Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't get how the Economist can be called "center-right" when they endorsed Obama and are open-borders trans-nationalists.
The Economist is a "Neocon" magazine, and that's not really the same thing as "center-right" to anyone but Crypto-Leninists.
The Economist is indeed centre-right, that is one of the reasons I read it. I'm left when it comes to justice issues but right when it comes to economics. If you read the magazine you will see they are truly fair and balanced - unlike others who claim to be. They will point out the problems with either side in a situation - sometimes they throw their support behind the conservative position, others the more liberal.
If more news agencies reported on the news like The Economist, the quality of information at hand would be magnified immensely.
Makes perfect sense. This is a terrible precedent, and if they want to change it, they need to do it the way the legislative system works, not through this circus.
Where was your concern for the process, when the Senate passed Obamacare before the House, in violation of the Constitution?
btw, the curren tprocess, IS how it works.. And ALWAYS HAS.. stop whining..
Of course. Intellectuals in America and the world over recognize that you can't have a system founded on the idea that recognized laws of the land should be passed through various legislative, executive, and judicial bodies by elected officials, only to then enable a minority to demand that said laws be invalidated upon threaten economic harm. That is NOT what the founding fathers ever intended. They intended for the process by which bills are voted on and passed to be respected, and for the process to reform or repeal such laws to go through the same channels. The power of the purse was intended as a check against unrestrained spending, and that is a legitimate area of pushback; it was not intended as a de facto way around legislation by a disgruntled minority.
But you can't tell this to tea party conservative types, because they are not intellectuals. They don't have much knowledge of the Constitution they claim to defend; they don't even have much common sense. They are basically thugs who see no further than the end of their nose in terms of their policy. "I WANT ACA gone - so I'll DEMAND it at whatever price!"
What will happen when down the road one day, a Democratic minority threatens US shutdown and default if the presiding Republicans don't repeal bills on tax breaks? Or demand comprehensive background checks?
What the Republicans are doing is basically saying, "We don't care what bills you passed into law; we will demand a result at the threat of national harm, even though we are in the minority."
Of course. Intellectuals in America and the world over recognize that you can't have a system founded on the idea that recognized laws of the land should be passed through various legislative, executive, and judicial bodies by elected officials, only to then enable a minority to demand that said laws be invalidated upon threaten economic harm. That is NOT what the founding fathers ever intended. They intended for the process by which bills are voted on and passed to be respected, and for the process to reform or repeal such laws to go through the same channels. The power of the purse was intended as a check against unrestrained spending, and that is a legitimate area of pushback; it was not intended as a de facto way around legislation by a disgruntled minority.
But you can't tell this to tea party conservative types, because they are not intellectuals. They don't have much knowledge of the Constitution they claim to defend; they don't even have much common sense. They are basically thugs who see no further than the end of their nose in terms of their policy. "I WANT ACA gone - so I'll DEMAND it at whatever price!"
What will happen when down the road one day, a Democratic minority threatens US shutdown and default if the presiding Republicans don't repeal bills on tax breaks? Or demand comprehensive background checks?
What the Republicans are doing is basically saying, "We don't care what bills you passed into law; we will demand a result at the threat of national harm, even though we are in the minority."
That is not representative democracy.
Actually it is a representative Democracy, you're just whining about it.. How did you feel when Democrats threatened a shut down over tax cuts? I bet that was ok to you..
The article is hardly a conservative viewpoint. It reeks of being disingenuous.
Bottom line is that America cannot continue on its current course and the Democrats in their infinite stupidity just don't see that. But no one ever said they were smart. Printing more money and creating more debt are recipes for failure.
- Slash discretionary spending (including defense) by 33% every month.
- Cut mandatory spending (such as spending on Social Security) by 16% every month.
- Raise taxes by 12% every month.
- Or some combination of all three
All this raving about delaying Obamacare is nothing but a diversion.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-08-2013 at 06:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
