Obama slams Republicans for threat to blow up entire economy

[Seabass]

Congress approval rating is at an all time low of 10%. And this is before the shutdown.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/ ... -approval/

Is this a generalised dislike of politicians?

Well, sort of. The 10% approval rating is specific to Congress. State and local politicians, potus, and even individual members of congress show better poll numbers, but I think it's fair to say that a 10% Congress approval rating is a pretty clear indication that Merkins are fed up with politics and politicians in general right now.

[Tero]

You know how all those panhandlers always carry signs about how they're veterans, they need to support their children, etc.? The other day, I ran into one carrying a sign saying, "Why lie? I need a drink."

I had to give him a few dollars for his honesty.

I always meet some poor family with a run down car who need money to go some place. Today it was Chicago. The car would not have made it to Chicago.

[Seth]

The point is that what you say the "common parlance" is and what it actually is are two different things. Those who spout "democracy" at every turn don't mean or support a republic bound and guided by a constitution which limits both the power and scope of the government, but also restricts the "democratic" decisions of the collective. "Democrats" today are people who want things their way, and only their way, and are unwilling to acknowledge, recognize or respect the rights of others when and where those rights conflict with the "democratic" party line.

Therefore, to say that "democracy" is a good thing is to say that the tyranny of the majority is a good thing, which it's not.

It means what it means in modern English usage. That's what the words mean.

No, it means what the individual speaking or writing the words wants it to mean. The problem occurs when one person uses a word with the intent to MISuse that word in order to obfuscate, pettifog, obscure or conceal the actual meaning he or she intends. Particularly pernicious is the Marxist/socialist propensity of deliberately misusing words in the wrong context as a method of socially re-defining the word or term to suit their particular political objectives. That's precisely what's going on with "democracy" and "civil rights" and "social justice" right now. What it means to Joe Average Plumber is not what the Marxists want it to mean, so they keep telling the Big Lie until the term is redefined by osmosis and social inertia.

As I said, the left defines democracy significantly differently, and variably, than the dictionary does, and it does so for a specific political reason.

What you're actually saying is that what it means, and what it may have meant in some other place and time are two different things. Yes, indeed, the meanings of words change and evolve over time. Today, democracy means what I wrote. Look it up in any of the major dictionaries.

I disagree.

Some people do, when they spout "democracy", mean and support a republic bound and guided by a constitution. Others don't. The words democracy and republic cover a broad array of forms of government, and before one knows what another person is spouting about, one needs to ask them what they mean.

Wrong. It's extremely important to examine the underlying motives and arguments when parsing politically-motivated speech. Anybody who knows anything about politics or politicians knows that.

I wish there were some law saying you have to use the correct term for something, because every fucking democrat in the US would be in jail right now.

There are some people who think that there should be no individual rights, and that the majority, even in areas of religion and speech and whatnot, ought to win the day in every case. But, that's not many people. Most people, when they say they like democracy also like the idea that the majority can't vote about who they have consensual sex with, and what political beliefs they hold and express, etc.

Right, most "useful idiots" aren't smart enough or concerned enough to bother thinking even that superficially about it. They want what they want, and will support any politician who promises them what they want at the lowest (preferably no) cost to them. That's what Tytler told us 200 years ago and it's coming to pass as surely as entropy worldwide.

We, the US, is not a "pure" democracy in the sense of a democracy where the people directly vote on all issues, and the majority rules come what may. But, then again, such a society has never existed in the history of mankind, and to be a "democracy" a government need not be that. A representative republic is, in fact, a democracy under modern English usage.

Depends on who's using the word and for what purpose.

And, I'll add that for the last 200+ years the English usage has been much the same -- here, a quick google revealed this dictionary from 1828 -- http://books.google.com/books?id=z3kKAA ... &q&f=false - look up democracy. All it says is that the sovereign power lodged in the collective body of the people.

Like I said, tyranny of the majority.

Here is Samuel Johnson's diction from the late 1700s - http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAA ... &q&f=false - it says that "democracy" is one of the three forms of government, that in which the sovereign power is lodged in the body of the people. The "three forms of government" referred to there were "autocracy", "oligopoly" and "democracy." So, before and after the founding of the US, English usage was that the United States was, in fact, a "democracy."

And Samuel Johnson is the undisputed authority on the forms of government how, exactly?

[Seth]

I said shouldn't give money to panhandlers because if you worked in social services you'd know they're just going to buy booze, or whatever their drug of choice is.

I call that "liberty." If that's what they want to do, who am I to impose my will upon them?

Where I live, they can go to a shelter and get 3 squares a day if they wanted to.

Yup. Same here. The hard-core "homeless" live that way by choice and it's incredibly difficult to get them into a "program" because they live like that precisely because they can't and don't want to be "programmed."

As long as they ASK for what they need or want, and they don't hurt or rob others, I'm fine letting them live and die free. They are by and large much more free than any of us.

Which is not to say that such freedom is without cost.

[pErvinalia]

The point is that what you say the "common parlance" is and what it actually is are two different things. Those who spout "democracy" at every turn don't mean or support a republic bound and guided by a constitution which limits both the power and scope of the government, but also restricts the "democratic" decisions of the collective. "Democrats" today are people who want things their way, and only their way, and are unwilling to acknowledge, recognize or respect the rights of others when and where those rights conflict with the "democratic" party line.

Therefore, to say that "democracy" is a good thing is to say that the tyranny of the majority is a good thing, which it's not.

It means what it means in modern English usage. That's what the words mean.

No, it means what the individual speaking or writing the words wants it to mean. The problem occurs when one person uses a word with the intent to MISuse that word in order to obfuscate, pettifog, obscure or conceal the actual meaning he or she intends.

A bit like "Marxism".

[pErvinalia]

I wish there were some law saying you have to use the correct term for something, because every fucking democrat in the US would be in jail right now.

As I keep saying, you aren't really a libertarian.

[Bella Fortuna]

Some great commentary by Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... l-o-reilly

[Seth]

I wish there were some law saying you have to use the correct term for something, because every fucking democrat in the US would be in jail right now.

As I keep saying, you aren't really a libertarian.

Hey, the fucking democrats are, and have been for decades, initiating both force and fraud against me, and everyone else, and nothing in Libertarianism prevents us from taking defensive and compensatory action against them.

[Tyrannical]

The House should add to the budget bill that Obama has no authority to pick and choose what parts of Obama care to implement. Something oddly not already apparent to the former "constitutional law professor"

No more Obama exceptions, so business fines start Jan 1st 2014. I bet then it'd get repealed real fast.

[Ian]

The House should add to the budget bill that Obama has no authority to pick and choose what parts of Obama care to implement. Something oddly not already apparent to the former "constitutional law professor"

No more Obama exceptions, so business fines start Jan 1st 2014. I bet then it'd get repealed real fast.

I take it you didn't notice the Supreme Court decisions of last year?

[pErvinalia]

The Supreme Court is a Marxist collective.

[Ian]

Marxism is rampant in 'Merka, y'know.

[cronus]

Marxism is rampant in 'Merka, y'know.

At least it's something you might be able to export?

[mistermack]

It's a fuckin stupid system you've got there. What's happening is what's bound to happen.
People naturally want things, but don't want to pay for them. That's human nature.
So they vote for a president who promises them things, and vote for a congress who say they will tax them less.

This is going to go on for years. If the situation gets reversed, the Democrats will block a Republican president's spending too.
They will feel that they have every right to do so. And who could argue against it?

But you're more likely to get this situation, with Democrats in the White House, and Republicans controlling Congress.
Good luck with that.

[Tyrannical]

The House should add to the budget bill that Obama has no authority to pick and choose what parts of Obama care to implement. Something oddly not already apparent to the former "constitutional law professor"

No more Obama exceptions, so business fines start Jan 1st 2014. I bet then it'd get repealed real fast.

I take it you didn't notice the Supreme Court decisions of last year?

What in particular? Was it mentioned that Obama could arbitrarily decide what parts are to be enforced and what parts ignored? Some new line item veto that may be used at anytime?

I think Rand Paul has a smart strategy, if we are stuck with Obama care then we are stuck with all of it until Congress amends it legally.