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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A&feature=share
So basically, there is basically no way for anyone but Boner to reopen the government.

Congress needs more giant signs in response to bullshit.

[FearfulJesuit]

I think it's dangerous to assume that a deal is going to emerge at the last minute. Someone will try to put a deal together at the last minute, and some pack of screeching GOP loonies will stage a revolt so that, even if it could get enough votes, it won't get through. I think default is basically inevitable at this point.

[Max White]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A&feature=share
So basically, there is basically no way for anyone but Boner to reopen the government.

Well that was pretty brutal.
Doesn't help anybody though.

[FearfulJesuit]

Update on Cruz from WaPo. Not much new here, except for a rather telling statistic: Ted Cruz won the Value Voters Summit poll with 42% of the vote.

[Descan]

Would you guys mind terribly if Canada invades and puts Elizabeth Warren as Dictator for Life? >______> This is getting ridiculous.

[Sirus]

An invasion would get lots of people on both sides killed and probably destabilize things even further. So yes, I mind <_<

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Update on Cruz from WaPo. Not much new here, except for a rather telling statistic: Ted Cruz won the Value Voters Summit poll with 42% of the vote.

Not exactly surprising after what footage I posted of the VVS.

An invasion would get lots of people on both sides killed and probably destabilize things even further. So yes, I mind <_<

Your hardly counts for a question like that, Obama.

[misko27]

Would you guys mind terribly if Canada invades and puts Elizabeth Warren as Dictator for Life? >______> This is getting ridiculous.

No, but there remains the not insignificant chance tthe National Security wing (One of the saner branches of the republicans, apperantly) takes over congress, they turn the tables in the war (This is still the worlds largest Military), the US annexes Canada, we use the new resources to fund the economy, and the US gets in it's head that Economy through conquest is a good idea, then World domination. Do you really want a World ruled by the Republican Party? No? Then don't let Canada invade the US.

[lue]

An invasion would get lots of people on both sides killed and probably destabilize things even further. So yes, I mind <_<

figures you would object, O'Sirus...

I can't help but think that at this point the President is seriously considering the pushing-the-envelope ability to raise the ceiling anyway, thanks potentially to the 14th Amendment.

[Bauglir]

Wow, that is pretty stupid. If you have no empirical evidence how can you possibly claim your ideals are more rational?

To be fair, rationalism and empiricism can operate at odds. I mean, I automatically assign superiority to empiricism when there's a conflict and resort to rationalism otherwise, but rationalism is basically the idea that you can deduce everything there is to know from basic principles through logic alone, while empiricism is the idea that fuck that, you're not that smart, so go learn stuff. A rational claim can be proved, an empirical one can be falsified. At least, this is my understanding.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wow, that is pretty stupid. If you have no empirical evidence how can you possibly claim your ideals are more rational?

To be fair, rationalism and empiricism can operate at odds. I mean, I automatically assign superiority to empiricism when there's a conflict and resort to rationalism otherwise, but rationalism is basically the idea that you can deduce everything there is to know from basic principles through logic alone, while empiricism is the idea that fuck that, you're not that smart, so go learn stuff. A rational claim can be proved, an empirical one can be falsified. At least, this is my understanding.

I find they co-operate fairly well so long as you do what you said. If you cannot empirically prove or disprove something (in the sense that it is impossible, not that you neglected to do it), then falling back on a rational assessment rarely goes wrong. Of course, one should also be prepared to simply accept they don't know something if a rational assessment is not appropriate either, or empiricism cannot be applied in practice even if it can in theory.

[Max White]

If empirical evidence fails me, I just resort to Newton's Flaming laser sword and then use ad hominem to call them a fanatic. Works pretty well.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, philosophical tangents aside though, Libertarians can be pretty rational. It's just, I don't really trust that to set economic policy. Because it's way too complex to analyze in the ways I've ever heard a Libertarian do so. Usually, my response to the reasoning is some variant on, "Well, you're not wrong, but I don't think you've accounted for..."

Or their politics begin and end with "Taxation is theft!"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What I can't stand is "No matter how many times X is tried, it always fails and always means oppression in the end!"

I've heard X be social policies, non-night watchmen states, environmentalism, secularism, taxation, democracy, and much more.

[Max White]

Well we can say with confidence that we have experimental evidence that government mandated environmentalism can work and not end in oppression. Reductions in CFCs have been remarkably successful.