Conquer Club

This isn't a thread about the U.S. constitution, you two - get a room. This is a thread about whether anyone has actually been impacted by the lack of a government.

According to the non-scientific poll, 83% of Conquer Club members lives are no different without a government than they were with a government.

Anyway, I'm only getting 10 up-votes on this one, so please go and help me out.

saxitoxin wrote:This isn't a thread about the U.S. constitution, you two - get a room. This is a thread about whether anyone has actually been impacted by the lack of a homicidal U.S. government.

According to the non-scientific poll, 83% of Conquer Club members lives are no different without a homicidal U.S. government than they were with a homicidal U.S. government.

Anyway, I'm only getting 10 up-votes on this one, so please go and help me out.

I have a thing for Ezra

But yeah, I have been impacted. There is a statue downtown that I wanted to go see today, but when I got there, I discovered the government paid someone to put a $1,400 dollar orange sign in front of the Hubert H Humphrey artwork and it said

Due to the government shut down, this statue is closed. Don't even think about looking at it!

Phatscotty wrote:There is a statue downtown that I wanted to go see today, but when I got there, I discovered the government paid someone to put a $1,400 dollar orange sign in front of the Hubert H Humphrey artwork and it said

So did you have to go see the Mary Tyler Moore statue instead?

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:There is a statue downtown that I wanted to go see today, but when I got there, I discovered the government paid someone to put a $1,400 dollar orange sign in front of the Hubert H Humphrey artwork and it said

So did you have to go see the Mary Tyler Moore statue instead?

No. I pretended like I was reading a text on my phone, and when I was sure nobody was watching me, I snuck a look at it!

guess they're not as concerned about "THE PARKS!" as their press releases say

The White House rejected a plan to reopen portions of the U.S. government on Tuesday as the first shutdown in 17 years closed landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and threw hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work. The plan would restore funding for national parks, veterans services, and the District of Columbia. Other government services would remain unfunded. While the selective funding approach appeared to unite conservative and moderate Republicans for now, the White House said Obama would veto it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... 1220131001

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:Hey Saxi, it's the Narnia with President "Mittens" Romney in the Oval Office.

I'm not a Democrat greekdog. Is that a trick question, What's the difference between intervening in Iraq and intervening in Syria?

You type like a Democrat. You seem to be enamored with Democrats and with the president.

I don't know what the difference is between intervening in Syria and Iraq.

It seems like everyone's favorite ad hominem attack lately is to say that someone supports President Obama or the Democrats. Come on guys, find a more interesting irrelevant comment.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a stand-in for having to argue hypocrisy. If you'd like, I can just say oVo is being a hypocrit (which is essentially what he's calling Phatscotty and company - rightfully so, I might add).

like clockwork! haha

How am I a hypocrite? I had not even commented in this thread yet...

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I don't know what you mean there you will have to elaborate a little bit. I would say it's common sense that anyone who wished to change the Constitution already feels like they disagree with something in it, but it could also be improving something or adding something to deal with some major future technology that changes everything. It's one thing to propose an amendment and have a vote on it, but Ezra is talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Freedom of speech is not outdated, and neither is a lot of other stuff in the Constitution. If there is a problem, there is a process to go about dealing with it.

The last time the Constitution was amended in a way that fundamentally changed the nation was 1920. We can't even get Congress to keep the government funded -- getting it (or 3/4 of the states) to agree on a amendment that effects meaningful change is pretty much a non-starter in today's political climate. Therefore it's not really practical to suggest that we should amend the Constitution if we want to change it.

It is practical. There is nothing more simple and pure than if we want to amend the Constitution, a great majority of the people have to be on board. Sounds perfect to me. If you can't get 3/4 of the states, then it should not be amended. It's a big deal, and there is no room for 26 states trying to force the other 24 states to live under their version of our rights.

I like that it's hard to amend it, and that's the way it was meant to be. The Constitution itself is a document that limits the government, says what the government cannot do. Progressives don't like that because they want negative Liberty. That's what the problem is, Progressives want the Constitution to be the opposite of what is it.

Quick questions to anyone:

Will a government shutdown hurt Republicans? How much will it hurt them? I've heard a few Democrats today saying "Thank you Republicans" and "Republicans just handed us the 2014 elections!"

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Your reading comprehension is flawed. I assume it's because you're supportive of the piece, but that would mean I'm using an ad hominem. The piece is a commentary on hypocrisy. It's a valid commentary on hypocrisy, but it is also hypocritical. Here's how you can tell the piece is about hypocrisy (apart from, you know, Ezra Klein):

Ezra wrote:But imagine if the Republican Party had won the 2012 election and Senate Democrats threatened to breach the debt ceiling and cause a financial crisis unless Republicans added a public option to the Affordable Care Act. Does anyone think a President Mitt Romney would find that position reasonable? Does anyone think that position would be reasonable?

It poses a what if (Romney and Senate Democrats) and asks the reader whether he or she would find the same thing reasonable. If the answer is no, then the reader should find the current situation unreasonable. And therefore the reader would be a hypocrit if he or she did find the current situation reasonable.

This is a piece of logical reasoning that attempts to show you, by analogy, why you should hold a certain belief. If someone found the current situation reasonable but not the alternative reality situation, then yes -- one could construct a basis for accusing that person of hypocrisy. That doesn't make the statement a "commentary on hypocrisy." And you have yet to demonstrate why the statement itself is hypocritical (note: that is different from saying that Ezra Klein is a hypocrite). This is of course meaningless - a statement cannot be hypocritical, only a person.

I could have just as easily repackaged that quote, changed a few words, and posted it as my own. Would you have actually responded to it then?

Yes. I would have responded that you make a great point. Conservatives and their favored politicians are being hypocritical because if the roles were reversed... etc.

I've outlined above the salient point. If you want to continue to pick nits, go ahead. I've used what I know about Ezra Klein and my own reading comprehension to conclude, reasonably, that Ezra Klein is attempting to make readers feel hypocritical. Which, in and of itself, is hypoctrical given that if the roles were reversed for Mr. Klein, he would be doing exactly what the Republicans are doing.

Night Strike wrote:

Gillipig wrote:How would the goverment earn on people saving their money and not spending it?

Because unfortunately our government takes our money BEFORE we get the chance to either save it or spend it.

You're talking to a Swede, they take EVERYTHING we earn and give us fucking coupons to things we need, well almost, point intended was that your goverment leave you with a lot more economic freedom than ours does.
Still, the government doesn't want people to save money, they want them to spend it to increase commerce. So they don't want you to hold on to what you have, they want you to not have enough money to pay the bills if you're out of a job for a week, that way they get the maximum out of you.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I concur, Ezra Klein is a horrible person to source, unless you are a Progressive. He said straight up "the Constitution is outdated an we should get rid of it"

You know who else thought that?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

Ezra Klein and Tommy J had completely different outcomes in mind. Tommy J's plan would attempt to sync the general interest more closely with the role of government; this is like a substitute which brings us closer toward having a Real social contract.

Ezra Klein wants to do away with many constraints on government by replacing the Constitution with her own.

Very much different, Mets.

Ezra Klein is a guy.

thegreekdog wrote:Ezra Klein is a guy.

He can be a dildo for all I care.

So i went to download maps of Mercury`s polar regions to plan my vacation home and, as mets pointed out, Nasa is down. Really? Wikipedia is still up. Crowdsource that.

Goverment is the worst way to achieve any means, unless the means you want to achieve is genocide. Then it is reasonable.

I though it was going to be more difficult for them to eliminate the government and currency of the United States of America.

BigBallinStalin wrote:He can be a dildo for all I care.

Don't be a dick BBS.

Due to the lapse in government funding, only websites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted.

Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at http://www.usa.gov. Revised October 1, 2013.

Ezra Klein is not a respectable commentator. He doesn't seek truth but rather wishes to rail on about how awesome Democrats are. This kind of reasoning in a democracy promotes partisanship at the cost of foregoing rational and informed debate. Therefore, Ezra Klein is a dildo.

No amount of moral shaming can refute this; however, I will admit that Bill Maher is a bigger dildo, if that makes you feel better.

I don't follow Ezra Klein, know or care what his politics are, but posted his "imagine" remarks because I found them to be interesting beyond the typical parroting on the subject. If he has a constitution manifesto, no fashion sense or is rumored to pee sitting down is of no consequence to me.

Phatscotty wrote:If there is a problem, there is a process to go about dealing with it.

With this Government now shut down... can we have a do over?
Hold nationwide Congressional Elections and sack the incumbent
log jam currently bogged down in Washington.

Or at least cancel their $200 lunches and get takeout from McDonalds
Golden Arches until this shut down is resolved.


and still get paid with the government closed.

Phatscotty wrote:Quick questions to anyone:

Will a government shutdown hurt Republicans?

Science says it won't really hurt anyone -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164714/history-suggests-shutdown-stakes-may-not-high.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

Americans already view Congress itself -- and the Republicans and Democrats who are part of it -- very poorly, meaning there is not much room for their perceptions of the legislative branch to worsen further. President Obama may have more to lose, in a way. His approval rating has been somewhere in the 40% range throughout September and was 44% on Monday, according to Gallup Daily tracking conducted Sept. 27-29.

The reason for the shutdown probably has little to do with Obamacare today and more to do with next year's midterm election -

One thing, though, that is likely to change, at least in the short term, is Americans' perceptions of the most important problem facing the nation. The budget rose to the top of Americans' most important problem list in January 1996, overtaking crime, which had been the No. 1 problem throughout 1994 and 1995 and returned to the top of the list by May 1996, after the budget issues subsided.

Both U.S. parties use a limited playbook of two communications theories in all their actions - agenda-setting and inoculation. In this case, Republicans are activating the agenda-setting process to sideline social issues - which they always lose at - and re-frame national priorities to budget issues, which they've had more success convincing the public about, in advance of the midterm elections -

Agenda-setting theory describes the "ability [of the news media] to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda." That is, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently the audience will regard the issue as more important. Bernard Cohen observed that the press "may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about. The world will look different to different people," Cohen continues, "depending on the map that is drawn for them by writers, editors, and publishers of the paper they read."

Agenda-setting is the creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news media. Two basic assumptions underlie most research on agenda-setting: (1) the press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it; (2) media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues. One of the most critical aspects in the concept of an agenda-setting role of mass communication is the time frame for this phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory

The shutdown is a classic use of the agenda-setting process by the GOP to force media into adopting a desired reporting frame. After they surrender next week, Republicans will take a hit in public opinion they've already planned for/anticipated. By November 2014, however, the details of events today will have evaporated from minds. All that will be left is a broad sense of economic unease [to use a backdoor analogy, this is the lubrication] on which Republicans will capitalize to move a balanced budget amendment [penetration], and then ride the built-in popularity of that to electoral success [climax]. Without the Shutdown a BBA would have come out of the blue [rough entry] as a solution to a non-existent problem and the public would have pushed away.

Democrats, for their part, will attempt to overcome the GOP agenda-setting through their own agenda-setting, however, much of their turf - like DADT and DOMA - has recently been played to conclusion. They will need to engineer a catalyst event (like the GOP did with the shutdown) that will suddenly whip people into a frenzy about, say, the ERA. Resurrection of the ERA could definitely redirect Fall 2014 media from an economic to a social priorities frame. They've tried to do that with guns but failed since catalyst events (mass shootings) are too unpredictable to plan for and can't be artificially organized.

oVo wrote:can we have a do over?

ummm ... there's a do-over every 2 years; the next one is scheduled for 13 months from now

oVo wrote:Hold nationwide Congressional Elections

If you had a nationwide vote, instead of district votes, you'd end up with:

Democrat Party - 212 seats (48.74% of nationwide HoR vote in 2012)
Republican Party - 208 seats (47.58% of nationwide HoR vote in 2012)
Libertarian Party - 5 seats (1.12% of nationwide HoR vote in 2012)
Green Party, Constitution Party, Independents - 10 seats (remainders of nationwide HoR vote in 2012)

So a right-leaning coalition would probably still have a voting majority since the Democrats only had a sliver plurality of the popular vote, not a majority, in 2012. But, of course, this 8-Inch Dick fantasy where Democrats represent a majority of the American people except they've been cheated by the voting system, is only sustainable if you constantly tweak and modify your definition of an ideal voting system to produce the outcome that supports your thesis (in 2010, for instance, Republicans had an absolute majority in congressional elections by total vote - in the 1984 Senate elections, Democrats got a majority of seats but only had a minority of the vote).

It's a silly revenge fantasy panted out by people whose blood vessels are literally popping out of their foreheads they've been whipped into such a mouth-frothing, wild frenzy by the Democrats or Republicans Madison Ave. ad agencies and their conduits like Ezra Klein and Sean Hannity.

The House is passing several spending bills now along to the Senate to pay for separate sections of government. Attempting to fund one section at a time.

All have thus far been refused for vote by the Senate. It's an "all or nothing" plan for them.

It doesn't matter that they refuse to vote so as to pay for veterans' benefits and other essential programs. Nobody's paying attention to the details and God knows you're not going to hear about it on the news.

When was the last time we actually had a budget, as opposed to a "Continuing Resolution"? Anybody remember?

> EDIT: April 29, 2009 was the last time a budget was passed. I just checked. Over 4 years... wow.

oVo wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:If there is a problem, there is a process to go about dealing with it.

With this Government now shut down... can we have a do over?
Hold nationwide Congressional Elections and sack the incumbent
log jam currently bogged down in Washington.

Or at least cancel their $200 lunches and get takeout from McDonalds
Golden Arches until this shut down is resolved.


and still get paid with the government closed.

Everyone agrees both parties suck and are broken.
The Republicans have already woke up and have been rebuilding their party for a couple election cycles already.
The Democrats hopefully get a wake up call in 2014. There are a dozen or so Tea Party Democrat candidates seeking office now. I will be supporting them.