Originally posted by mstanford2912
So what you're doing is completely ignoring what the Democrats are doing, focusing only on the Republicans, and then rationalizing it with horrible horrible examples?
It might be that Democrats' actions are a necessary component of the shutdown. That is, the refusal to cooperate is required to make the USA default on the debt.
But that is usually not what people mean by talking about "responsibility." The Republicans' actions are a sufficient cause of the shutdown. That is, in the absence of the Republican's (unprecedented, reckless) strategy, this crisis wouldn't exist. Although the actions of the president are contributing to the problem, the cause of the problem lies in Republican decisions.
Man, British politics is looking so much better by comparison right now.
But that is usually not what people mean by talking about "responsibility." The Republicans' actions are a sufficient cause of the shutdown. That is, in the absence of the Republican's (unprecedented, reckless) strategy, this crisis wouldn't exist. Although the actions of the president are contributing to the problem, the cause of the problem lies in Republican decisions.
Not semantics. This is the key distinctive feature of blame: if not for the republicans, we wouldn't be in this mess. It is their responsibility, so the blame is theirs.
Now, the democrats haven't stepped up to fix everything, but there are a good many reasons for that. The first and most convincingl is that they do not have the responsibility to make the Republicans' tactics effective. Validating extreme tactics like this will make the past complaints about overuse of the Fillibuster look like kid stuff.
So the democrats have no reason to help the Republicans avoid a disaster of their own making, and some reasons to let the disaster (the shutdown) happen.
Regarding the default, the consequences there are severe enough that the President may be forced to provide the Republicans a way to save face while backing down. But he really has no incentive to actually make any concessions; at some level, the Republicans made their bed and now have to sleep in it.
Whichever side backs down will lose some respect. But if we examine the consequences, the Republicans backing down yields a salvaged economy, and a legally passed bill continuing to be law. The democrats backing down yields a salvaged economy, the extra-institutional nerfing of a law, as well as the establishment of a new political hostage tactic.
Not semantics. This is the key distinctive feature of blame: if not for the republicans, we wouldn't be in this mess. It is their responsibility, so the blame is theirs.
Regarding the default, the consequences there are severe enough that the President may be forced to provide the Republicans a way to save face while backing down. But he really has no incentive to actually make any concessions; at some level, the Republicans made their bed and now have to sleep in it.
Whichever side backs down will lose some respect. But if we examine the consequences, the Republicans backing down yields a salvaged economy, and a legally passed bill continuing to be law. The democrats backing down yields a salvaged economy, the extra-institutional nerfing of a law, as well as the establishment of a new political hostage tactic.
Originally posted by mstanford2912
Gravity should be called "Sandra Bullock's incredibly awful day". Aside from the realism and cinematography, which were unparalleled, the movie was one giant monologue. Pretty boring. Apollo 13 was much better.
While I admit that Gravity failed to be an epic in anything but amazing cinematography (it's realism got picked apart, even if it did raise the bar for sci-fi films), boring is well off the mark. Apollo 13 has the distinction of being a recommended sleep aid if you ask me. I still have never been able to finish it.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Lmao.Man, British politics is looking so much better by comparison right now.
Wrong. I'll play semantics too. The republicans CREATED this mess. The Democrats CONTRIBUTED to this mess.
So if you refuse to negotiate with a group of radical politicians putting the livelihoods of others at jeopardy to defund or delay an already passed piece of legislation (and set a bad precedent) you are contributing to it? I'm not sure how this is logical or relevant.
And on another level, the president allowing a default is actually worse than the government shut down.
Considering the president did not lay the groundwork for this (which the Tea Party did; they posted messages about being "happy" when it came about originally) I don't see how you can say he's 'allowing' the shutdown to happen. The Republicans initiated this and are maintaining it with their intent to force an overturn of an established law at the expense of not just the federal employees but the US economy and other related economies. They are playing chicken without significant personal risk. After all, they're still getting paid.
Furthermore, already we have shutdowns in Amber Alerts, food administration, and civilian workers for defense. I don't see how you can absolve the Republicans of anything but absolute guilt for an unnecessary crisis. This is like trying to take advantage of a dying man near an oasis in the desert.
As opposed to the Republicans backing down based on the Democrats holding the economy hostage? Sounds similar to me.
What does this actually mean?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
While I admit that Gravity failed to be an epic in anything but amazing cinematography (it's realism got picked apart, even if it did raise the bar for sci-fi films), boring is well off the mark. Apollo 13 has the distinction of being a recommended sleep aid if you ask me. I still have never been able to finish it.
While I respect your opinion, I think the cast(especially hanks) in Apollo 13 made it a phenomenal movie. I wasn't too big on Bullock. The only thing that made that movie bearable(aside from the amazing cinematography) was Clooney. Also I wanted aliens.
So if you refuse to negotiate with a group of radical politicians putting the livelihoods of others at jeopardy to defund or delay an already passed piece of legislation (and set a bad precedent) you are contributing to it? I'm not sure how this is logical or relevant.
Considering the president did not lay the groundwork for this (which the Tea Party did; they posted messages about being "happy" when it came about originally) I don't see how you can say he's 'allowing' the shutdown to happen. The Republicans initiated this and are maintaining it with their intent to force an overturn of an established law at the expense of not just the federal employees but the US economy and other related economies. They are playing chicken without significant personal risk. After all, they're still getting paid.
Furthermore, already we have shutdowns in Amber Alerts, food administration, and civilian workers for defense. I don't see how you can absolve the Republicans of anything but absolute guilt for an unnecessary crisis. This is like trying to take advantage of a dying man near an oasis in the desert.
What does this actually mean?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
While I admit that Gravity failed to be an epic in anything but amazing cinematography (it's realism got picked apart, even if it did raise the bar for sci-fi films), boring is well off the mark. Apollo 13 has the distinction of being a recommended sleep aid if you ask me. I still have never been able to finish it.
Welcome back!
Originally posted by mstanford2912
While I respect your opinion, I think the cast(especially hanks) in Apollo 13 made it a phenomenal movie. I wasn't too big on Bullock. The only thing that made that movie bearable(aside from the amazing cinematography) was Clooney. Also I wanted aliens.
I accept this as valid. Aliens and Tom Hanks would improve most movies. Except for The Lone Ranger.
Also, Darth Powah, thanks!
Originally posted by mstanford2912
If by your refusal, you also make the bold statement that you'd rather let the country "default", then you're contributing to it. I'm sure you know how this is logical and/or relevant.
You're on a desert island. Two individuals control the means to acquire say, fishing hooks for the others. This wouldn't kill everyone to not have, but the lasting effects of its absence would eventually snowball. One individual who has the string required decides to hold them back until the person who makes the hooks agrees to their demands. These demands seek to counter previously agreed upon tribal/community legislation to improve conditions for perhaps 15 per cent of the island's population. At this point you could muddle the analogy further but let's keep it simple.
The string maker has threatened fishhook productions at the expense of preventing IslandCare. The hook maker refuses to cave into the demands because of the following reasons:
- He'll basically forsake the reason people elected him as hookmaker.
- What the string maker is doing is exploiting their dependence at the cost of the livelihood of the islanders.
- If he caves, it'll encourage the string maker to continue this line of negotiation, just like caving and cowering before bullies rewards their behavior.
Now, having said that, I want you to finish the story and explain why the hook maker is contributing to the fire or a frying pan dillemma the string maker has forced upon him.
The republicans aren't the only one getting paid. As I stated numerous times. The president could have sat down with the Republicans and whether a negotiation happened or not, he would have made the Republicans look bad, which would really give them very little recourse other than ending the shutdown. Instead he said "no negotiations" and that he's willing to default.
So by this kind of logic, Bush should have negotiated with the Taliban. Since even though he's being put to the screws to either sacrifice his keystone piece of legislation or government debt, it's somehow Obama's responsibility to "stop contrbuting" to his own Sophie's choice.
Where did I absolve the Republicans of guilt? It is my position and that of Gideon's is that the Republicans caused this mess, and the Democrats are contributing to it. Your opinion seems to be "it's all the Republicans fault, the Democrats did nothing wrong", which would seem either biased or blatantly illogical.
I think it's ethically irresponsible for a president - any president - to maim already passed laws (and basically undo his job in the first place) because the other side intends to use public credit and default as leverage. I'm not saying I want the country to default; as it is, the reprocussions may be severe. No, I'm saying I don't fault the president for refusing to bow to Republican blackmail. What they're doing is reprehensible and it should not be rewarded. If the government defaults, the Republican party basically ruined its own future along with most of ours.
You're saying the Republicans are holding the country hostage and the Democrats shouldn't back down. Then you're saying because the Republicans are holding the country hostage and the Democrats shouldn't back down, the Democrats are ok to threaten default and the Republicans SHOULD back down. Is that what you're saying because it sounds an awful lot like a double standard, unless of course your entire argument hinges on "they started it!"
(This is a pain in the ass to reply to in cell phone form, note to self.)
See above. Letting the Republicans win this game of chicken has longer lasting reprocussions than does the imminent threat of default. For one, it will allow miinority parties to murder passed laws at every opportunity. Don't like a bill that makes your big business interests take care of their employees? Hold the budget hostage. Don't like any health reform that doesn't favor pharmaceutical companies and hospitals? Hold the budget hostage. Hey, don't want to have a cap on how often you can vote your own raise into effect? Hold the budget hostage!
The last thing we need, besides an economic crisis, is a far more divided and ineffective government. It's tragic that here in the diverse US, people really only see two sides of every argument.
The last thing we need, besides an economic crisis, is a far more divided and ineffective government. It's tragic that here in the diverse US, people really only see two sides of every argument.