Originally posted by sh76Unless you're one of those people who wish the government would go away that doesn't make sense. Individuals opposing specific laws is not the same as blocs obstructing everything as a strategy to dominate the government by discrediting the opposition. Obstructionism is when a political bloc sabotages their own nation in order to blackmail it into letting them rule. Not acceptable.
One man's obstructionism is another man's fight for what is right.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's acceptable within the confines of the US political system, because it allows "obstructionism".
Unless you're one of those people who wish the government would go away that doesn't make sense. Individuals opposing specific laws is not the same as blocs obstructing everything as a strategy to dominate the government by discrediting the opposition. Obstructionism is when a political bloc sabotages their own nation in order to blackmail it into letting them rule. Not acceptable.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDid the Dems in Wisconsin refusing to show up at the state legislature to try to kill Scott Walker's agenda constitute obstructionism?
Unless you're one of those people who wish the government would go away that doesn't make sense. Individuals opposing specific laws is not the same as blocs obstructing everything as a strategy to dominate the government by discrediting the opposition. Obstructionism is when a political bloc sabotages their own nation in order to blackmail it into letting them rule. Not acceptable.
How about Texas Dems running to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum on the Tom Delay redistricting vote?
Originally posted by normbenignNo I don't seriously think that. That was just a snarky comment on Obama's habit of circumventing Congress at every possible turn.
Do you seriously think that would have any impact on gas prices, except perhaps to raise them? Generally more regulation does raise costs and prices, and even price controls have devastating effects as we can remember who lived through price controls in the Nixon era.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou mean like the political bloc that took back the house in 2010 in a sweeping refutation of Democrat policies? That was sabotage of the nation and blackmail?
Unless you're one of those people who wish the government would go away that doesn't make sense. Individuals opposing specific laws is not the same as blocs obstructing everything as a strategy to dominate the government by discrediting the opposition. Obstructionism is when a political bloc sabotages their own nation in order to blackmail it into letting them rule. Not acceptable.
2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyAnd speaking of obstruction, did anyone happen to catch the Senate Budget Committee meeting on C-SPAN yesterday where everyone hoped the Chairman Kent Conrad (D) would finally have a vote on the 3 year overdue budget, before he caved to pressure from the Dems? All 11 Republicans showed up, but only 3 Democrats. Here's a picture of the lopsided table ...
You mean like the political bloc that took back the house in 2010 in a sweeping refutation of Democrat policies? That was sabotage of the nation and blackmail?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/04/18/photo_senate_democrats_shame
Listen to Jeff Sessions politely deliver the smack down and then tell me which political bloc is obstructing...
&feature=player_embedded
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Maybe. I have nothing to do with Texas or Wisconsin. In fact those two states are California rivals. I don't care if they commit political suicide. Our dairy and our status as the big productive state will get a boost if Wisconsin and Texas screw themselves over. I don't care.
Did the Dems in Wisconsin refusing to show up at the state legislature to try to kill Scott Walker's agenda constitute obstructionism?
How about Texas Dems running to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum on the Tom Delay redistricting vote?
Don't do it to my country though. Grr.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut the republicans voted into office in 2010 were voted in specifically to oppose Obama's agenda. They have done so. Other than you not agreeing with the outcome, where's the problem?
Being voted in to office has nothing to do with how you choose to use your power.
Originally posted by SleepyguyYou're asking me what the problem is but I'm supposed to discount my opinion? 🙄
But the republicans voted into office in 2010 were voted in specifically to oppose Obama's agenda. They have done so. Other than you not agreeing with the outcome, where's the problem?
Republicans weren't too happy with the naive fanaticism shown by the new arrivals if I remember correctly. Some of them are honest and honorable in that way.
3 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyWas the Tea Party elected to be hobbits?
Let me rephrase. How is it blackmail of the nation for representatives to actually represent the wishes of the people that sent them there?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999775/-John-McCain-Lectures-Naive-TeaParty-Hobbits-Live-Blogging-MSNBC-s-First-Look-and-Morning-Joe
If the Republicans want to have any credibility they should be McCain style Republicans, not crazy clueless fanatics.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not a US citizen so it's not for me to say what the US people want from their government. I do think there are many things that could be improved in the current US political system, but the people have to demand changes first, of course. And for that to happen, Founding Fathers fetishism is the first thing that has to go.
Maybe you can accept it. I don't.