The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó
And this is why I compare the right wing to terrorists. If threats of a shutdown are effective in strong arming the democrats, then we will face this crisis every single time EITHER party has a problem. It is imperative that this particular (ransom) bargaining strategy be proven ineffective.

Allow me to use your misguided(yet very intelligent) logic. Assume I think the people on MSNBC are morons(and they are). Correct me if my logic is wrong.

You say the Republicans are entirely at fault. They caused the government shutdown and they are screwing millions of Americans. Correct?

Now our president says that he would rather "default" than sit down and negotiate. Please explain to me, using your logic, how that is any less screwing the American people and acting like a child? Or is it because the Republicans "started it"? Indulge me here, what am I missing?

Please explain to me, using your logic, how that is any less screwing the American people and acting like a child?

Because the Republicans choice to screw the Nation ends in a financial correction, and immediate short-term effects.

Obama deciding to cave in on the Obamacare clause proves that shutting down the government is a useful political trick. From now on, policy will be decided by who is most willing to threaten the interests of the nation in order to get their way.

From a purely consequentialist standpoint, Obama has to weigh the damage done from a few days of uncertainty against the establishment of an entirely new method of political dysfunction. The feeling of people on my side is that he has to decide that short-term pain is less important than completely ceding the right of the majority party to rule.

Because the Republicans choice to screw the Nation ends in a financial correction, and immediate short-term effects.

Obama deciding to cave in on the Obamacare clause proves that shutting down the government is a useful political trick. From now on, policy will be decided by who is most willing to threaten the interests of the nation in order to get their way.

From a purely consequentialist standpoint, Obama has to weigh the damage done from a few days of uncertainty against the establishment of an entirely new method of political dysfunction. The feeling of people on my side is that he has to decide that short-term pain is less important than completely ceding the right of the majority party to rule.

Originally posted by mstanford2912
The Republicans chose to screw government employees for a limited amount of time. Obama is choosing to screw the entire country with a financial collapse, not correction.

Originally posted by mstanford2912
So he weighs the risk of having a sit down and appearing like the "bigger man" to the rest of the country....Versus saying "no", and contributing to the oncoming economic collapse... So please, tell me again why the Republicans are worse in this situation?

Lol so their belief in a potential future ruin justifies a certainty in a present ruin? A fairly large evil now to avert a maybe existent evil of indeterminate proportions later.

Would it be too cliche to say that... they started it?

So you blame the Republicans for starting this shutdown mess, and you blame to Democrats for not playing ball with their demands for negotiations?

I haven't said anything about public perception. That may be part of the motivation, but the key facet is that this is setting a precedent.

If a Future President Christie needs a debt ceiling increase, and the minority Democratic congress holds it hostage in favor of repealing all drug laws, is Christie equally culpable in any ensuing collapse?

Because that's what your line of argument would suggest.

I blame the Republicans for starting the shut down mess, and I blame the Democrats for not seizing an opportunity to capitalize on said mess and have a sit down, instead electing to further contribute to the mess by screaming "no", and saying default is better than negotiating.

From an importance perspective, the debt ceiling and default is infinitely more important than Obamacare. The two aren't even in the same ballpark.

Originally posted by Zampanó
I haven't said anything about public perception. That may be part of the motivation, but the key facet is that this is setting a precedent.

If a Future President Christie needs a debt ceiling increase, and the minority Democratic congress holds it hostage in favor of repealing all drug laws, is Christie equally culpable in any ensuing collapse?

Because that's what your line of argument would suggest.

I followed your line of logic regarding Obama's stance on defaulting. If you disagree, then I must say your line of reasoning isn't very consistent. Unless of course, I missed something.

Originally posted by mstanford2912
I blame the Republicans for starting the shut down mess, and I blame the Democrats for not seizing an opportunity to capitalize on said mess and have a sit down, instead electing to further contribute to the mess by screaming "no", and saying default is better than negotiating.

From an importance perspective, the debt ceiling and default is infinitely more important than Obamacare. The two aren't even in the same ballpark.

Or are the Republicans demanding something else unrelated to Obamacare that I'm unaware of? I've not been paying the closest attention to this. If so, then alright what is it? If not, then what obligation do the Dems have to negotiate with legal terrorists who derail national gov't over not getting what they wanted?

Far as I'm aware, it was the Republican House's Obamacare stipulation add-on for the continuing resolution that stopped government funding. Had they not demanded that an act already passed in to law be modified for their own agenda, then the resolution would have gone through. Any negotiation to be made regarding such would be the Dems agreeing to sacrifice a part of their already passed bill.

Or are the Republicans demanding something else unrelated to Obamacare that I'm unaware of? I've not been paying the closest attention to this. If so, then alright what is it? If not, then what obligation do the Dems have to negotiate with legal terrorists who derail national gov't over not getting what they wanted?

So you feel that if the Democrats had just agreed to sit down to negotiations, but not actually relented anything, then the Republicans would have given up and let the resolution pass?

Maybe, maybe not, but if the Democrats sat down, the Republicans would have been made to look like morons and would have no choice but to capitulate. Like I said, the Democrats blew a perfect opportunity.

Originally posted by mstanford2912
I followed your line of logic regarding Obama's stance on defaulting. If you disagree, then I must say your line of reasoning isn't very consistent. Unless of course, I missed something.

Originally posted by mstanford2912
Maybe, maybe not, but if the Democrats sat down, the Republicans would have been made to look like morons and would have no choice but to capitulate. Like I said, the Democrats blew a perfect opportunity.

The bill they hate passed in to law, despite their best efforts. I understand wanting to do do all they can to stop it for as long as possible, but shutting huge portions of the government and furloughing 2.1 million American citizens just to make their point is the definition of reprehensible and unworthy. I don't understand how anyone can rationalize their recent actions, much less attempt to partition blame.

In case it wasn't obvious, my position on the hypothetical case is that future minority Dem congress would be behaving immorally / badly and Future pres Christie would be morally innocent / politically blameless

But given that the GOP has effectively decided that their ideological beliefs concerning a bill that was approved by both chambers, the President, and the Supreme Court trumps the administration and efficacy of the U.S. Federal Government and its millions of employees and countless services, then whatever moral/ethical/logical ground they purported to stand on has been swept out from under them. The Democrats are under no obligation to submit to the demands of a political party that uses legal quasi-anarchy to further a petty, ideological agenda.

The bill they hate passed in to law, despite their best efforts. I understand wanting to do do all they can to stop it for as long as possible, but shutting huge portions of the government and furloughing 2.1 million American citizens just to make their point is the definition of reprehensible and unworthy. I don't understand how anyone can rationalize their recent actions, much less attempt to partition blame.

If I believed that there there was a simple, self-evident, solution to the debt, debt ceiling, and default threat, then I'd be critical of whomever was getting in the way. But I don't. I think the solution, long-term at that, isn't something that can be argued and drafted up in Congress, and passed with a vote. I won't even pretend to have a clue as to how those issues can be effectively solved for good.

The 2013 shutdown and the ongoing GOP tantrum over the ACA, however...

Though now that the Gov't is shutdown-- thanks to the Republicans-- it's going to be that much harder to come to a lasting solution anyway.

So the government is shutdown thanks to the Republicans.. And using your logic, we'll default on our debt, thanks to the Democrats.

That the Nebraskan decided to preempt my relentless slaughter of his rhetoric by prostrating himself and apologizing for his clumsy analogies means that I will spare him my wrath.

Do not fail me again, child. uhuh

Originally posted by mstanford2912
So the government is shutdown thanks to the Republicans.. And using your logic, we'll default on our debt, thanks to the Democrats.