Us Gov "shutdown" Appears Imminent

[havok579257]

Which prison did the murderer go to?

 

And the point was that the government will not shut down the operations that consist of violence. Parks? Yes. Kill machine? No. Speaks volumes to me about the nature of the State.

 

 

Lets not derail this topic with more arguments for anarchy capitalism ok.  If you don't like the current form of government either move away or run for congress and get the government changed to what you believe is moral.  Although either way, let's not derail this topic, ok?

[KnightofChrist]

Here is the thing about the way things are done right now with the shut down.  Your for republicans using this tactic of government shutdown to get what they believe is the moral thing.  So would you also be ok with democrats using this same tactic 5 years from now to get sweeping gun control?  Not saying you support gun control but you would be supporting democrats ability to use this tactic to get sweeping gun control.  If your not for them using this same tactic for things they believe is morally right, then its hypocritical of you.  If your in full support of democrats using this same tactic for sweeping gun control in 5 years, then your not being hypocritical.  So do you support democrats using this same shutdown tactic to pass something they believe is morally right?

 

I would not support the same tactic to be used for sweeping gun control, only because I do not support sweeping gun control. But I would agree that Congress, both houses, would still have the Constitutional power of the purse. If the Democrats wanted to defund or delay a pro-gun law they could, but I wouldn't support it. I also do not see how the same tactic would work for them, there are no pro-gun laws that are comparable to Obamacare. I don't see any law that forces citizens by the mere fact that they exist to buy a gun.

Edited October 4, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

Lets not derail this topic with more arguments for anarchy capitalism ok.  If you don't like the current form of government either move away or run for congress and get the government changed to what you believe is moral.  Although either way, let's not derail this topic, ok?

This is an excellent time to point out the nature of our government. I didn't call for anarchism, I just pointed out the nature of the criminal syndicate.

[Winchester]

I would not support the same tactic to be used for sweeping gun control, only because I do not support sweeping gun control. But I would agree that Congress, both houses, would still have the Constitutional power of the purse. If the Democrats wanted to defund or delay a pro-gun law they could, but I wouldn't support it. I also do not see how the same tactic would work for them, there are no pro-gun laws that are comparable to Obamacare. I don't see any law that forces citizens by the mere fact that they exist to buy a gun.

 

 

They don't really force you to buy insurance (from a private company, no less. The Democrats hate corporations so much that they exact revenge if you don't buy stuff from them), they just threaten you with punishment if you don't.

 

 

Nothing like common thugs. No. Not at all.

[BG45]

Boehner has signaled he will look for a broader deal and cease his focus on the health care law.  Meanwhile, the Presidential portrait is apparently essential business, because President Obama is having it done today, on day three of the government shutdown.

 

CC, thanks for the kind words.  You hit what I was trying to get at with suffering and death and I just failed to be as clear I guess!  My fear is that this thread ends up becoming what every political thread on PM eventually boils down to...the same arguments (on both sides) by the same pholks about abortion, the legitimacy of the state, etc. with maybe something else thrown in like same sex marriage somehow.

 

When the government shuts down, it cuts out the low cost actions that don't involve killing people. All the killy parts of the government are still open. They will still blow your wife's head off if you cut a shotgun down below the magical permitted length. They will still burn children alive to save them from cults. They will still execute 16 year old boys who had a dad who was a terrorist.

 

But government is here to protect us.

 

Right.

 

Don't seem to think I mentioned anything about protecting us?  The "security"/armed portions of government are very much still open for business.  The NASA SWAT team, for instance, is one of the few groups of people there who are part of the 3% of 'essential' personnel.  The active duty military personnel, also still being paid as essential (unlike National Guard and Reserves).  It's almost as if Congress is smart enough to realize what happens to empires whose military goes unpaid...

 

Point One: That is good. But you're not going to support fighting the unjust law now and in the way it is being fought now. So how would you support getting rid of the law later? I don't see any way that would not lead to yet another shutdown, or some other crisis. The left are not going to give up without a bitter fight. They are not going to buckle at the knees. So when and how, what's the better plan and how can you be assured that he left will not just cause another shutdown or some similar crisis when that plan is attempted. To be frank I don't think you can. I don't think there is any way to avoid this kind of crisis, no matter what plan is used. I think what would happen is the same thing that is happening now, people on our side will cave and give in and the left will win yet again.

 
 

Point Two:  That will not be happening this month, WIC has been funded (thankfully) through the rest of the month.
 

If both sides would work together and piecemeal fund these programs this wouldn't be happening. One side wants to fund them, the other side refuses. Hopefully both sides will agree to fund Head Start.
 
 

Point Three:  Again the House tried to send funding, the Senate refused to do so. Other than Harry Reid, who you want the House to surrender to, I'm not sure whom exactly you're referring to about whining.
 

Point Four:  So if it wasn't for the shutdown this poor lady would not have tried to ram her car into the White House barriers, and the Capital? I hope you are not saying that. I want these programs to be funded. I do not want people to suffer. But again there is only one side that refuses to comprise. Yet most of the blame (by the media and those that still trust it) is being put on the House. The House has compromised, even with itself going from a total defunding of Obamacare to a delay. The Senate and the White House have rejected any real compromise and demand the House surrender completely.

Point One:  Yes, I am aware I am a Catholic first instead of a Republican or a democrat.  I owe my allegiance to Christ and His Church, not the Republicans or the Democrats.  This means that I don't have all the answers when it comes to matters of faith and how to handle the crises of life and governance.  I can pray, I can listen to my conscience, but in the end, the ruling class are going to do what the ruling class and their corporate owners decide to do.  I agree that the GOP has failed to repeal the law time and again, but this move on their part will not be successful either.  Harry Reid was stubborn enough to not vote on the repeal-"compromise" that was offered directly before the shutdown, which secularly, would have given him far more "high ground" by showing the Senate was unafraid to vote.  Instead he denied that vote and now appears weak and stubborn alongside Boehner, both Reid and Boehner are doing a wonderful job at showing their disdain for the common American, being unwilling to listen to one another's points even, at least in my opinion.

 

Point Two:  I'm very glad to hear that!!  Starving out people isn't going to help anyone, including the unborn who are incapable of defending themselves.  Agreed on hoping both sides fund Head Start.  As for Reid being unwilling to listen, when passed legislation for single items like WIC, or the NIH child cancer treatment, he's a bit busy sounding like a supervillain and asking why he should care about that one type of suffering in particular, while Senator Schumer stands behind him with a mixed "deer in the headlights" and "did you seriously just say you don't care about children with cancer" look on his face.

 

Point Three:  I already went off on Reid channeling his inner supervillain, so I won't again for the sake of space lol.  I was actually referring to a poster who said, "just drop it because meanwhile people are sick and hungry waaah waaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah".

 

Point Four:  No I was saying that it only highlighted the need for more funding for mental health related issues.  And that those responsible for providing it, are in part furloughed as non-essential.  I don't think this woman would have been stopped if the government wasn't shut down.  Sometimes one can't stop a person, no matter what.  

 

Also on the military Mass thing, shared to FB.

 

Edit:  Added 3 words.

[4588686]

Obamacare doesn't fund abortions.

[havok579257]

This is an excellent time to point out the nature of our government. I didn't call for anarchism, I just pointed out the nature of the criminal syndicate.

 

 

I think we all know the true nature of our government.  Start a new topic if you want to talk about this but let's not derail this topic into something that this topic is not about.

[havok579257]

I would not support the same tactic to be used for sweeping gun control, only because I do not support sweeping gun control. But I would agree that Congress, both houses, would still have the Constitutional power of the purse. If the Democrats wanted to defund or delay a pro-gun law they could, but I wouldn't support it. I also do not see how the same tactic would work for them, there are no pro-gun laws that are comparable to Obamacare. I don't see any law that forces citizens by the mere fact that they exist to buy a gun.

 

 

I didn't say you would support their goal of gun control.  I said you would support the tactic of shutting down the government to get what they believe is morally right.  To support one part doing this and not the other is being a hypocrite plan and simple.

 

The same tactic would work because they believe it is morally right for the government to have records for universal background checks and according to polls the vast majority of americans agree with them.  Weather its morally right to you or not, they believe it is and so do the majority of americans.  So this tactic could easily work for them if the roles were reversed.

[God the Father]

 

Point Three:  I already went off on Reid channeling his inner supervillain, so I won't again for the sake of space lol.  I was actually referring to a poster who said, "just drop it because meanwhile people are sick and hungry waaah waaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah".

 

Yeah but you used a one-sentence emotional appeal that disregarded the reality of our present economic situation, so it wasn't really convincing for me. Welfare is still a vote-buying program funded by the middle class, a facet of government's overarching goal of superseding faith, family, and local autonomy, the desired end state being virtually total dependence.

[Winchester]

let's not derail this topic into something that this topic is not about.

You of all people know better than to say that to me. My God, man, it's like waving an ice cream sandwich in front of Oprah.

[KnightofChrist]

Obamacare doesn't fund abortions.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/study-thousands-of-taxpayer-funded-abortions-part-of-obamacare

[Winchester]

What is "fungible".

[Anastasia13]

What is "fungible".

 

fungi-mold

ible-able

 

This is able to grow mold, decompose as waste to be left in ground, eaten into dust beneath our feat, and able to make people sick-like tax-payer supported abortions.

[r2Dtoo]

What are our feat?

[4588686]

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/study-thousands-of-taxpayer-funded-abortions-part-of-obamacare

 

 

Right.  States can allow some plans in the exchanges to cover abortions, although they are required by law to have at least one plan that doesn't cover abortion.  

 

You're argument is ridiculous.  I think your Pope recently made statements about Catholics, like yourself, being obsessed with abortion to the exclusion of ever other issue.  But, of course, you only listen to what the Pope says if he bolsters the right-wing of the Republican party.