spydy13
NBA Starter
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,284
- Reaction score
- 3,618
- Points
- 113
Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.
No, it's not.
If he heard something from sources that is fact then it is fact.
Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.
Maybe if you realized it wasn't your $100 to begin with, but everyone's, then you'd be less astonished.
But what if you were a business selling a widget or service for $100 and the customer talked your rate down? The customer would probably rather get the whatever they were buying for free or even cheaper but they are happy to get a discount nonetheless. The business would rather get full price but some circumstance may make them happy to at least get the $50.
No, it's not.
If he heard something from sources that is fact then it is fact.
The principle of compromise means that both sides are better off making some deal, than making no deal at all. Right? So a compromise deal must offer something that the other side believes is preferable to the status quo.
I think in most cases, that is not what was happening.
Not necessarily, but I don't care to further argue the point.
Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.
You can add to that list McConnell's "top priority" comment,
as well as the fact that Obama got zero GOP votes in either the House or Senate in support of the ACA.
All of which goes to show that by March 2010 (the month of the ACA vvote) anyone with the brains of a turnip knew that the GOP was not going to cooperate with the rest of Obama's major legislative agenda.
Whatever naivete he may have had upon entering office should have vanished by then.
Btw, I do feel compelled to point out these GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda have to be placed into context. The GOP-controlled 112th and 113th Congresses actually passed a total of 284 and 296 bills, respectively, that were signed into law by the President. Congress did not oppose everything he did or wanted to do.
in context, GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda referred to the much more narrow category of major pieces of new legislation, creating new programs, etc., not rote opposition to every single bill.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to stop major pieces of legislation with which you disagree.
Most of those GOP members of Congress ran and were elected on promises to stop his major agenda items.
And, Democrat leaders similarly whipped and pressured Democratic members of Congress to support the President's agenda, especially on controversial pieces of legislation like the Affordable Care Act. It was widely reported that some Democrats were really nervous because they were being pressured by the Administration to support it, and by their constituents to oppose it.
The hypothetical I addressed to spydy was illustrating the principle of compromise on an individual level, so your comment makes no sense. But if you insist, because I do think the point is important.
Let's say the GOP believes that creating a new entitlement program is bad for the country. Obama wants to create a new program, the cost of which is $1T. The GOP says "no, we think that is bad for the country".
So Obama then says "how about if I reduce the cost to $800B -- will you support it then?" Logically, the GOP response should be "no, because we still believe it is a bad idea for the country."
Obama's second offer is not a reasonable compromise because he is not offering anything of value in return that is preferable -- from the GOP perspective -- to the status quo of no fourth entitlement program period. That shouldn't be a difficult principle to grasp. You've got to offer the other side something more than what they currently have if you want to make a deal.
Now, if you want to interject the claim that what Obama wants to do is "the will of the people", the GOP response would be "we have a representative system of government, and if what you're advocating truly is the clear will of the people, you should have the votes to pass it anyway. If not, then perhaps that "will" isn't quite as one-sided as you think."
Huh? When can a fact not be a fact?
So frankly, your 'context' is imaginary.
... What are you talking about?
Wrong. Again, the fact that they passed nearly 600 bills that were signed into law proves they did not stop all legislation.
They did do just about everything in their power to stop major pieces of legislation to which they objected, sometimes employing sleazy parliamentary maneuvers.
The Administrations' effort to whip reluctant Democratic members of the House to vote for the ACA in 2010. Demonizing whips who pressure members to vote a certain way is something of which both parties are guilty.
"In my opinion" would mean that I've surmised my opinion from third-party information. Me saying "I know for a fact," generally implies, the viewpoint that this is a first or second hand observation. As in, I or someone whom I know has first hand knowledge.
But now observers are starting to note that both parties are not equally to blame, especially in recent years.
The first is with the kind of brinksmanship budgetary politics that has now become normative.
Senators don't even have to filibuster anymore. They can simply raise the threat and that brings the discussion to an end. Senators have also employed additional tactics such as anonymous holds, whereby senators can secretly prevent action on a bill and nobody can know who was responsible.
Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear.
In January, political scientists Kenneth Poole and Christopher Hare concluded, based on their close analysis of the roll call vote, that "in the last few Congresses, the overlap has vanished; that is, the most liberal Republican is to the right of the most conservative Democrat."
It could be that Republicans will take things so far that we may reach one of those rare moments when congressional reform happens. If reform does not happen, and these trends continue, the nation will be left with an inoperative legislative process that can't handle the problems we face with the economy, social problems and foreign policy.
Republican cloture votes have more than doubled since 2007. Republicans have threatened to filibuster hundreds of bills, bills that have nothing to do with the President's agenda.
We're talking about GOP obstructionism and I'm sitting here astonished that you, someone who claims to be politically astute, aren't aware of the fact that Republicans have been bringing Congressional activity to a virtual standstill since 2010.
I don't think I've ever heard someone say "they're still passing some bills, right? So surely, they aren't obstructionist."
THE internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.
Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPSKDeE8rqr
Good thing the federal government has the brand new authority to tell us what is true and what isn't. Who could have seen this coming?