United States of Entropy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obeying the Constitution by shutting down the government over a constitutionally upheld law you don't like?

Right.

The House of Representatives has every constitutional right to not fund a program. We have a law mandating a fence along our southern border but we have no such fence because its construction has not been funded. This country had a manned space program for 50 years until it was defunded.

And what does the Left in your state do when a state law created by popular vote in CA is upheld by the CA Supreme Court? Do they declare Prop 8 "the law of the land"? No, no they don't. They get a federal judge to overturn it and then fail to defend their own law or citizens in front of the US Supreme Court. There's a precedent for you.
 
But shutting down the government and threatening global economic collapse because you can't get your way after getting clobbered in an election is.

Who proposed the Full Faith and Credit law that would mandate the US Treasury to pay debt service and pensions before anything else insuring stability and preventing default.

The GOP

Who made sure that never became law?

Democrats
 
Warning: Big Government Enclosed

BW5NIrECAAABN3x.png:large
 
INDY lives in an alternate economic reality.

In the week leading up to the weekend in advance of the August 2nd deadline in 2011, the S&P 500 declined by 3.9% and was off a total of 6.8% before an agreement was signed into law. It is also worth noting that during this period, bond yields and oil price also experienced material declines.

Stock market sinks as investors fret over end to Fed stimulus plan - Business - The Boston Globe

Markets fall on stimulus remarks

By Beth Healy | GLOBE STAFF JUNE 21, 2013

The signs are all pointing to an improving economy as more people find jobs, home sales surge in some areas, and confidence rises. Yet investors are selling stocks and bonds, seemingly fixated on just one thing: How soon the Federal Reserve might stop pumping money into the market.

Stocks have fallen sharply for two straight days, pulling the Dow Jones industrial average down 560 points, or nearly 4 percent, to 14,758.32. The sell-off started when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke suggested Wednesday that a healthier economy would prompt the central bank to start winding down its bond-buying program later this year.
The stock market’s nervous initial reaction only gained momentum Thursday, when the Dow index lost 353 points. It was the market’s worst day since November 2011, as investors worried that the economic recovery could be thrown off course if the central bank cuts back.

You were saying.
 
DOMA was "the law of the land." Why did you fight it? Citizens United is "the law of the land." Why is it still discussed here as if it is controversial?

You let me know when anyone threatened collapse of the global economy over these issues. We've won because we've won elections and changed hearts and minds. Bigots like your representatives have lost because you have no arguments to make and you can't hold a candle to real people who love each other. Look not just at election results and court cases, but at polls. We've won because we have better arguments than you. If you'd like to do the same, start there. Don't suicide bomb the financial markets because you can't get your way. Win elections. Convince voters.

Given the historic disapproval rates of the GOP and the Tea Party, you could use the PR. Everyone hates you because you have NOTHING to offer but hate. Even the Greed wing of the GOP wants nothing to do with mouth breathing Tea Partiers. Stupid is as Stupid does.
 
After GOP landslide of Election 2010, what next for Obama?

Republicans scored at least a 60-seat gain in the House, the biggest partisan shift since the Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948.

The petty ideologue would rather bring financial calamity to this country than negotiate. Why should we expect anything different regarding the most costly, partisan law on the books?
 
You want the ACA overturned, then elect people to do it.

The right continues to lose elections, and even in the house they were out voted but maintained or even gained seats.

This is nothing more than a grudge and a tantrum. Societies change over time. Slavery was part of the constitution as well. It's not legal anymore.

Want Obamacare gone, win the presidency and then see if you can remove it. Good luck tho. While there are some shitty aspects (being in pocket of ins companies for one), a LOT of people are going to benefit from this law
 
a LOT of people are going to benefit from this law
ObamaCare's architects reap windfall as Washington lobbyists - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

ObamaCare's architects reap windfall as Washington lobbyists
By Megan R. Wilson - 08/25/13

ObamaCare has become big business for an elite network of Washington lobbyists and consultants who helped shape the law from the inside.

More than 30 former administration officials, lawmakers and congressional staffers who worked on the healthcare law have set up shop on K Street since 2010.

Major lobbying firms such as Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, The Glover Park Group, Alston & Bird, BGR Group and Akin Gump can all boast an Affordable Care Act insider on their lobbying roster — putting them in a prime position to land coveted clients.

“When [Vice President] Biden leaned over [during the signing of the healthcare law] and said to [President] Obama, ‘This is a big f'n deal,’ ” said Ivan Adler, a headhunter at the McCormick Group, “he was right.”

yep
 
And what does the Left in your state do when a state law created by popular vote in CA is upheld by the CA Supreme Court? Do they declare Prop 8 "the law of the land"? No, no they don't. They get a federal judge to overturn it and then fail to defend their own law or citizens in front of the US Supreme Court. There's a precedent for you.

I don't live in California.

The rest of your comment isn't even analogous to the current situation, and even if it was, it sure doesn't speak well to the conduct of the Tea Partiers, as "the Left" didn't throw an epic hissy fit, grind the government to a halt and threaten California with economic calamity if they didn't get their way.
 
3. WW2 veterans aren’t welcome at the National Memorial, but Democrats will host a rally for illegal immigrants at the National Mall – while lecturing citizens about “respect.”

8. Democrats will call Republicans “anarchists,” “arsonists,” “terrorists,” “extremists,” “hostage-takers,” “jihadists” and “suicide bombers” if the GOP doesn’t completely capitulate, but would never dare call Islamist terrorists that.

13. The stock market doesn’t really care what Washington does, as long as the Fed keeps raining cash.

Outstanding and dead-on. :applaud:

1. The National Memorial is a public establishment, public establishments close when the government closes. That's what happens when there's a shutdown. Lots of places were closed, but this is the one the right chose to single out in order to make a cheap political attack. You want to blame someone for their being a shutdown, blame the Tea Party who thought they could extort concessions on the ACA in exchange for not sending the American and world economies into chaos. As for the rally - it was a rally in support of potential legislation to reform immigration laws that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle think we need. The author is making it sound like the Democratic Party was handing out hundred dollar bills to actual criminals while pissing on the ground at the National Memorial, and it's ludicrous.

2. I don't even know where this comes from. Is it Benghazi, because the President didn't immediately call it a terrorist attack? Let it go. The notion that Democrats don't dislike Islamic terrorists(or any terrorists) is silly, and just another iteration of the tired, stale "Democrats are soft on crime, Republicans are tough on crime" line of thought.

3. Does stock market refer to Wall Street? Because Wall Street just spent the last two weeks telling the Tea Party to knock it off and raise the debt ceiling.
 
their paid vacation.

For real?

My husband was in the middle of an unpaid residency at Petrified Forest National Park when the shutdown occurred. One of the rangers was in the middle of trying to buy a house in Holbrook, Arizona. He was quite worried about how not having an income at all was going to affect this process. My husband and his sister brought him some food for him, his wife, and his son on the way back home when they passed through Holbrook. There was one, unpaid ranger left to patrol the park. He was cruising the park, keeping the bewildered taxpayers and the nuts out of the park, on his own, with no pay.

The father of one of my students is a civilian employee of the DoD on a base here in Southern California. Times were very tense for this family while the shut-down was on. It wasn't a vacation at all; I could tell how tense the family was just by this student's behavior.


Perhaps you know people who are federal employees who considered this furlough a paid vacation. I don't think it's fair of you to generalize in such a way.
 
Limited government is not anarchy. Balanced budgets are not anarchy. Obeying the Constitution is not anarchy.

Last week the House passed amendments to;
1) give all Americans the same one year exemption that Obama (illegally) granted to big business.
2) to delay the medical device tax
3) a provision eliminating the Healthcare Exchange subsidies that Obama (illegally) gave to Congress, their staff and other Capital employees.

They all were ignored by the Democratic senate.

First of all, #1 amounts to delaying the individual mandate for a year, and the whole thing falls apart without the individual mandate, and the Tea Party in congress knows it. When individual components of the ACA are polled - such as people with pre-exisiting conditions not being shut out anymore, people being able to stay on their parents' plans for a longer time, etc - large chunks of the country from both sides of the aisle like them. The individual mandate is what draws the most hatred, but it was the cost of business to get the aforementioned reforms from the insurance companies. They are the ones who wanted the individual mandate. They wouldn't have agreed to dropping the pre-exisiting conditions BS, among other things, without it. If everyone isn't buying insurance, premiums go up, which means more expense for those who can afford it and no insurance for those who can't. If the individual mandate is delayed for a year, the whole program will suffer, and that is what the right wants. No way anyone who wants this program to succeed can give any ground on the individual mandate.

Second of all, the President and the Senate stood on principle, that to give the Tea Party anything they were asking for regarding the ACA would set a scary and dangerous precedent, that you can get anything you want from the opposition just by threatening to breach the debt ceiling or to let some other potentially disastrous thing happen to the country. This was about making sure that in the future, this is not seen as either an acceptable or an effective political tactic.
 
What started as a thread on the dismal state of the US economy has taken, unfortunately, a familiar turn.

Post-election season is a time for healing, for putting aside the rancor of a long campaign and rediscovering what unites us. It has not been that way this year.

Prudence, one would think, if not generosity of spirit, should impel Democrats to be magnanimous in victory. Romney did receive about 48 percent of the vote. A little modesty among the winners would seem to be in order.

Instead, the gloating has been extravagant. Worse, liberals have gorged themselves on the same junk food they enjoyed during the campaign and cannot seem to resist under any circumstances — slandering their opponents. The smears are so casual and commonplace that we become weary of responding. But we must protest, or someone new to politics may assume that we concede the point.

Appearing on Meet the Press, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns attributed conservative unhappiness with the election to racism. “Race is always there in America,” Burns opined. “It’s always something we don’t want to talk about. Do you think we’d have a secession movement — a faddish movement — if this president wasn’t African-American? Do you think the vitriol that came out of some elements of the Tea Party would have been at the same level had this president not been African-American?”

Ken Burns is a fine filmmaker. I met him once, and found him to be engaging and amiable. It’s painful to see him descend to this kind of defamation. Some disappointed Republicans are talking secession in Texas and elsewhere. This is proof of racism? Is this the standard of evidence Burns employs for his films?

Secession talk is the overheated emotional venting of the disappointed. It is not the exclusive province of Republicans. In 2004, Jonathan Gurwitz of the Houston Chronicle reminds us, Democratic talking head Lawrence O’Donnell suggested that George W. Bush’s reelection would provoke “a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years.” When a fellow panelist on the TV show in question asked “Are you calling for civil war?” O’Donnell replied “You can secede without firing a shot.” Bob Beckel was for kicking the southern United States out of the union that year. “Really, I think they ought to have their own confederacy.” Alec Baldwin, among others, had threatened to leave the country if Bush was reelected.

Burns’s flippant reference to the “vitriol” emanating from “some elements” in the Tea Party is nothing but an oft-repeated slur. The late Andrew Breitbart famously offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce audio or video proof that the N-word was hurled at black members of Congress as they moved through a Tea Party protest on Capitol Hill. The accusation of racism was broadcast far and wide. The lack of proof — though hundreds of people had video cameras recording every moment — is the untold story. Someone as sophisticated as Ken Burns should know that the Tea Party protests were multiracial, multiethnic affairs, featuring speakers of every background. What united them was concern that the government stop spending money it does not collect.

False accusations of racism are an attempt to delegitimize those who disagree with you. Promiscuous use of the word also defangs it for actual instances of racial bias. Honest liberals should further consider that flinging the charge protects them from having to defend their ideas. It’s simultaneously ugly and lazy.

Kathleen Geier of the Washington Monthly writes that conservatives use abstractions because they are attempting to conceal positions that “a hefty chunk of the population” finds “icky.” That’s the reason, she explains, that they talk of “‘small government,’ ‘right to life,’ ‘states’ rights,’ ‘free markets,’ ‘right to work,’ ‘judicial restraint,’ ‘family values,’ etc.”

I can’t recall the last time a mainstream American politician referred to “state’s rights,” but I’m pretty sure that whoever it was, he was a Democrat. It was the code term southern Democrats used to defend Jim Crow laws. Three quarters of the nay votes on the 1964 Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Conservatives, as Ms. Geier would know if she actually read them rather than relying on cartoon depictions, do talk of federalism. If Geier thinks the constitutional order providing for state and federal governments is “icky,” she should say so.

As for the “right to life,” isn’t that a great deal more honest than the liberals’ habit of disguising a policy of unrestricted abortion up to and including birth as “women’s reproductive health”?

Geier further confuses her readers by explaining that “judicial restraint” means “no rights for women, gays, or nonwhites.”

On reflection, I take it back. What liberals like Geier need is not humility or magnanimity. It’s basic information.
 
I wouldn't hit you if you didn't make me so angry.

(Also, that's a truly ghastly op-ed. Link? I'd like to know who wrote it.)
 
Damn that Obama causing the global financial recession of 2008.
 
Pork barreling is outrageous.

But I also love how that page has a huge unflattering photo of Nancy Pelosi and only quotes her, implying she inserted all these provisions. This wasn't Nancy's bill. But nice try.

Take a look at what McConnell got in Kentucky...things start to crystallize a bit. Why isn't his ugly mug front and centre?
 
It looks like nbcrusader is on one hell of a trolling tirade and is lost in his own world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom