freeman3 wrote:That's a laughable argument, DF that the Democrats are shutting down the government to fund Planned Parenthood,DF. You're starting to sound 1984-like. It would be the Republicans shutting down the government to defund planned parenthood. If you want to argue that it's Obama fault for using the veto, probably need to show that Americans support a shut-down to defund planned parenthood... they don't.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/p ... ood-214133


If Republicans want to pass their agenda they need to win elections. Until then threatening a default to get their agenda passed is appalling. If we don't get what we want we're going to drive the country off a cliff. What a...party.

Right.

So, if Republicans give Obama 99.999% of what he wants, but don't fund PP, THEY are responsible for shutting down the government?

Why doesn't Obama just disband Congress and run the country?

I'll say one thing for Republicans--they have demonstrated weaknesses in the constitutional system. Is it going to become the norm to threaten to not fund the government unless Republicans get their way on an issue? There has to be common sense here. If Obama sought to have federal dollars go to help pay for abortions and vetoed any funding bill the Republicans put up, then he would bear the blame for the shutdown. But since the Republicans sought to end existing funding of Planned Parenthood and shutting down the government to do that has little public support then the blame goes on the Republicans. These are not hard questions,really.

fate

So, if Republicans give Obama 99.999% of what he wants

And bats will fly out of my ass.

freeman3 wrote:I'll say one thing for Republicans--they have demonstrated weaknesses in the constitutional system. Is it going to become the norm to threaten to not fund the government unless Republicans get their way on an issue? There has to be common sense here. If Obama sought to have federal dollars go to help pay for abortions and vetoed any funding bill the Republicans put up, then he would bear the blame for the shutdown. But since the Republicans sought to end existing funding of Planned Parenthood and shutting down the government to do that has little public support then the blame goes on the Republicans. These are not hard questions,really.

Bah, you sure go easy on Obama. He just vetoed the defense bill because he won't be able to spend enough on non-defense items.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, if Republicans give Obama 99.999% of what he wants

And bats will fly out of my ass.

Your typical "quality" of thought.

I think you're tough enough on the president for the both of us, DF...

freeman3 wrote:I think you're tough enough on the president for the both of us, DF...

Maybe so.

If he'd just resigned after the ACA passed, I couldn't be as tough on him. Someone else would have been responsible for the debacles that followed.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, you are doing what you accuse the Democrats of - making an opponent of someone who actually is close to agreeing with you but is over a thin line away and so must be rejected. [slow hand clap]

Wrong, Mr. Slow-clap.

Look at the "evolution" of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton (and others) on homosexual marriage. Why was that?

Because if they didn't play it the way they did they would be made opponents by those "who actually [are] close to agreeing with you but [are] over a thin line away and so must be rejected."

Again, other than respecting law, explain how Manchin has changed position. I hesitate to ask this, but perhaps you could supply us with evidence?

Manchin went from being pro-traditional marriage to being ambivalent.

Based on that one sentence?

You have nothing else?

I can say homosexual marriage is legal, but I would never leave it there because it's against my personal belief system. As I said, his statement was vanilla.

But that is but one statement. You are judging it by what is not said, rather than what is. Just because you would not hold your peace does not mean someone who does disagrees with you.

However, he is one of only two Democrat Senators to not sign the Democrat amicus brief in favour of gay marriage: http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/gay- ... -congress/

The two Democratic senators who did not sign are West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III, the only senator from his side publicly opposed to gay marriage, and Tom Udall of New Mexico, a former state attorney general who views it as an inappropriate breach of separation of powers for members of Congress to formally take sides in Supreme Court cases.

Even if he is "ambivalent", which I doubt, that is not the same as "supporting".

If he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage, I doubt he'd get re-elected.

is that what you meant to write? Could it be that after years of publicly stating he's against homosexual marriage, he's secretly switched to a pro-position, but is silent on it to remain a Senator? Seems unlikely.

All one has to do to understand the mindless lockstep nature of the DNC is to review the 2012 convention. It was a salute to abortion.

And? Manchin has spoken out against PP as well, unlike the bulk of his party. And the Iran nuclear deal.

Rather than deny him as a maverick Democrat, perhaps a better response would have been to suggest he's not really prominent.

danivon wrote:

If he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage, I doubt he'd get re-elected.

is that what you meant to write?

Yes. If he said, "I favor homosexual marriage," he would not get re-elected. He's from West Virginia.

Admittedly, this is a couple of years old, but . . .

A September 2013 Public Policy Polling survey found that 23% of West Virginia voters thought that same-sex marriage should be legal, while 70% thought it should be illegal and 7% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 49% of West Virginia voters supported the legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 20% supporting same-sex marriage, 29% supporting civil unions but not marriage, 48% favoring no legal recognition and 4% not sure.

Could it be that after years of publicly stating he's against homosexual marriage, he's secretly switched to a pro-position, but is silent on it to remain a Senator? Seems unlikely.

No, he's been pretty bland on the matter because he doesn't want to get a challenger in the primary.

All one has to do to understand the mindless lockstep nature of the DNC is to review the 2012 convention. It was a salute to abortion.

And? Manchin has spoken out against PP as well, unlike the bulk of his party. And the Iran nuclear deal.

He's from WV.

Did he speak at the convention? If so, when? 3:20 in the morning?

Manchin is a nobody in the DNC.

Rather than deny him as a maverick Democrat, perhaps a better response would have been to suggest he's not really prominent.

Okay.

And, yeah--he's a real "maverick." He votes against his party 1/4 of the time! Wo-ah!



The point is that someone like Manchin will never have a prominent role within the Party. He is a convenient dupe for the Party in many important votes, but would never be considered for any leadership role because he doesn't toe the line on abortion. If you don't agree that any pregnancy can be ended at anytime for any reason, you're a DINO.

Doctor Fate wrote:

So how about this news about Paul Ryan? Looks like he'll take the speakership if he wants it. What do you think of him Fate? Is he Republican enough for you?

I agree with some pundits: he doesn't want it. His demands are poison pills. I'd say it's less than 50/50. However, he's GOP enough for me.

It appears that he will get it. Ryan is smart, really into making decisions informed by data and doesn't have this faith-based ideology that seems to have infested the GOP. I hope he gets/takes it. There's no obvious better choice.

Doctor Fate wrote:<above chart>

This chart surprised me. I would have thought that Republicans were more lock-step with their party, but it seems that Dems are, at least at the extremes the chart shows. Thanks.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

So how about this news about Paul Ryan? Looks like he'll take the speakership if he wants it. What do you think of him Fate? Is he Republican enough for you?

I agree with some pundits: he doesn't want it. His demands are poison pills. I'd say it's less than 50/50. However, he's GOP enough for me.

It appears that he will get it. Ryan is smart, really into making decisions informed by data and doesn't have this faith-based ideology that seems to have infested the GOP. I hope he gets/takes it. There's no obvious better choice.

It surprised me. I agree he is the best choice. I'm surprised he took it. I think he may regret it.

I'm glad he did it and I think it shows what kind of person he is.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:<above chart>

This chart surprised me. I would have thought that Republicans were more lock-step with their party, but it seems that Dems are, at least at the extremes the chart shows. Thanks.

It shows that both parties are about the same when it comes to the latitude Congress members take, so either they are about as "big tent" as each other, or as "narrow".

The fact that they don't vary by much more than 20-30% at most is more about partisanship than ideology I would guess.

geojanes wrote:There used to be a strong New York City Republican party: they were called "silk stocking republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," but that whole movement is essentially dead, along with its ilk all through the Northeast, and it's dead because there is no room for people like that in the Republican party. For goodness sake, 2/5ths of the people running for the Democratic nomination were Republicans!

The "Republican orthodoxy" is a terrible idea and terrible politics. Our system is about finding common ground with our fellow citizens: it's instrumental to government. Politics is not a religion, and orthodoxy is always bad in politics, at least as it concerns the citizenry.

I think this is such a bullshit comment. You know how we can see this. Rick Santorum wasn't the nominee in 2012 and Mike Huckabee wasn't the nominee in 2008.

In addition, some of the most closed minded orthodox, obnoxiously ignornant people I know are Democrats. You can not disagree with a progressive. If you do, you are not only stupid, uneducated, and ignorant, you are evil. But that is not orthodoxy to Geo because he is a liberal himself.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote:There used to be a strong New York City Republican party: they were called "silk stocking republicans," or "Rockefeller Republicans," but that whole movement is essentially dead, along with its ilk all through the Northeast, and it's dead because there is no room for people like that in the Republican party. For goodness sake, 2/5ths of the people running for the Democratic nomination were Republicans!

The "Republican orthodoxy" is a terrible idea and terrible politics. Our system is about finding common ground with our fellow citizens: it's instrumental to government. Politics is not a religion, and orthodoxy is always bad in politics, at least as it concerns the citizenry.

I think this is such a bullshit comment. You know how we can see this. Rick Santorum wasn't the nominee in 2012 and Mike Huckabee wasn't the nominee in 2008.

In addition, some of the most closed minded orthodox, obnoxiously ignornant people I know are Democrats. You can not disagree with a progressive. If you do, you are not only stupid, uneducated, and ignorant, you are evil. But that is not orthodoxy to Geo because he is a liberal himself.

He is for lower corporate tax rates so he can't be all bad.