Just When You Think Things Couldn't Get Any Worse...

[LoneLaugher]

Oh.....and Mac! One more thing.

Please link to an example of you having a mature, honest conversation with someone here at the USMB. I'd like to see what that looks like.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Reformed without making concessions to the people we're supposed to be keeping on the other side of the fence in the first place. But my question here is, why aren't Democrats pushing for immigration reform? If they are, why does their policy include giving amnesty to illegals?

Again, Runs with Scissors, the fence isn't the problem. It's the people on THIS side of the fence who are offering them jobs to undercut working people's salaries.

And the Democrats are pushing for reform.

Blanket amnesty is not reform.

 

[Wildman]

All those unskilled uneducated immigrants are competing for your job, Joe. And they'll work for much less.

Watch out!

An undocumented immigrant couldn't do my job. ON a similar note, probably you couldn't do it, either.

////////////////////
you are saying that cesspool cleaning is that high tech ??

 

[JoeB131]

If Mac debated, instead of just responding to any counter argument with "There you go again", I might have more respect for him.

That's actually a fair point. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "debate".

If "debating" means to (1) only push one side of an issue, (2) ignoring, minimizing, deflecting and distorting all contrary evidence, (3) being willing at all times to be intellectually dishonest to "win" a point, and (4) lacing all comments with straw men, outright lies, personal insults and name-calling, I guess the bottom line here is that I don't like to "debate".

I'd rather have honest conversations in which two mature, civil, intelligent adults see, understand, appreciate and acknowledge all sides of an issue and calmly discuss the pros and cons of both sides.

I'm glad you brought that up.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I don't like to "debate", based on your definition of the word. Or at least the way you practice it.

.

I'll admit that I throw a few elbows. But I also back up what I say with stats and background.

And frankly, guy, what you don't like is when people confront you on your assertations, like there is "Politically Correctness" at work when you have a boycott.

 

[JoeB131]

Reformed without making concessions to the people we're supposed to be keeping on the other side of the fence in the first place. But my question here is, why aren't Democrats pushing for immigration reform? If they are, why does their policy include giving amnesty to illegals?

Again, Runs with Scissors, the fence isn't the problem. It's the people on THIS side of the fence who are offering them jobs to undercut working people's salaries.

And the Democrats are pushing for reform.

Blanket amnesty is not reform.

No one is proposing a "blanket" amnesty.

 

[Mac1958]

If Mac debated, instead of just responding to any counter argument with "There you go again", I might have more respect for him.

That's actually a fair point. I guess it depends on your definition of the word "debate".

If "debating" means to (1) only push one side of an issue, (2) ignoring, minimizing, deflecting and distorting all contrary evidence, (3) being willing at all times to be intellectually dishonest to "win" a point, and (4) lacing all comments with straw men, outright lies, personal insults and name-calling, I guess the bottom line here is that I don't like to "debate".

I'd rather have honest conversations in which two mature, civil, intelligent adults see, understand, appreciate and acknowledge all sides of an issue and calmly discuss the pros and cons of both sides.

I'm glad you brought that up.

So, I guess the bottom line is that I don't like to "debate", based on your definition of the word. Or at least the way you practice it.

.

I'll admit that I throw a few elbows. But I also back up what I say with stats and background.

And frankly, guy, what you don't like is when people confront you on your assertations, like there is "Politically Correctness" at work when you have a boycott.

Just depends on how they confront me. See the second paragraph, above.

Life is nuance, and nuance just doesn't work in partisan "debate".

.

 

[rightwinger]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

 

[JoeB131]

Just depends on how they confront me. See the second paragraph, above.

Life is nuance, and nuance just doesn't work in partisan "debate".

.

I know you really want to believe you are this paragon of civility.

But you are out here, pushing a point of view, and just as unreceptive to counter-arguments as anyone else.

 

[Mac1958]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

That's not really how the Constitution is set up. Gridlock can be a function of Congress, if that's how the votes fall. A President is not, at least by the spirit of the law, supposed to act unilaterally when frustrated.

That said, this is a big risk the GOP has been taking, at least in terms of image. Just saying "no" makes it look like you're, um, just saying "no". The party has steadfastly refused to offer a consistent, clear, inspirational vision of America and they wonder why no one likes them.

 

[Mac1958]

Just depends on how they confront me. See the second paragraph, above.

Life is nuance, and nuance just doesn't work in partisan "debate".

.

I know you really want to believe you are this paragon of civility.

But you are out here, pushing a point of view, and just as unreceptive to counter-arguments as anyone else.

Hey, if partisan bickering is your thing, and it clearly is, have at it. Those other guys are evil, I hate them, attack, attack attack.

I just have another approach.

 

[rightwinger]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

That's not really how the Constitution is set up. Gridlock can be a function of Congress, if that's how the votes fall. A President is not, at least by the spirit of the law, supposed to act unilaterally when frustrated.

That said, this is a big risk the GOP has been taking, at least in terms of image. Just saying "no" makes it look like you're, um, just saying "no". The party has steadfastly refused to offer a consistent, clear, inspirational vision of America and they wonder why no one likes them.

There has been a struggle for power between branches of government since our government was formed. Power voids are filled by the other branches
If one branch says "we do not want our government to function" it does not mean the other branches should go along

 

[Mac1958]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

That's not really how the Constitution is set up. Gridlock can be a function of Congress, if that's how the votes fall. A President is not, at least by the spirit of the law, supposed to act unilaterally when frustrated.

That said, this is a big risk the GOP has been taking, at least in terms of image. Just saying "no" makes it look like you're, um, just saying "no". The party has steadfastly refused to offer a consistent, clear, inspirational vision of America and they wonder why no one likes them.

There has been a struggle for power between branches of government since our government was formed. Power voids are filled by the other branches
If one branch says "we do not want our government to function" it does not mean the other branches should go along

Gridlock happens. Is this worse gridlock than usual? Hell yes, but the government is functioning. There are still people running around up there, taking votes, fighting for camera time.

So if a President of either party declares, "those guys over there don't want government to function, so I'll take it from here", that's okay?

We're going to trust one person for that?

No thanks.

 

[rightwinger]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

That's not really how the Constitution is set up. Gridlock can be a function of Congress, if that's how the votes fall. A President is not, at least by the spirit of the law, supposed to act unilaterally when frustrated.

That said, this is a big risk the GOP has been taking, at least in terms of image. Just saying "no" makes it look like you're, um, just saying "no". The party has steadfastly refused to offer a consistent, clear, inspirational vision of America and they wonder why no one likes them.

There has been a struggle for power between branches of government since our government was formed. Power voids are filled by the other branches
If one branch says "we do not want our government to function" it does not mean the other branches should go along

Gridlock happens. Is this worse gridlock than usual? Hell yes, but the government is functioning. There are still people running around up there, taking votes, fighting for camera time.

So if a President of either party declares, "those guys over there don't want government to function, so I'll take it from here", that's okay?

We're going to trust one person for that?

No thanks.

Congress has a Constitutional ability to block what the President is doing by executive order. Hold a vote and stop him. Use the courts
But the very gridlock that stops Congress from functioning also stops them from reigning in executive power
One broken branch of government shouldn't break the other two

 

[Mac1958]

Good for the President

In the absence of a functioning congress, someone has to actually step forward and allow government to function
If there are three branches of government and one refuses to function, it is up to the other two to fill the void

That's not really how the Constitution is set up. Gridlock can be a function of Congress, if that's how the votes fall. A President is not, at least by the spirit of the law, supposed to act unilaterally when frustrated.

That said, this is a big risk the GOP has been taking, at least in terms of image. Just saying "no" makes it look like you're, um, just saying "no". The party has steadfastly refused to offer a consistent, clear, inspirational vision of America and they wonder why no one likes them.

There has been a struggle for power between branches of government since our government was formed. Power voids are filled by the other branches
If one branch says "we do not want our government to function" it does not mean the other branches should go along

Gridlock happens. Is this worse gridlock than usual? Hell yes, but the government is functioning. There are still people running around up there, taking votes, fighting for camera time.

So if a President of either party declares, "those guys over there don't want government to function, so I'll take it from here", that's okay?

We're going to trust one person for that?

No thanks.

Congress has a Constitutional ability to block what the President is doing by executive order. Hold a vote and stop him. Use the courts
But the very gridlock that stops Congress from functioning also stops them from reigning in executive power
One broken branch of government shouldn't break the other two

I understand that, and I can't argue. What concerns me here is the fact that a President decides one day that Congress isn't functioning, **** them, I'll just rule by EO.

So that one person - party irrelevant - can decide the definition of "isn't functioning" and start issuing EO's at will. Then each EO is challenged by Congress and the courts and suddenly we're off in uncharted territory. Holy crap, talk about gridlock. What we're seeing now would be like a walk in the park.

I get your point, but I don't trust one person from either party to do this.

 

[rightwinger]

We have had a border crisis since early summer. Obama asked Congress for immediate action. Congress held an emergency session and declared an urgent recess
After five weeks of summer recess Congress declared they will not act until after the elections. Once the election is over, Congress will not act until the new Congress convenes in January

Congress refused to do their job and the President has acted instead. There is nothing stopping Congress from taking action and overriding the President once they get their act together

 

[Mac1958]

We have had a border crisis since early summer. Obama asked Congress for immediate action. Congress held an energency session and declared an urgent recess
After five weeks of summer recess Congress declared they will not act until after the elections. Once the election is over, Congress will not act until the new Congress convenes in January

Congress refused to do their job and the President had acted instead. There is nothing stopping Congress from taking action and overriding the President once they get their act together

Again, can't argue that Congress is, well, you know.

Lewis Black is one of my favorite comedians. He tells the story of how he grew up near DC, and it drove him nuts because all the DC bullshit is in your face all the time. He says he used to take the train there and run up to whoever it was that was pissing him off and scream "**** YOU!"

Yeah, I'm glad I never lived there.