Well, the House GOP has finished wasting the better part of a week on fantasy-land legislation so unrealistic and irrelevant to the final (necessarily bipartisan) resolution of this crisis, they might as well have tied a debt-ceiling increase to Frodo casting the Ring into the Fire. Obviously, the Senate immediately voted down the House’s non-starter of a ridiculous, designed-to-fail bill. So, that’s that. Our last full week before national default, completely wasted on political posturing and partisan nonsense! Congratulations, guys! And it now appears there may not be enough time left to prevent disaster:
Here is advice from veterans of past budget battles in Congress that went to the brink: This time, be afraid. Be very afraid. …
Democrats and Republicans with legislative experience agree that even if both sides decided Saturday to raise the $14.3 trillion borrowing ceiling and to reduce future annual deficits, it would be extremely difficult for the compromise measure to wend its way through Congress before Tuesday’s deadline, given Congressional legislative procedures.
But such a bipartisan deal seemed virtually impossible on Friday, as House Republicans approved their bill and dug in deeper against compromise with President Obama.
In a word, #PANIC! Of course, this assumes that August 2 is the “real” deadline, which some experts have questioned, but Treasury has not yet backed away from. Anyway, the Washington Post offers more details on the legislative timetable:
The Senate is driving toward a climactic and dramatic vote at 1 a.m. Sunday that could determine whether a bipartisan deal to raise the nation’s legal borrowing limit is possible or a government default is likely.
What that deal might look was still deeply uncertain Friday, but talks were underway between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate about methods to circumvent some of the chamber’s most cumbersome procedures to allow the Senate to act more quickly if a compromise is reached. …
Senate rules require a full day in between Reid introducing the measure Friday night and a vote to cut off debate, leading to a key vote early Sunday.
Closing debate will require the approval of 60 senators, meaning Reid will require at least seven Republican votes to clear that hurdle.
If the measure cleared that hurdle, the final passage would require a simple majority of senators to send the bill to the House. Without unanimous agreement, however, it would require an additional 30 hours of debate for that final vote, meaning 7:30 a.m. Monday would be the earliest a final vote could happen.
Then, the measure would return to the House on Monday, where it would face a final critical vote — with the outcome deeply uncertain, as world markets watch nervously.
[UPDATE: More from Politico:
Reid and the White House do not have a deal with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Talks ground to a halt as House Republicans moved forward with their own plan that Democrats oppose. That means Reid may file cloture on his own plan to raise the debt ceiling without GOP support.
Even if a bipartisan accord is reached when the Senate is in the cloture process, Reid would need unanimous consent to swap in any compromise measure, an unlikely scenario given the passions in the fight.
Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and senior White House officials have been talking with lawmakers across the Capitol this week, but Republicans put the talks on ice in recent days until the House took up the Boehner bill, according to Democratic officials familiar with the negotiations.
As a matter of fact, Reid filed for cloture on a modified bill designed to attract GOP support. But it wasn’t a “compromise” so much as a unilateral attempt by Reid to compromise with himself, because he was out of time — because the GOP wasted a week on the Boehner plan.]
Meanwhile, Treasury is finalizing its contingency plans.
There is no curse in Elvish, Entish of the tongues of Men for the reckless, indefensible irresponsibility of the various fools, idiots and cynical bastards who have brought us to the brink of this utterly unnecessary disaster. They are a f***ing disgrace to the nation they purport to lead.
Man if only the House Republicans had been willing to debate either the President’s plan or the Senate’s plan instead of tabling them to prevent even a debate on them……..
Let me put it like this–I often joke about laying on water and primer backed securities. Last night was the first time any of my friends asked me how much water I thought was appropriate to have on hand…plus how much they should have for their animals.
If August 2nd is _not_ the deadline, I think that’s fatal damage to Obama’s credibility. (I personally would not be surprised if August 1st is the actual deadline…just no one thought we’d possibly get this close.) If August 2nd _is_ the actual deadline, I think we’re already f*cked.
Gahrie, you think that’s a killer talking point. We get it. But no matter how many times you say it, the fact remains that the Democrats have been attempting to craft a resolution that can actually pass, and thus haven’t wasted time putting forward unilateral liberal bills that are doomed to fail, as the Republicans have with their unilateral conservative bills. This is not a point in the Republicans’ favor.
Indeed, the Republicans have wasted so much time on their own plans with 0% chance of passing that Harry Reid was forced to “compromise” with himself, making last-minute changes to his bill that move it slightly closer to the GOP position — because Republicans wouldn’t agree to negotiate last night, which was effectively the deadline to agree on terms to a Senate bill that can become law before August 2.
So, on the one hand, you have the Republicans, spending an entire week focusing on a bill that was never going to stand a chance of becoming law, which they ultimately made more conservative, guaranteeing that it can never pass.
On the other hand, you have the Democrats, proposing a bill that already surrenders the Dems’ initial core demand (a “balanced” approach with revenues) by having cuts only, but not trying to pass it right away because they were waiting for the GOP to wrap up its partisan posturing so that it will be possible to negotiate further and actually work out a solution… and then, when time runs out and the GOP still refuses to talk, unilaterally modifying that bill to make it less liberal and increase its chances of passing.
But, yeah, you’re totally right, the Republicans are the ones bargaining in good faith, and the Democrats are totally the do-nothings who are responsible for this crisis.
Brendan, you’re being either woefully ignorant or incredibly deceitful. Do you understand how the legislative process works? You know, things like committees, votes, and conferences? Blaming the Senate’s inability to produce a bill with which to hammer out a compromise in a conference with the House on Republicans is ludicrous, especially considering that McConnell has been amenable to working with Reid the whole time. Reid delayed and delayed and delayed in hopes of President Obama brokering a master agreement between all parties, and when that failed, too much time ticked by for him to actually follow the process, and now he’s forced to scramble and ask for things like rules suspensions and the like.
Not to mention, most Democrats were positively giddy with the fantasy that a government shutdown / default will cause a massive swell of anger that will drown the Republicans in the 2012 election. Once they finally figured out that there was simply no way to sufficiently posture to leave the blame all on the GOP (as well as the risk that, indeed, the outcome would be even more damaging to Obama than the GOP), they started panicking.
I posit that, 2-4 weeks from now, we’ll be standing here remarking how A. the world didn’t end, B. the markets are still functioning, C. everyone hates Obama as a result of this episode, and D. the cuts that everyone ultimately agreed to in order to raise the debt ceiling will look a lot more modest and digestible.
the fact remains that the Democrats have been attempting to craft a resolution that can actually pass,
Really? What is taking therm so long? They’ve had since December to do it. Maybe they were working so hard on their budget they forgot?
Of course they still completely controlled the government in December, and could have passed any debt ceiling bill they wanted to, hell they could have pushed it through without even reading it just like they did with Obamacare.
because Republicans wouldn’t agree to negotiate last night,
Oh those irresponsible Republicans. Maybe they were still pissed at Sen. Reid for not even allowing debate on the two plans they proposed and got through the House, only to see tabled without debate in the Senate. Maybe they were still pissed at the president for blowing up previous negotiations by pulling away the football at the last minute.
Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it’s actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.
Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats’ bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise.
“We would be happy to have that vote tonight,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans’ leader, offered.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/
History repeats itself:
Republicans and conservative Democrats blocked moves by House leaders to pass a $1.8 trillion dollar increase in the Debt Limit so the Democratic majority would not have to face the embarrassment of raising the Debt Limit yet again before next November’s midterm elections.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5987341-503544.html
AMLTrojan #4 – I think there is a simpler explanation …
For some people, their attention span is *very* limited … so they can (in their own perceptions, legitimately) say indignantly that people have had “an entire week” to do something while apparently not realising that some other people have had months and years to do something and yet failed to do so … this trait can be so integral to their nature that evidence of the latter (gahrie #5) are likely to be ignored or dismissed as not relevant …
And, yes, History does repeat Herself … and not always absolutely identically … it would appear that the Feckless Reid is trying to set up a 1990s-like government shutdown – he doesn’t seem to give a feck whether it affecks (pun intended) US or Global markets … and thus, History repeats Herself, confirming why the english language has the term where someone is “a Weak Reid” …
You know, maybe I need to add more water…and ammo. Because when the inevitable riots hit as people don’t get their entitlement checks, a lot of folks are apparently still going to be arguing about whose fault it is rather than helping quell anarchy.
I also wonder if anyone’s done combat math in D.C.. You know, # of entitlement check recipients in district / (number of security forces – # of folks who aren’t going to show up to try to quell a riot if they’re not getting paid). I’m pretty sure that number’s gotta be an unhappy one, even if you toss in the Old Guard and other military forces (who I am assuming _will_ get paid). I mean, I’m not saying anarchy will break out on 3 August…but 10 August?
Because when the inevitable riots hit as people don’t get their entitlement checks
1) the only way people will not get their entitlement checks in August is if President Obama decides not to send them out for political reasons.
2) Eventually, we are no longer going to be able to borrow enough money to fund all of the government’s promises anyway….might as well get it out of the way if we are unwilling to fundamentally change the size and scope of government.
because the GOP wasted a week on the Boehner plan.]
While the democrats wasted 8 months on………nothing. Absolutely nothing. They haven’t even written a budget.
Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment. I want an Amendment that states that anytime the Government cannot pass a budget (preferable balanced or maybe a surplus) than no member of Congress or the President may receive a paycheck, and this pay cannot be made up at a later date.
#4 — Chill out AML. I don’t think you honestly believe Brendan is ignorant or deceitful. You can make the same point just as energetically without getting personal.
most Democrats were positively giddy with the fantasy that a government shutdown / default will cause a massive swell of anger that will drown the Republicans in the 2012 election
Excuse me? MOST Democrats? I can think of many people who expect that outcome (including many Republicans). But I can’t think of any who are giddy over it. I haven’t heard one Democrat argue that the crisis would be WORTH it due to anticipated political advantages, let alone MOST Democrats. I have read you making this argument from the Republican perspective, however. Could it be that you are projecting your psychology onto Democrats?
In sum, it makes a poor show to call out Brendan for being ignorant/deceitful on account of what is at worst a subjective characterization of legislative function, and then in the same comment base a statement on your own private gnostic window into the psychology of MOST Democrats. Brendan might not be the brightest guy, but at least he’s not pretending to be Captain Picard in an X-Men movie.
@ #13 Casey — I take part of that back. Of course Brendan is the brightest guy.
Casey #13 – so you are saying that Brendan is pretending to be Captain-Picard-as-Gollum in a remake of The Hobbit ? With the Debt Sssssssspendingggg Billllll as his Precious ?
Gahrie–I don’t think you get it. We have enough money to pay our bondholders, the military, SS…and that’s about it. Oh, and that’s if you make full payments. If you cut the government 40% overnight, you’re going to eff up someone’s money flow. Now, I don’t know about your life experience, but I’m going to say that I have it on good authority from folks who have been, you know, hungry because someone else has effed up that this is not conducive to calm, rational, _law-abiding_ behavior. So whether Obama, Reid, Boehner, or the Man in the Moon was the one behind deciding that people don’t get paid, it’s going to be bad juju if this lasts more than a few days.
I don’t disagree with the mindset of crash now rather than crash later. Hell, I’ve had a GOOD box, water, meds, and a destination picked out for the last 5 years plus a spouse who I won’t have to spend 3 hours explaining to why we have to leave everything else and is a good shot vs. in 2025 or 2035 when I may not have any of those items. However, notice I’m no longer trying to affix blame because it really doesn’t matter? The fact that you’re still trying to say it’s the other guy’s fault tells me that you may not have really thought through what widespread “all hell broke loose” might look like.
The fact that you’re still trying to say it’s the other guy’s fault tells me that you may not have really thought through what widespread “all hell broke loose” might look like.
That’s not actually my position, even though it is easy to come to that opinion. Because I often find myself responding to Brendan’s over the top attempts to pin the blame on the Republicans it looks like I am “defending” the Republicans.
My actual position on this is much more hardline then the Republicans. I would introduce a bill that immediately reduced all government spending to 2008 levels. Then I would introduce a bill that froze federal spending to those rates until the annual deficit was erased. Next I would replace the current income system with a flat tax, and set the lowest tax rate to 5%, and start collecting it at $10,000 in income.
Yeah, but there’s one slight problem–the GOP only owns the House. Next year, when they may possibly own all three branches of government? Perhaps. Won’t happen if John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are either of the two leaders and/or Mitt Romney’s President, but perhaps. At the very least, I think every GOP Senator is in contact with his state organization to make sure the usual smoke and mirrors are enacted to make primarying him difficult. Because let me tell ya–there’s going to be some primaries come out of this on the GOP side.
I simply assume that no matter what Branden may think consciously, at the end of the day his default setting is to blame the Republicans. (And no, our great and wonderful host, throwing in one or two sentences blaming the Dems does not make you unbiased. It just makes you not the NYT.)
So my brother (an economics major, and a guy who’s wedding I just got back from! Excitement!) is very worked up about this. Please, Congress, don’t ruin his honeymoon. Though he probably won’t be paying much attention.
But anyway, Chris has heard an interview with Treasury which basically posits that this August date is firm. When asked by a news guy “so, what’s plan B, the Treasury guy said “yeah, there isn’t one. When we’re out, we’re out.” It seems we’re in plan B right now, actually. Which is great.
I predict that on Aug 2 the economic experts will come up with some “unexpected” news that will allow us to meet our obligations.
Casey @ #13, I suppose it’s goes without saying that lambasting politicians with personal invective (“…reckless, indefensible irresponsibility of the various fools, idiots and cynical bastards…”) and foul language (“They are a f**king disgrace…”) is perfectly acceptable, but calling anyone else out for being deceitful or ignorant is over the top. I hasten to add that I was seeing this as a temporary condition; I do not think that Brendan is always deceitful and/or ignorant — to me it’s the same as the fact that I’m a pretty nice, mellow guy, but sometimes I can be an intense jerk.
(For the record, I’m pretty mellow right now and was yesterday AM as well.)
Now, if Brendan wants to follow up with additional posts or comments that demonstrate he wasn’t being obtuse or something, I’m fair game, but I call it like I see it. To me, this is a classic case of Brendan’s passions overwhelming his ability to recognize and accept the simple and fairly straightforward explanations for why and how things are happening, and instead he rises up to assign moral blame and character deficiencies to those involved (most fiercely against those to his right).
Excuse me? MOST Democrats? I can think of many people who expect that outcome (including many Republicans). But I can’t think of any who are giddy over it. I haven’t heard one Democrat argue that the crisis would be WORTH it due to anticipated political advantages, let alone MOST Democrats. I have read you making this argument from the Republican perspective, however. Could it be that you are projecting your psychology onto Democrats?
So allow me to clarify: By “most Democrats” I mean the punditry class, and I didn’t say they were giddy with the idea of a shutdown or default, but with the fantasy that the pain of such would lead to the GOP being tossed out of Congress onto their asses come 2012. If you don’t think Democratic strategists are hoping and planning for this should we not come to a compromise in the next 36 hours, you’re being delusional.
My argument that the GOP should be willing to shoot the hostage has very little to do with any idea that a partial government shutdown will redound to our electoral success next year, because I believe that to be a fantasy as well (one held by far fewer observers, I should point out). No, my embrace of the “semi-default” scenario is based on a few different concepts and projections:
1) It will temper the hyperbole and irrational drivel coming from those who think the economy will collapse and an economic crisis will occur (newsflash: we’re already there and have been since 2008!).
2) A great number of Americans will decide they don’t truly miss what they’re not getting (assuming Obama doesn’t play games with mandatory entitlement spending) — i.e. the outrage will be less than projected by the left.
3) This country isn’t serious about controlling its fisc, so a precipitated crisis today is more helpful than a crisis a few years from now when we will have far less runway to make changes (not that I think we have much runway left today either, but that’s another topic).
4) Should I be wrong about any or all of the above 3 points, the timing of the current showdown gives the American electorate ample time to decide who is at fault, make wholesale changes in 2012, and set the course from there — i.e. the American people will elect the leaders they deserve.
In any case, it appears that what is going to happen is exactly what we’ve all been saying will happen: We’ll get a last-minute deal because that’s simply how things work.
Any deal has to get through the House. Let’s just say there’s already discontent on just what’s been leaked. I don’t see the leaked details making it past the GOP freshmen.
They are counting on getting some of the Dems to vote for it.
Hmmmm … so, as we get closer to Aug 2, my own expectations are that
1) The blame game will get yet more intense – one of those inverse square thingies …
2) Various politicians will declare various lines in the sand – which, like things built upon the sand, tend not to be particularly permanent …
3) (Here’s the neck-sticking-out part) The compromise will be deficit increase reduction (because actual deficit reduction cannot happen until the increase in deficit is slowed then halted), plus debt ceiling raise sufficient for a period between 3 and 9 months …
4) And Jay Carney (like a reliable carney barker) will proclaim how it was Obama’s plan all along …
Breathe, Brendan, breathe.
Yes, it can still unravel, but now we can all turn our attention to other more pressing issues and observe the fact that the economy still sucks. Thanks Obama!
Oh, and by the way, the structure of the agreement speaks to a resounding victory by the Tea Party wing of the GOP — yes, those same nutjobs who laid out the “fantasy-land provisions” you catcalled at a couple evenings ago.
The Tea Party needs to double down next year, and win the Senate. I’d also like to see some Tea Party candidates run as Democrats in some of the Blue Dog districts.
G. The tea party are a bunch of terrorists and this is an object lesson in why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. Obama and Reid are idiots.
dcl, thanks for doing that parody of a shrieking leftist. I needed a good laugh this morning.
G. The tea party are a bunch of terrorists and this is an object lesson in why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. Obama and Reid are idiots.
Then the American people are terrorists, because the Tea Party candidates merely did what they promised the American people they would do if they were elected, and the American people elected them.
But you can’t hold a whole party responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the Congress? And if the whole Congress is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our political institutions in general? I put it to you, dcl – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to the Tea Party, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Heh.
isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society?
Yes.
By deffiniton terrorism threatens or inflicts catastrophic harm to extort political gain. The Tea Party is nothing better than a bunch of terrorists, they just happen to wear suits. This kind of behavior is an absolute new low. It is abhorrent. And Brendan is right in asking how likely is it that those shrieking about the behavior of the Tea Party now won’t subsequently resort to the same tactics down the line? The answer is, of course, none, nothing, zip, zilch nada. What reason do they have not to? The answer there is also none. The Tea Party has simply created a new low to which we can sink and some how find acceptable in political wrangling. A low that is just going to make our problems worse.
The Tea Party is a bunch of cry baby obstructionist head in the sand dip shits that have no place in politics. But worse are the people that vote for them, because lets face it, if most of your money doesn’t come from capital gains each year you just got screwed. And I can’t imagine that is most tea party voters make most of their money from trust funds.
So let me ask you a question Gahrie and Joe Mama, Do you make over half a million a year? Do you have relatives with a net worth over 10 million from whom you expect to inherit? Do you make most of your annual income form capital gains? If you couldn’t answer yes to any of those questions than why do you vote for Republicans? Seriously, how are they acting in your interest. Rich people and fortune 500 corporations are all the Republican party cares about. Sure they cable about religion and other shit, that’s just to convince stupid people to vote for them.
This kind of behavior is an absolute new low.
Besides staying true to their campaign promises what behavior are you talking about?
If you couldn’t answer yes to any of those questions than why do you vote for Republicans?
Because I believe in limited government and the Democrats believe in the welfare state.
Because I believe in federalism, and the Democrats believe the federal government should control everything (except of course the body of a pregnant woman)
Because I believe in the right to life, and the Democrats don’t.
Because I believe in a strong national defense, and the Democrats don’t.
Because I believe in American exceptionalism, and the Democrats don’t.
Because I believe in treating people as individuals, not members of a (victim) group, and the Democrats don’t.
Because I believe that the money I earn is mine and not the governments, and the Democrats don’t.
dcl #33 – apart from your rhetoric being the old tired rhetoric of envy, it is also amazingly ill-informed …
Those “rich” folk that you seem to feel are fair game for looting and pillaging because you/we are not part of that group, they are the ones whose investments create the jobs that you and I need to support our families …
You have fallen for the whole “inequality” propaganda … the envious supporters of the “inequality” illogic would prefer to see everyone with the same *LOW* income, rather than have everyone have a higher income/standard of living with some folk having a LOT higher income/standard of living …
Personally, I would prefer everyone to be able to have a better Life, gradually acquired, rather than having The State dictate how much is “fair” … especially since The State’s representatives/appointees somehow seem to do significantly better than the rest of us mere mortals …
Tea Party folk *get* this … they understand that the politics of envy is corrosive and corrupts, possibly as much as power corrupts … they want The State to be only as powerful as it needs to be for legitimate purposes, like the Common Defence and International Relations … they don’t want The State in their bedrooms nor in their bank accounts …
dcl – it may not have sunk in yet, for you, but the 2010 election was an informed, involved, and aware electorate saying “*ENOUGH* !” … and the current debt ceiling negotiations reflect both the activist Tea Party and the complacent cynical democrat party …
dcl on 1/9/11:
dcl on 8/1/11:
What a difference six months makes!!!!!!!! If you have any capacity for shame, now would be a good time to demonstrate it.
#34 “Because I believe in treating people as individuals, not members of a (victim) group, and the Democrats don’t.”
When you find yourself changing your mind mid-sentence like this, you may want to consider going back and revising what you wrote before hitting “submit”.
So let me ask you a question Gahrie and Joe Mama, Do you make over half a million a year? Do you have relatives with a net worth over 10 million from whom you expect to inherit? Do you make most of your annual income form capital gains? If you couldn’t answer yes to any of those questions than why do you vote for Republicans?
It’d be nice if you examined your presuppositions a bit more carefully. Indeed, Trust Fund babies and folks who live off of capital gains income are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. The folks who make a half million a year in salary tend to be business owners and executives — the folks who create jobs and drive wealth creation — and they tend to favor Republicans. If you could find a tax formula that A. hits Trust Fund babies and rich folks living off of capital gains and tax-free municipal bonds the hardest, while B. encouraging entrepreneurship and business success (and therefore job growth), I’m all ears — as would most Republicans. The problem is, the perpetual Democratic solution is to hike income tax rates, but that doesn’t hurt the invested rich whatsoever. Their second solution is to hike capital gains and dividend rates, but that inevitably harms middle class investors as well, not to mention retards economic growth by slowing the free flow of capital.
One idea to consider: Eliminate the corporate tax and replace it with a capital gains and dividends tax structure that applies to all distributions that count as personal income.
So for instance, if a hedge fund (or 401k) buys or sells stock, there’s no capital gains tax or dividends tax if those funds are reinvested, but when the investor pulls the money out of the hedge fund, he pays an capital gains tax against his cash withdrawal unless the money is reinvested within a short period of time (e.g. within one tax year). You can set this rate to not kick in until a certain personal income threshold is reached based on the national poverty level times the number of dependents claimed, minimizing the degree to which granny and other small investors are hit by the tax. Above that threshold, I’d argue for a flat rate, which is much simpler and fairer to administer.
The other reform you’d have to make is you’d have to restructure expense classification rules for corporations to discourage rich people from using the corporation as a tax shelter for their personal consumption. This of course is a lot easier to do when there is no corporate tax against which to write off the expenses.
In any case, if your ideologically based form of class envy is like a case of bad acid reflux, your liberal Democratic tonic is to chug down Vitamin C-rich orange juice. Yet while Vitamin C has some nominal correlation to improved health, the influx of massive amounts of citric acid is incredibly counterproductive to the condition you’re trying to ameliorate. Not exactly smart policy, if you ask me, but go ahead and play the class warfare game if you wish.
#34 “Because I believe in treating people as individuals, not members of a (victim) group, and the Democrats don’t.”
When you find yourself changing your mind mid-sentence like this, you may want to consider going back and revising what you wrote before hitting “submit”.
????
I freely admit the sentence is awkwardly worded to maintain a pattern, but my meaning is clear and I fail to see where I changed my mind. I believe in treating people as individuals, and democrats believe every one is a member of a group of one kind or another.
#39, restating the previous contradictory sentence: “I believe in treating people as individuals, and democrats believe every one is a member of a group of one kind or another.”
First half of sentence:
You believe in treating people as individuals, and not as members of a group.
Second half of sentence (and the various sentences in post #34):
You claim that Democrats believe [a certain belief (and a list of other beliefs earlier in the post)]. In doing so, you are treating treating Democrats as a group, and not as individuals.
Mike R, don’t be dense, dude. gahrie is clearly speaking in terms of application of law and policy. gahrie is not saying there is no such thing as black people, or gay people, or Democrats. He’s simply saying the law shouldn’t be different for them just because of their group status — they should all be treated as individual citizens of equal stature before the law.
You claim that Democrats believe [a certain belief (and a list of other beliefs earlier in the post)]. In doing so, you are treating treating Democrats as a group, and not as individuals.
ok…Well I assumed you knew the difference (and knew that I knew the difference) between identifying people as members of a group based on some supposed status, and identifying people who have assembled together as a group specifically because they shared the same views, as a member of that group.
Isn’t the problem with democrats (and their fellow-travelers) not so much that they believe in strange things as much as that they don’t disbelieve the really bizarre things, whether the bizarre things are current administration policies or the MSM doing its level best to paint Tea Party folk as terrorists ?
LOL … so it looks like dcl has dutifully parroted the Dem talking point du jour, which was likewise echoed by none other than Vice President Dumbass:
HEH.
The Democratic incivility is all the more repugnant for the fact that someone (and note I think Republicans are likely to be a part of this) decided to cynically use Rep. Giffords by making her vote the deciding vote today.
I can’t wait to see how Timbaland remixes the Battle Hymn of the Republic…
P.S. The Dem $ quote from above:
“This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Riiiiiight. Classic.
P.P.S. The wizard who is a heartbeat away from the Oval Office offered this knee-slapper re Rep. Giffords’ return to the House for the debt ceiling vote:
That clown has no idea how right he is.
LOL! It’s funny because he’s had two craniotomies to repair life-threatening aneurysms. And then he reflected on the experience with a colleague who had similarly been through the traumatic ordeal of brain surgery. What a silly goose!
And then he reflected on the experience with a colleague
No one has a problem with that. It’s the comments he made to the press that people have a problem with.
post your funny stories at bcadda.com.
Be the first one to post here.