinct communities (state, city, neighborhood, etc.) that have different needs and policy preferences. The one-size-fits-all approach of trying govern such a huge and diverse nation from a single centralized authority was recognized as a serious danger by the Anti-Federalists, but that's where we've ended up anyway.

 

[wizards8507]

We have over 300 million people living in America...

Which makes it even more important to keep as much power at the state and local level as possible. When Washington, DC tries to accomodate the needs of 300M, they end up meeting the needs of virtually none of them. The 100K people in South Bend have much different needs than the 5M in Boston, the 61K in Bristol, or the 7K in Gig Harbor, Washington.. "One size fits all" government doesn't work simply because one size DOESN'T fit all.

And they're all living in distinct communities (state, city, neighborhood, etc.) that have different needs and policy preferences. The one-size-fits-all approach of trying govern such a huge and diverse nation from a single centralized authority was recognized as a serious danger by the Anti-Federalists, but that's where we've ended up anyway.

My post = obsolete.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This is the first time I've ever posted something sent to me via PM, but I think it's justified in the interest of transparent moderation.



95's response to his very lenient 1 point infraction for blatant racism is bolded above.

I hope you've enjoyed your time here on IE, 95. Best of luck to you in the future.

This dude's got issues. Thanks, Whiskey.

 

[BobD]

This is the first time I've ever posted something sent to me via PM, but I think it's justified in the interest of transparent moderation.



95's response to his very lenient 1 point infraction for blatant racism is bolded above.

I hope you've enjoyed your time here on IE, 95. Best of luck to you in the future.

Thats too bad. Sad that he feels that way.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here's the thing...in the House, they are not the minority and thus they get to call the shots.

PS How can we possibly have a million out of work? We are in the third or fourth year of the Obama recovery we keep hearing so much about.

Quick question...do you agree with President Obama or Senator Obama when it comes to raising the debt ceiling?

They are in a minority in their own party. Want proof? Tell Boener to put a clean CR on the floor and see what happens.

We can have a million out of work because this stupid shutdown demands it Incidently, that number keeps growing because contractors are beginning to send people home too?

I agree that if the debt ceiling is not passed, this country will go into a tailspin.

 

[wizards8507]

They are in a minority in their own party. Want proof? Tell Boener to put a clean CR on the floor and see what happens.

We can have a million out of work because this stupid shutdown demands it Incidently, that number keeps growing because contractors are beginning to send people home too?

I agree that if the debt ceiling is not passed, this country will go into a tailspin.

Maybe the problem isn't "people out of work due to the shutdown." Maybe the problem is that so many people rely on the government for work in the first place.

 

[ACamp1900]

Maybe the problem isn't "people out of work due to the shutdown." Maybe the problem is that so many people rely on the government for work in the first place.

this is at least worth a serious look...

 

[irishpat183]

Guns

Yes nobody "want's" it.

Yeah...all that stuff they are polling on that site is already done. (background checks)


And if all that were true..why does a state like CO fall on their faces when they try and stomp on 2nd amendment rights? And given the control that the left had in government....how did no new laws get trhough if it was so popular?

Just a question.

 

[irishpat183]

This whole Democrats won't negoiate thing is a bunch of crap.

If the Democrats were to attach for instance a background check on gun sales measure (after all it has popular support) to the CR and say we will shut down the government if we don't get this Republicans would be up in arms too.

Since when is opening up the government "unconditional surrender" as Speaker Boehner puts it? I didn't realize they were giving up a concession by keeping everything on auto pilot at the spending levels they want?

As far as the Speaker goes he can end all this and give the clean CR a vote. It will get a majority vote. Either that or 2 dozen or so Republicans have lied to their districts back home saying they would support one. And if the speaker didn't have the votes like he says he doesn't wouldn't a clean CR failing give him more crebility?

PSSSSST...PSSSSSSSTTT


THEY ALREADY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON GUN SALES!