Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[wierd]

*sigh*

There is a very strong history of things being enacted, repealed, then enacted again when more favorable. Each time it gets enacted, it becomes easier to re-enact it, and harder to repeal it. Take for instance, the afore mentioned War Powers Act of 1940. You assert it was repealed. Yet, only 30 years later, a profound push to limit executive power was enacted by congress. AND-- Here we are yet again, another 30 years later, with the patriot act.

There's a rather nice demotivational poster that reads "No single drop of rain believes it is to blame for the flood."


What does that mean, and how does it apply to the current situation in the USA?

Well, aside from the Right, championing bigger and bigger incentives to multinationals so that they can leave the country, set up tax shelters, use cheap foreign labor instead of domestic labor, and other such things, and the Left's insistence that the coffers should be treated as endless (with endless raises to the debt ceiling), and that social reform programs are untouchable-- (That's just the current fiasco) we also have the Left with Dianne Feinstien and pals insisting that the patriot act is just wonderful, needed, and that FISA is perfectly good as ovesight, we also have the people who actually wrote the patriot act screaming NO! at several FISA orders, and with bipartisan support both for and against the extension of the act. (before snowden data releases) After snowden released his documents, There was a push to combat the powers of the executive to collect surveillance data on american citizens, which ultimately did not succeed.  The push to repeal is not very strong, because there is a climate that government surveillance of citizens is "Normal", and "Necessary."

Interestingly, the people opposed to the data collection strongly correlate with the body of persons heavily vilified in this thread, being predominantly house republicans. (just note the names in the above articles and pages.)

In addition to this, you have the rather unusual circumstances under which the ACA (The lynchpin in our current boondoggle) was passed. Namely, It was passed in a lame duck session, immediately prior to losing control of the house, and the action itself contributed heavily to that change. The arguments about this from the Left, citing things along the lines of "It's law now bitches, you cant change it, and we refuse to negotiate on the matter!", even in the face of some pretty serious allegations of impropriety in the process of its supreme court validation.

The people most strongly in favor of repealing the patriot act are also the people most strongly in favor of undoing the lame duck legislation that is the ACA, and the current vigor of that disagreement may very well pan out that the congress is lost in the upcoming election cycle.  At that point, the major voices against patriot act will also go away, replaced by either unknowns, or voices that support. At that point, we are essentially guaranteed it will persist for quite some time.

This kind of intractable situation where ideology and penis waving (Left: HAHA! We got away with a sneaky! The Supreme court told us it was OK! NYA! Right: Fuck you, we wont let you get away with it, no matter what! even if that means burning the nation down!) instead of actual rational argument and eyes toward upholding freedoms, upholding oversight, and above all, upholding integrity and responsibility, that I vehemently denounce both groups of capitol cronies.

Under this trend, the Patriot Act will likely never be repealed.  If, under this trend, a president is allowed to become a dictator, he will not relinquish power. Historical precedents for such things strongly favor the negative outcome.

It does not matter how many times you have had anal other freaky sex. Those are non-sequitors. We have the equivalent of the Alien and Sedition acts right now, alive and well inside the patriot act. It's back, and it has a new trick-- Officious government is 10 times as sick as the last time, the last time you saw it; now you know why the people abhor it.

[mainiac]

So when you are called out for saying something ridiculous, move the goalpost and act like it is wrong of us to call you out.

Retract your sigh sir, you have no right to it.

[wierd]

And when you are shown to be wrong in the general sense, your tactic is to fall back to technicalities, non-sequitors, and red herrings.

Pointing out that there is a temporary repeal in the road to perdition, does not signify that the road stops. Even *IF* Patriot Act is repealed, it will be back, 10x worse, yet again.  And again, people will think it is JUST FINE, because it passed 2 other times before, with bipartisan support.

[mainiac]

And when you are shown to be wrong in the general sense, your tactic is to fall back to technicalities, non-sequitors, and red herrings.

You made a statement that was literally false.  I stated that it was literally false.  Keep spinning buddy, I think we might have discovered a new form of green energy.

[GlyphGryph]

There is no such thing as "wrong in the general sense" - your argument stands, or collapses under its own flaws. It does not matter if you are right in the "general sense" if your argument, in particular, does not support it - it is akin simply making a statement, and making a statement after you have demonstrated a distinct lack of concern over whether the bits leading you to that statement are, in fact, true.

If you want to prove a point other than the one you claimed, you should have, perhaps, started with that argument, instead of making one that was clearly false - it would have saved a lot of time and effort, and done quite a bit towards laying the groundwork of credibility any argument needs to survive.

If your argument is wrong, the conclusion is wrong, whether or not the conclusion ends up happening to describe something vaguely like the truth, because we have no reason to believe that it IS the truth and significant reason to believe otherwise.

[wierd]

Ok, so because I said "The war powers act is alive and well today", while its changes were supposed to end after 6 months at the closing of the war, while 30 years later, there was an outstanding need to dismantle some of those powers first enacted by said legislation 30 years prior, I am literally asserting that war powers of 1940 is on the books, and NOT that the powers enacted by War Powers of 1940 are alive and well?  The actual behavior of the government is what is important in this case.

The insistance on a specific interpretation of the statement, which was intended to be delivered in the vein of "marxism is still alive today" (Despite marx being clearly and definitively dead, and that as far as I know, no major world government ascribes to marxist communism), is a fabrication of the reader. Not the author.

Marx may be dead, and currently unfavorable geopolitically-- but having happened prior, and still being held proper by many people, it is still alive as a philosophy. Hence, saying "Marxism is still alive today" is fundamentally true.

If you need further evidence of the intent, note how the poster just prior to Mainiac took it-- the danger of precident. BINGO! We have a winner.

All you two are really arguing is a verb tense. "Gives", vs "Gave".  Since those powers are still active, gives is still correct.

[mainiac]

All you two are really arguing is a verb tense. "Gives", vs "Gave".  Since those powers are still active, gives is still correct.

This whole post is a semantic argument that you have dreamed up entirely of your own volition and has no relevance whatsoever to what we were talking about.  You made a falsifiable statement (powers are never given up).  We disagreed and gave counterexamples.  You are responding to an argument that was never made.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[PTTG??]

What is it about politics that leads inevitably to solipsism?

It is my opinion that this debate is meaningless. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any ideological claim to this issue; the Affordable Care Act is a Democratic-adopted compromise proposed by Republicans. Neither side has a real reason to oppose or support the proposal, since it is politically neutral.

I'm not sure how, but now both sides believe that they will gain politically by being sure that the bill will fall their way. The longer the fight goes on, now, the more gain there is to be had, or rather, more for the other side to lose. Whoever gives up on this issue will have held up the government for a long time for no real cause, while the other side will have fought on for what is right and so on and so forth. At least, I suspect that is the political theory.

I think that neither side anticipated it would actually reach this point, because now they are both losing respect rapidly. I can only dream that the American people finally take this as a sign that the two parties are hopelessly ossified and that it is time to turn to a new political organization, but I fear that it will only cause them to cling more tightly to their partisan bounds, which will cause more disasters like this.

As an analogy, consider two men on a ship with one lifeboat, headed for a reef. At first, they both want to be the one to steer it to safety, but they take too much time fighting each other for the wheel and ultimately must now fight for the lifeboat...

My prediction for this hypotheses is that one side will give in. How long this will take depends on a number of forces we can't see- the influences of corporate donors, the personal connections between politicians. Nothing illegal, of course, but perhaps that's worse rather than better. That side will be recognized as not being at fault. The other side will. The next president will be a member of the party that wins.

As an aside, I don't like the Affordable Care Act. It's a crappy system that only serves to enrich insurance companies. If we just took a system that works like any of the European or Canadian health care systems, then I'd be all for it. So I don't care who wins, because they're either shutting down the government to stop a pretty much meaningless policy, or they're shutting down the government to pass a pretty much meaningless policy.

[wierd]

"Powers are never given up"

Your counter examples: Freaky sex, Anal sex, Alien and sedition act, Habeus Corpus, Elections Oversight, First and second national banks, Feds monitoring all forms of media since 1917.

Griff's example: Ancient Rome

First up, Freaky and anal sex. Still illegal in many states. Changing, but still illegal.

Next up, Alien and sedition act under the Addams admin.  The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect as 50 USC Sections 21–24.

Habeus Corpus; RE: Patriot Act

National Banking in the US: Why there was a repeal of the first national bank under Jackson, (who had some choice words to say) and yet here we are again, with the exact same situation. (The fed reserve is essentially dictating the actions of congress right now. That's what the whole ordeal over the debt ceiling is.) [note. Jackson's approach cannot work today, and did not work then either. This is not to be seen as de-facto support of any such notion. Just answering your specious question.]

Elections Oversight: Fraud happens constantly, Not really pursued.

Feds monitoring all media: "Total information awareness" (Nice logo there BTW, Darpa. you wont possibly ever make NWO crazies paranoid with that one!)[note that many of the components of the TIA office are STILL active, and operational.]

Griff's example of ancient rome: Worked a surprisingly long time. Until the elected dictator decided he WOULDNT uphold tradition. Then the senate was dissolved.

So-- How do your specific counter examples really apply as specific counter examples again?

[misko27]

People, the there is a insufficient degree of chill currently. Please converse with a eye to chillness and the maintenance thereof.


I would debate the Fraud comments. I mean, look up the Southern states for a moment, use the phrase "electoral". Maybe throw in "Lawsuit" for good measure.


Anyway, Obama joins a growing chorus of political commentators who tell John Boehner to prove with a vote his earlier statements that a clean CR bill would not pass. Obama has stated he is open to a short-term debt increase while other Democrats eye a much longer one.

[mainiac]

So-- How do your specific counter examples really apply as specific counter examples again?

Habeus Corpus was suspened in 1861.  In 1865 it was reinstated.

Now you say that we suspended it again later.  Guess what?  THAT DOES NOT MATTER.  It was suspended.  It was reinstituted.  The reinstitution went completely smoothly.  The thing you said never happens happened.

I could go into the other examples, but that was mostly me indulging in esoteric historical references.  I don't see why I should go into these discussions when you wont even be square on just one.

I'm not sure how, but now both sides believe that they will gain politically by being sure that the bill will fall their way. The longer the fight goes on, now, the more gain there is to be had, or rather, more for the other side to lose. Whoever gives up on this issue will have held up the government for a long time for no real cause, while the other side will have fought on for what is right and so on and so forth. At least, I suspect that is the political theory.

That's not really what this is about for the democrats.  What it's about to the democrats is that a majority in the house, senate and the presidency support this law, there is no filibuster threat and the supreme court agrees with it.  Opposing it is a minority faction inside the house, about 10-15% of the membership.  They don't have the votes to enact legislation by the normal process, so they are taking hostages to try to get what they want instead of winning elections.

If the democrats give an inch on this, they will have allowed for a political faction to have enacted law despite all the legislative and legal processes saying they have lost.  And at that point, there is no point in having elections, just use the constitution as toilet paper it doesn't matter because the tea party gets whatever it wants no matter what.

So there is 0% chance for the democrats to fold.  Them folding is basically scrapping the constitution in favor of a new rule saying republicans always win.  And that is not something the democrats can do.  So this is us waiting around waiting for the GOP to get it's shit together.

[GlyphGryph]

This is really great for actually getting into the mindsets of the various republican factions:
http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/954/dcor%20rpp%20fg%20memo%20100313%20final.pdf

[wierd]

So-- How do your specific counter examples really apply as specific counter examples again?

Habeus Corpus was suspened in 1861.  In 1865 it was reinstated.

Now you say that we suspended it again later.  Guess what?  THAT DOES NOT MATTER.  It was suspended.  It was reinstituted.  The reinstitution went completely smoothly.  The thing you said never happens happened.

I could go into the other examples, but that was mostly me indulging in esoteric historical references.  I don't see why I should go into these discussions when you wont even be square on just one.

So, what you are saying, is that you spouted a bunch of obscure things, hoping nobody would fact check you, claimed that it proved demonstrably that your argument was true, and then when shown to be the hyperbole it really was, you yourself will move the goal post, (since now we are no longer arguing specific things said, but generalities, which your original argument was fundamentally based on) and now have back slipped into the realm of blatant hipocrisy, but that this is OK, because I did it first?

Nevermind the very long, and outside supported retort I had to that accusation as being a fabrication of your own creation in the frst place?

--and I'm the one not being square?


As far as I can tell, what you took exception to was that I asserted that it was much more difficult to remove a power or behavior from the table than it is to present it. My statement has lots of evidence to back it up. A single point in contradiction does not an argument make.  Many experiments in human behavior have shown it is demonstrably harder to unlearn something than it is to learn something brand new.  The same mechanics apply to learned social behaviors, concerning what is and is not acceptable.

Long after the supreme court ruling of 2003, consentual anal sex will still be seen as unacceptable to a great many people, and the pressure to make it illegal will persist that whole time. Can it eventually be overcome? Research shows it can, but only if there is no deviation from the new imposed behavior, and no satisfaction for the old behavior. (This is much like how you can't "fix" gayness. No amount of "reprogramming" will overcome it.) If there is even a tiny nick in the armor, it will be back with vengence.

Habeus corpus is very inconvenient for prosecutors who "have their man", and don't want to be questioned about it. As such, any set of prosecutors given over-arching powers to conduct investigations and decide punishments will loathe habeous corpus, and will seek to disable it. Either partially, such as Patriot Act does (it doesn't apply to "terrorists"!), or in full. Once it is repealed once, it gets easier and easier to repeal each time, and harder and harder to reinstate.

[lue]

Before I start, I'm with misko27. We need to regain our chill composure, and argue ideas instead of arguments.

Huh. I don't feel as despondent about the state of our government, but I suspect that's only because I'm a bit more optimistic about the ultimate motivations of everyone currently there. Perhaps less optimism for the motivations of certain House Republicans though.

About this link weird shared: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/05/ObamaCare-the-settled-law-of-the-land-except-it-isn-t

By that same logic the Civil Rights Act is now completely, completely illegal, considering Section 4 was modified in a not-long-ago Supreme Court decision. As well as any law ever modified by the court.

I thought the massive system crash of 404Care on Day One was neatly symbolic of its fatal flaw: ObamaCare is alien software utterly incompatible with the American system expected to run it.

Anyone who thinks that a few 404s and 503s on the opening days of any website is indicative of the failure of the site's goals is entirely backwards on how software development works. IT is not composed of waving magic wands to get a perfect product the first time. Bugs always happen, despite your best efforts as a programmer. Just felt I needed to point this out.

I also wish to say that, at least the way I see it, the "ACA was approved by the SCOTUS, it's land of the land!" argument does not mean:

It's a law now, you can't ever change it or get rid of it. Court says so! ppphhhbbttt!

But rather:

It was approved by Congress, signed into law by the President, and (almost entirely) upheld by the Supreme Court. The president was even re-elected in a campaign where healthcare was a frequent topic of discussion. You lost this battle. Quit being sore losers and run the damn government.

It's simply an exasperated statement of "can we please move on to other things?". If the Republicans really want to change the ACA, I would suggest they come up with alternative legislation to replace the ACA, something that at least addresses the concerns the ACA addresses. Outright repealing it should wait until the next elections say that Americans by majority don't like the ACA.

One thing I never understood about their fight, if supposedly they don't think the ACA will work, is: why not just let if fail? The entire Democratic party will look like idiots for vehemently fighting for a law that ultimately failed, and the Republicans come out on top saying "I told you so!". The only reasonable explanation I've heard is that they just don't like the law, and they're afraid that the law will be successful.

As a final note, all this SCOTUS talk reminds me of how funny it is that the constitutionality of our Supreme Court's "is it constitutional?" decisions nowadays were deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. A wonderful example of recursion if ever there was one.

[wierd]

You have more optimism than I do.

I wholeheartedly believe that we will default next week. Not a single constructive option has gained real traction in the previous week, and both parties have only become even more resolute.