What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
Slavery's a bad example because that was all or nothing, and the "nothing" option on abortion only polls at 19%.

This seems to follow the typical social splits on issues of sexuality. It's a significant split, but it's not going to start any civil wars.

I think the only thing that could come to the level of slavery would be repeal of the second amendment or removal of the tax exempt status for churches, neither of which will happen in the next fifty years.
Click to expand...

The former will happen soon, albeit via the back door. United Nations proposals have been sent to the Senate, the most recent one of which received above 1/2 yes votes (although less than the 2/3 required for ratification), and that may have trumped the second amendment. There's no such thing as sovereign nations any more, in fact associating yourself with the word sovereign will earn you a one-way ticket to the gulag, as military exercises in California have displayed.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

LynahFan said:
Where are you going with this analogy? Do you think there will be events, forces, or movements that will change most people's views to pro-life? Cause I don't see that at all.
Click to expand...

There certainly have been movements to cause viewpoint changes in at one direction, so it is entirely possible to push it in another direction, especially if we start to come to a point where our species is dying out. It's one of the basic principles of evolution.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Kepler said:
AIPAC. It's a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but did a 12 year old write this article? Well, I shouldn't insult 12 year olds like that. No #$% Schumer was going to oppose this deal. It would have been shocking had he backed it, although my guess is he already knows Reid has the votes to uphold the veto so he (and Menendez most likely) are on safe ground.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Rover said:
I'm sorry but did a 12 year old write this article? Well, I shouldn't insult 12 year olds like that. No #$% Schumer was going to oppose this deal. It would have been shocking had he backed it, although my guess is he already knows Reid has the votes to uphold the veto so he (and Menendez most likely) are on safe ground.
Click to expand...

Schumer's up for re-election in 2016. As much as it is a good thing to oppose the nuclear deal, he is clearly trying to pander for votes. Any other session, he would never stray from party lines.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Schumer's up for re-election in 2016. As much as it is a good thing to oppose the nuclear deal, he is clearly trying to pander for votes. Any other session, he would never stray from party lines.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The article is written like this is a shocking event. :rolleyes: If he truly wanted to sink the deal, he wouldn't have announced his opposition while the rest of the political world was watching The Donald in his first debate.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

FlagDUDE08 said:
Schumer's up for re-election in 2016. As much as it is a good thing to oppose the nuclear deal, he is clearly trying to pander for votes. Any other session, he would never stray from party lines.
Click to expand...



Yup.
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Rover said:
Yup.
Click to expand...

So nice, you had to respond twice? ;)

Ever notice how, in politics, they only do controversial things when "their job is safe", but only start compromising when an election is coming up? It isn't limited to Congress, either. Any sort of contracted employment is the same way.

"I was too busy trying to keep my job that I forgot to do my job." -- Andrew Shepard, "The American President"
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

FlagDUDE08 said:
So nice, you had to respond twice? ;)

Ever notice how, in politics, they only do controversial things when "their job is safe", but only start compromising when an election is coming up? It isn't limited to Congress, either. Any sort of contracted employment is the same way.

"I was too busy trying to keep my job that I forgot to do my job." -- Andrew Shepard, "The American President"
Click to expand...

Yeah specifically to Schumer he's not exactly a Profile in Courage on this one. If he legitimately disagrees, fine but I think he's pandering to his constituents and likes those all expenses paid by AIPAC trips to Israel too much to give that up! ;)
 
Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

LynahFan said:
I tried to warn you.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You only said it was skewed, and I could tell after a paragraph that it was a partisan reach around. But there are ways of doing that effectively and intelligently -- Chesterton was a master at making ostensibly intellectual arguments for his prejudices. Plenty of people from Churchill to Pat have used historical analogy to further purely partisan rhetoric, but with style, grace, and even a wink. Ironically, the very guy at the center of the quoted piece, Cicero, is the patron saint of that sort of hack job: "say it with footnotes."

But that piece was about as subtle as a Jack Chick tract at mangling history to gore a rather silly personal ox.
 
Kepler said:
No you didn't. You only said it was skewed, and I could tell after a paragraph that it was a partisan reach around. But there are ways of doing that effectively and intelligently -- Chesterton was a master at making ostensibly intellectual arguments for his prejudices. Plenty of people from Churchill to Pat have used historical analogy to further purely partisan rhetoric, but with style, grace, and even a wink. Ironically, the very guy at the center of the quoted piece, Cicero, is the patron saint of that sort of hack job: "say it with footnotes."

But that piece was about as subtle as a Jack Chick tract at mangling history to gore a rather silly personal ox.
Click to expand...
The fact that I failed doesn't mean I didn't try! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top