SC DebateFollow

You also don't see me arguing that Dems are useless because they failed to pass that new spending bill that would increase some demand side spending program or other, now do you? I call them useless because they're *trying* to pass spending bills that I don't agree with. I support the "obstructionist" Republicans in Congress.


You also have not seen me trying to argue that Hillary Clinton isn't really a Liberal because she didn't pass enough bills in Congress that support the Liberal political agenda either. Nor have I ever made that claim because she voted for the war in Iraq. I mention this just to show how absolutely silly Smash's approach to this topic is. Does he actually think that he's going to somehow sway conservatives into voting Democrat because the Republican candidates "aren't conservative enough"?


No candidate is ever going to match my own personal political positions 100%. I don't see it as some sort of disaster. I'm frankly not sure why Smash seems to insist that I must...

Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 3:17pm by gbaji

So when the party in power is blocked from a bill you don't like, they're useless and when they're blocked from a bill you do like, they're just poor sad abused lambs; not a useless Congress at all.

At least you admit your hypocrisy.

No. I very clearly stated that a Congress that repeatedly attempts to pass bills I don't agree with is useless. Obviously, if they succeed in passing said laws, they're upgraded from "useless" to "counterproductive".

Why is it that after I just got done clarifying that, you still repeated the wrong assumption that I'd already corrected.




Huh? I didn't say anything remotely like this. If they're blocked from passing a bill I do like, then they're trying to do the right thing, but weren't able to.


The point being missed in all of this, is that while the Republicans didn't decrease spending, they also didn't vote in any *new* spending either. So, while the budgets for most things continued to grow based on previously set schedules and they were unable to stop this, it's pretty reasonable to assume that had Dems been in charge during that time period, we'd have seen a whole slew of new spending bills that would have pushed our budget costs even higher.


I'll also point out that they *did* lower taxes. Significantly. Which, as I pointed out earlier is the bigger issue. It's about reducing the burden of government on the people. You guys seem fixated on the one aspect of conservative fiscal policy that they weren't able to achieve, while ignoring the significant gains they did make.

You're also missing that these are "conservatives". Status quo is a victory for us on something like fiscal policy. You're trying to apply liberal measurements to something that isn't liberal. We win if we *don't* pass new spending bills. Get it?



No hypocrisy at all. You're trying to judge my positions as though I were a liberal. I'm not Joph. When will you get this? It's not about positions on issues. It's not about being "for" something and doing everything you can to push that agenda, nor being "against" something else and doing the same in reverse. Conservatives are not liberals with an opposing agenda. We actually have completely different views as to how the federal process should be used.


How many times do I have to explain this to you before you get it? You keep trying to measure Conservatives by liberal standards and end up being confused. Your problem is that you really don't understand what conservatives believe and *why* they believe those things. Don't worry though. I'll keep trying to explain it to you. Maybe one day you'll get it...

Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 3:49pm by gbaji

When the taxpayers are footing the bill for each failed attempt, yes. I would much rather they spend their time in Congress (which I'm paying for) to accomplish things that are within their grasp then continually waste time and money calling votes on things they know wont pass.


See, it's that whole "burden of government on the people" thing again that you're not quite grasping.

Both sides have the same number of those sorts of resolutions Joph. That's meaningless. Kinda like arguing that Red shoes are better then black shoes because you have to tie the laces on black shoes.


In fact, the entire argument is kinda like that. I've yet to hear even an attempt at an argument showing that Democrat politics are "better" then Republican. It's been entirely about pointing out things about Republicans that aren't "perfect".


Surprise! I know that. I don't expect them to be perfect. However, I know for a fact that they're better then the Democrats and that's what really matters. ;)

Huh? It's not about fault Joph. But it doesn't make them "not conservatives" if they didn't succeed at cutting spending. And it certainly doesn't make me suddenly want to see Dems in charge of everything.


Which was the absurd argument made by Smash that started this whole thing.



You're changing the subject in order to avoid that issue, but even in terms of responsibility I don't see your point. It's not irresponsibility to recognize the things you can and can't accomplish and focus on succeeding at the ones you can. I'd argue that shows greater responsibility, not less. You recognize that the public has put power into your hands for the next two years, and you make a choice to utilize that time as efficiently as possible.


How is that not responsible governing Joph? I'd say a group that keeps trying to do the same thing over and over despite continual failure is being irresponsible. How many resolutions to remove troops from Iraq did we see last year? Were they not wastes of time?

Maybe you and I simply have a different definition of "responsible" here?

I don't care about that issue. I was just laughing at you for your usual blame-shifting. Carry on.

Rrwarr!!

WTH?