Conquer Club

Oh the joys of a participating in a Corporate Democracy,
a dictatorship would never let this happen.

oVo wrote:Oh the joys of a participating in a Corporate Democracy

"TEH CORPORASHUNS DUN DID IT!" is kinda 2011.



That said, it's a fun blast from the past of conspiracy theories. Remember way back to 2005, and then again in 2007 and 2010, when Congress whipped the public into a pitchfork wielding frenzy for 2-4 weeks about a theory that Exxon and Chevron were secretly meeting in a compound inside a hollowed-out volcano to set gas prices? Then something else came along they needed the public to focus on and everyone dropped the gas meme overnight and started screaming about the new thing. Derivatives reform or catching Koni or something, I forget. LOL, mobs are funny.

from the link above...

Democrats won more votes than Republicans in the last election. That was true in the presidential campaign. It was true in the Senate campaigns. And it was true in the House campaigns.

That doesn't mean the Republican Party is under any obligation to stand back and let Democrats do as they please. But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

Update: A reader writes in:
There might be an even more instructive analogy.

In May 2007, 140 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to defund the Iraq war. In September of the same year, Congress voted to increase the debt limit. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had threatened to breach the debt ceiling unless Republicans agreed to defund the war. At that time, approval of the Iraq war was polled at 33% in favor and 64% against.

oVo wrote:In May 2007, 140 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to defund the Iraq war. In September of the same year, Congress voted to increase the debt limit. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had threatened to breach the debt ceiling unless Republicans agreed to defund the war.

How would that work?

116 Democrats joined 168 Republicans (284 total) voting to fund the Iraq genocide and 140 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted to de-fund it (150 total). How exactly would the 150 have breached the debt ceiling when a legislative majority is 218? Ezra Klein's column has been a weird regurgitation of his wild revenge fantasies for awhile now but there was a time it was at least based on an understanding of 8th grade maths.

if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats

Pelosi never voted to defund the Iraq War so in what version of Narnia would she have been valiantly organizing this insurgency? IIRC she flew around the Capitol on her broomstick threatening Democrats who voted to defund.* But it's cool to reimagine her as some peace crusader who courageously put it on the line instead of a 75 year-old multi-millionaire daughter of a mob boss with cobwebs in her vagina.

* And the Democrats ultimately went on to kick-out, via redistricting, most of their own members who led the defunding resolution, like Kucinich.

It's worth noting that the Syrian government has consistently paid its bills and its employees throughout 2.5 years of increasingly destructive civil war.

oVo wrote:from the link above...

Democrats won more votes than Republicans in the last election. That was true in the presidential campaign. It was true in the Senate campaigns. And it was true in the House campaigns.

That doesn't mean the Republican Party is under any obligation to stand back and let Democrats do as they please. But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

Update: A reader writes in:
There might be an even more instructive analogy.

In May 2007, 140 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to defund the Iraq war. In September of the same year, Congress voted to increase the debt limit. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had threatened to breach the debt ceiling unless Republicans agreed to defund the war. At that time, approval of the Iraq war was polled at 33% in favor and 64% against.

This post illustrates the difference between you (a Democrat) and me (an anti-Repocrat). You can read Saxi's post, but I have another one for you - how many Republicans are in favor of intervening in Syria? How many Democrats? What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

thegreekdog wrote:You seem to be enamored with Democrats
and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is
between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

I'm enamored by change, this country needs a fresh way
of looking at the World and conducting itself.

Oh fuck! The Panda Cam is down at the National Zoo.

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

Well, this royally screw government workers outside of congressmen, representatives, and other capitol hill types.

I was sent home at 9am. Temporary or permanent loss of funds is not critical for my family unless the shutdown goes to about next July.. I have worked enough OT to cover the rest of the year if needed and then I have my 6 month emergency fund. So I will be enjoying the mandatory time off.

As I left, I heard people calling in on the radio about how they will not be able to do this or that because of no paycheck. I just laughed that they cannot save enough money to be out of a paycheck for one week. I bet they have smart phones, internet, TV, Denver Bronco season tickets, car payments, debt, etc. This attitude of poor money management is the true reason why the government is shutting down.

Metsfanmax wrote:It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama...

I didn't vote for George Bush for Texas Governor or President and though I am not a Democrat, voted for Barack Obama, twice.

The federal government was shut down seventeen years ago and things managed to get sorted out. Maybe it's because the politicians involved still manage to pay themselves.

Kind of like the Governor of Texas --Rick Perry-- calling a Texas Legislature special session after he failed to slip his "un-funding of Women's Health Clinics" through on the final day of the actual 2013 session. Each legislator banked another $28,000 plus perks to return and vote on his bill, which equated to a few million extra spent in a tight economy.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a stand-in for having to argue hypocrisy. If you'd like, I can just say oVo is being a hypocrit (which is essentially what he's calling Phatscotty and company - rightfully so, I might add).

oVo wrote:I'm enamored by change, this country needs a fresh way of looking at the World and conducting itself.

oVo wrote:voted for Barack Obama, twice

third time on CC that I've literally LOL'ed ... +500 SxBx to oVo

anywho, my meme is blowing up on Reddit - everyone go vote for it -

http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/ ... shortlived

-Maximus- wrote:I was sent home at 9am. Temporary or permanent loss of funds is not critical for my family unless the shutdown goes to about next July.. I have worked enough OT to cover the rest of the year if needed and then I have my 6 month emergency fund. So I will be enjoying the mandatory time off.

As I left, I heard people calling in on the radio about how they will not be able to do this or that because of no paycheck. I just laughed that they cannot save enough money to be out of a paycheck for one week. I bet they have smart phones, internet, TV, Denver Bronco season tickets, car payments, debt, etc. This attitude of poor money management is the true reason why the government is shutting down.

How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a stand-in for having to argue hypocrisy. If you'd like, I can just say oVo is being a hypocrit (which is essentially what he's calling Phatscotty and company - rightfully so, I might add).

The legitimacy of the position is independent of the hypocrisy of the person arguing that position.

Oh come on greekdog, I may be an asshat,
but not a hypocrite.

Maybe this will help.

Gillipig wrote:

-Maximus- wrote:I was sent home at 9am. Temporary or permanent loss of funds is not critical for my family unless the shutdown goes to about next July.. I have worked enough OT to cover the rest of the year if needed and then I have my 6 month emergency fund. So I will be enjoying the mandatory time off.

As I left, I heard people calling in on the radio about how they will not be able to do this or that because of no paycheck. I just laughed that they cannot save enough money to be out of a paycheck for one week. I bet they have smart phones, internet, TV, Denver Bronco season tickets, car payments, debt, etc. This attitude of poor money management is the true reason why the government is shutting down.

How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

Its the culture of murica that is sucky.. not the saving of money practices.

Americans today: Maybe I should file a lawsuit for this shutdown and then beg for welfare because I can't afford anything with all this debt.
Americans in the forties: Maybe I should work 2 or 3 part time jobs until this debt is paid off.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a stand-in for having to argue hypocrisy. If you'd like, I can just say oVo is being a hypocrit (which is essentially what he's calling Phatscotty and company - rightfully so, I might add).

The legitimacy of the position is independent of the hypocrisy of the person arguing that position.

oVo wrote:Oh come on greekdog, I may be an asshat,
but not a hypocrite.

Maybe this will help.

Okay, but are you sure you guys read oVo's post that I responded to:

oVo wrote: But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

What was the point of you posting that oVo? What kind of response should I have given other than what I gave? Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the author is stating that the Republicans would be complaining if roles were reversed. Okay, so? Should I make a commentary on the legitimacy of the position? It's a hypocritical scenario about hypocrisy. I think a commentary on the hypocrisy of the scenario about hypocrisy is appropriate.

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, but are you sure you guys read oVo's post that I responded to:

oVo wrote: But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

What was the point of you posting that oVo? What kind of response should I have given other than what I gave? Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, the author is stating that the Republicans would be complaining if roles were reversed. Okay, so? Should I make a commentary on the legitimacy of the position? It's a hypocritical scenario about hypocrisy. I think a commentary on the hypocrisy of the scenario about hypocrisy is appropriate.

It is not a commentary on hypocrisy -- it's an analogy. He is trying to show why the Republican response is not reasonable by comparing it to another situation that would also be unreasonable. There's no real hypocrisy being discussed here (after all, the Republicans never really did hide how they felt about the ACA). The latter is more like "Republicans voted for the Iraq war, so they shouldn't be arguing against getting involved in Syria."

Well, it is Yosemite National Park's 123rd birthday! Too bad it's closed..

Gabriel13 wrote:Well, it is Yosemite National Park's 123rd birthday! Too bad it's closed..

It's also the 55th anniversary of the creation of NASA. Too bad it's closed.