
Moderator: Community Team
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
oVo wrote:Oh the joys of a participating in a Corporate Democracy
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
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.
if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
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.
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?
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.
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.
Metsfanmax wrote:It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama...
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.
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
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
-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.
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).
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?
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: 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?
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.
Gabriel13 wrote:Well, it is Yosemite National Park's 123rd birthday! Too bad it's closed..
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee