Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The US hasn't been isolationist for a long, long time. You've got RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL, and that's about it.

[GreatJustice]

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Why are we talking about that stuff at all? what relevance does this have to the whole "we were for it before we were against it" thing that the conversation was actually about? The point was that the Republican's oppose things simply because the Dems support them, from what I understand, rather than because they believe they are doing the best whatever, as far as I can understand it.

Sometimes I honestly have trouble following your train of thought.

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Nancy Pelosi?

She opposes the Patriot act and she is house minority leader.  She would be house speaker right now if Republicans hadn't gerrymandered like it was going out of style.  I don't know any who are isolationist though.  The Democratic party has been for humanitarian intervention since Woodrow Wilson.

Well okay then. Boehner opposed the individual mandate from the outset, and the "individual mandate" was barely even a blip on the radar back in 2005. The Clinton healthcare plan was shot down by the Republicans and Democrats, though.

There are plenty of isolationist Democrats out there, though they tend towards economic rather than military isolationism.

[mainiac]

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

[Sirus]

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

Well, consider their party animal

[GreatJustice]

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Democrats don't hold the economy hostage to get their way.  That's a huge, huge elephant in the room.

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped. The debt getting to be quite this bad is a bit unprecedented.

[Nadaka]

The debt is at least 75% caused by the republicans to start with. And its only really a problem if the US does something retarded and counterproductive to growth, like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

[Max White]

like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

Sorry I'm not up to date with the thread or international finance.
What are they doing right now?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It really doesn't matter what the Democrats "would" do if the situation was flipped. This is the situation. It is happening. And the Republicans are being harmfully obstructionist, harming any attempts to derive a solution in favor of "CUT EVERYTHING BUT THE MILITARY, NO ALTERNATIVES, FINAL DESTINATION".

[Nadaka]

like exactly what the republicans are doing right now.

Sorry I'm not up to date with the thread or international finance.
What are they doing right now?

Playing brinkmanship with the US credit rating in order to preserve or increase the tax cuts for billionaires. Forcing economically crippling social program cuts during a recession recovery when America needs them the most. Pretending that the economy is one problem and gutting every aspect of the federal government except corporate welfare and expansionist militarism in the name of fiscal responsibility to balance the budget is its only solution, while not actually balancing the budget. Forcing a complete deadlock to the federal system of governance. Etc. The whole damn thing that they are treasonous doing in order to fuck over my country, to overthrow democracy and liberty and return us to the old way where an elite class of plutocrats wield absolute economic, religious, political and military power of their serfs because that is ultimately the end result if the fuckers get their way.

* Nadaka 's eye begins to twitch.

[Max White]

Well... Fuck.
You can always come down here. I don't even know how but our economy seems to be doing alright. Somehow. I mean everybody is all up in arms about how shit is hitting the fan and then the next day things are a little better than they were meant to be...

[mainiac]

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

[Nadaka]

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

Sure you can, its just that it is really easy to dismiss as a diversionary tactic.

[Strife26]

Come on, that's a little bit overstating the point, Nadaka.

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

No, one should certainly wonder that. Partisanship and politics runs deep in both parties, without a doubt.

[Nadaka]

Come on, that's a little bit overstating the point, Nadaka.

One wonders whether they would do the same were the situation flipped.

No one does not wonder that.  You can't just speculate that maybe people would do something without any evidence.

No, one should certainly wonder that. Partisanship and politics runs deep in both parties, without a doubt.

The key part is the evidence and the lack thereof.

edit: I would point out that the evidence STRONGLY shows that the partisanship is much stronger on one side than the other. There is only one side that filibusters their own proposals and bills. There is only one side that chooses to demonize solutions they had had offered a few short yearsmonthsweeks ago. There is only one side that defines compromise as "i get everything i want and you get nothing".

[GlyphGryph]

Can you name me any Democrats in positions of authority that presently oppose foreign interventionism and/or the PATRIOT Act?

Why are we talking about that stuff at all? what relevance does this have to the whole "we were for it before we were against it" thing that the conversation was actually about? The point was that the Republican's oppose things simply because the Dems support them, from what I understand, rather than because they believe they are doing the best whatever, as far as I can understand it.

Sometimes I honestly have trouble following your train of thought.

The point being that the Democrats calling the Republicans obstructionist is the pot calling the kettle black. It's not like they're better in any realistic way.

Uh... no? If they're disagreeing over legitimate issues, that's one thing. And there's some of that here. But obstructionism is something tactical - that example has nada, zip, zilch to do with them being obstructionist. Who exactly are they obstructing by continuing to support those terrible policies? When have they reversed position almost explicitly to oppose "the other guy", despite originating a proposal themselves? When have they constantly filibustered non-controversial nominees? When have they actually acted obstructionist, is the thing.

Your conclusion "Democrats are just as obstructionist" is absurd on the merits of your argument, namely "They didn't oppose Bush's foreign interventions and they participated in broad bipartisan support for the Patriot Act", which seem (if anything) to be diametrically opposed to your claim.

So no, I still don't understand your argument in the slightest.