Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The GOP hasnt been the part of small government in a long time.

More like, goverment away from what we like and goverment in what we dont like

Edit: Inbefore Whembly harps on about Harry Ried

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Arguably, the GOP already made this choice a few years ago when they decided they were more interested in checking than balancing.

Arguing when Reid nuked it for everyone else it was a matter of time. Slippery slopes are a real thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Arguably, the GOP already made this choice a few years ago when they decided they were more interested in checking than balancing.

Arguing when Reid nuked it for everyone else it was a matter of time. Slippery slopes are a real thing.

Then why not start the slope at obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism?

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Arguably, the GOP already made this choice a few years ago when they decided they were more interested in checking than balancing.

Arguing when Reid nuked it for everyone else it was a matter of time. Slippery slopes are a real thing.

Then why not start the slope at obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism?

Because then you have to address the wholesale embrace of obstructionism as a strategy by the GOP rather than laying blame on one person?

The GOP should just let the filibuster go and make the Dems account for blocking the spot now. Of course, that's a harder tack to take when the pres who nominated him is polling in the sewers and you are having to rig the game to stay in it....

 Spinner wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So Nuclear Option is underway, and it really just makes me shake my head that the party that has been so concerned about the proper separation of powers and checks & balances over the past 6 years is now so willing to give away one of the biggest checks they have against the other two branches.

Arguably, the GOP already made this choice a few years ago when they decided they were more interested in checking than balancing.

Arguing when Reid nuked it for everyone else it was a matter of time. Slippery slopes are a real thing.

Then why not start the slope at obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism?

Oh yea thats event on the great slope back to Bork.

You mean the same Bork who received a vote and was voted down by the Senate due to being perceived as an ideological extremist? The same seat that Democrats unanimously approved Reagan's next pick for?

Yep

Seems an odd choice.

Not if you were around for when justices were reviewed by Congress prior to that. To be "borked" is a term that came from it.

That slop starts with Republicans. Any claim otherwise is just deflecting.

Of course you are completely correct.

StratCom is now citing Breitbart.

On nuclear weapons.

Alex Jones is claiming that he still speaks to Trump.




Cruz: "At no point did conservatives and the Tea Party demand that Republicans oppose everything from Barack Obama."

....hmmm .....

uh huh. of course.






An entirely fictitious history is certainly a bold plan.

Wonder if it'll catch on and be...








...... what the actual feth ?

you're paying these people ?!

>Vote for Trump to avoid a war with Syria/Russia
>Potentially get a war anyway

Poison gas was only alright for Saddam to use.

 reds8n wrote:
Poison gas was only alright for Saddam to use.

Saddam Hussein was hanged in a darkened room after he was captured by Americans (because we're Americans not Americants!). His executioner spit in his face before he died. Do you really want to go there?

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Poison gas was only alright for Saddam to use.

Saddam Hussein was hanged in a darkened room after he was captured by Americans (because we're Americans not Americants!). His executioner spit in his face before he died. Do you really want to go there?

Do you really want to pretend that Saddam was hung for his use of poison gas on the Kurds?

No, he only wants to pretend the time Hussein was benefiting from Ronald Reagan's administration benevolence never existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

 Sarouan wrote:
No, he only wants to pretend the time Hussein was benefiting from Ronald Reagan's administration benevolence never existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

The United States has always been okay with dictators and human rights abuses, as long as it is convenient for us. And we have frequently ignored democratic elections and assisted others in overthrowing any democratically elected government we didn't like. Historically we haven't really cared one lick how you treat your people or what crimes your government is committing, as long as your reign benefits the United States. And we have always preferred a capitalist human rights violating dictator who is holding power with a military over a democratically elected socialist or communist.

How the United States got this weird reputation as a pro-human rights and pro-democracy watchdog of the world is beyond me, but maybe the rest of the world knows our real stance and we have just managed to delude the United States population into thinking this is the case.

 d-usa wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
No, he only wants to pretend the time Hussein was benefiting from Ronald Reagan's administration benevolence never existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

The United States has always been okay with dictators and human rights abuses, as long as it is convenient for us. And we have frequently ignored democratic elections and assisted others in overthrowing any democratically elected government we didn't like. Historically we haven't really cared one lick how you treat your people or what crimes your government is committing, as long as your reign benefits the United States. And we have always preferred a capitalist human rights violating dictator who is holding power with a military over a democratically elected socialist or communist.

How the United States got this weird reputation as a pro-human rights and pro-democracy watchdog of the world is beyond me, but maybe the rest of the world knows our real stance and we have just managed to delude the United States population into thinking this is the case.

Y'all third manned in on the right side in WW2. That kind of impression goes a long way.

Ah, I see we've returned to the usual "USA BAD!" spiel again. I almost miss the weekly "Guns bad!" and "Religion Bad!" threads.

My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

 Frazzled wrote:
Ah, I see we've returned to the usual "USA BAD!" spiel again. I almost miss the weekly "Guns bad!" and "Religion Bad!" threads.

Responding to his hyperbole with hyperbole of your own isn't going to get the point across very well. Which is a shame because I suspect the point you are trying to make is a good one.

 d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That slop starts with Republicans. Any claim otherwise is just deflecting.

Nope... Slope was accelerated by Reid, with Schumer standy by him in support, in 2013.

Believing that Democrats would keep it when they're in power, and holds < 59 seats, is foolhardy.

We have been at war for over 14 years, there hasn't been a draft declared and it is still fought by an all volunteer military.

I might sound like a dick here, but the overwhelming majority of our military enlisted or commissioned during a time when we are actively at war in many areas of the world. They knew that our military was sending our men and women to areas where they will be killed, and they made the decision that becoming another statistic was worth it.

I agree that we need to make sure it's worth sending them to their potential death, but I don't feel bad about the basic concept of sending them to their potential death.

If you are not willing to die, don't join the military when we are fighting multiple conflicts already.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hate to break it to you, but I have deployed specifically to protect and help locals. More than once. So has my wife.

 d-usa wrote:
We have been at war for over 14 years, there hasn't been a draft declared and it is still fought by an all volunteer military.

I might sound like a dick here, but the overwhelming majority of our military enlisted or commissioned during a time when we are actively at war in many areas of the world. They knew that our military was sending our men and women to areas where they will be killed, and they made the decision that becoming another statistic was worth it.

I agree that we need to make sure it's worth sending them to their potential death, but I don't feel bad about the basic concept of sending them to their potential death.

If you are not willing to die, don't join the military when we are fighting multiple conflicts already.

What is this in response to?

I don't think anyone has argued otherwise and that the servicemen/women are well aware what may happen when they sign up.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.

D just wrote an accurate take on how the United States tends actively support horrible regimes (or at least look the other way) when it [allegedly] benefits the interests of the country. You responded with stupid hyperbole that this thread has devolved into "the usual 'USA BAD!' spiel" even though it hasn't at all. D responded to your ridiculous hyperbolic-sensitivity-to-any-criticism by accurately pointing that something as inconsequential as interracial marriage was illegal in vast areas of the nation that is supposedly the standard-bearer of freedom not that long ago. I think what he is saying is that America is great but sometimes we don't hold ourselves to the standard that we should.

Clearly, this has confused you so hopefully my explanation sheds some light on the topic.

This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

Sometimes doing the right thing will make people hate you. When a regime deploys poison gas against its own citizens and another regime that our President has professed admiration for defends it, doing the right thing (stopping the regime in question) should be a no-brainer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


What is this in response to?

I don't think anyone has argued otherwise and that the servicemen/women are well aware what may happen when they sign up.

Frazzled's post about pulling the United States completely out of the Middle East so American service members don't die defending people that "hate us."

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My marriage was illegal 50 years ago, there is nothing wrong with being able to admit when the US fethed up, which it frequently did and still does.

Which has feth all to do with the topic being discussed.
This is why the US should stay out of it. We'll be hated regardless. No reason to get involved and have American women and men killed to protect the people who hate us. We should pull everything out of the Mideast. No good has been achieved there, can be achieved there.

If you think American (or anyone of "the West's") soldiers go anywhere to protect the locals, then I have some waterfront property in New Mexico to sell you. Guaranteed free from rad-mutants, too!

Hah! Everyone knows you can't make that guarantee. The rad muties are attracted to fresh meat. They won't be around the first but by day three you're having to clean them out of the air ducts and by day five they are coming through the pipes. Nasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
We have been at war for over 14 years, there hasn't been a draft declared and it is still fought by an all volunteer military.

I might sound like a dick here, but the overwhelming majority of our military enlisted or commissioned during a time when we are actively at war in many areas of the world. They knew that our military was sending our men and women to areas where they will be killed, and they made the decision that becoming another statistic was worth it.

I agree that we need to make sure it's worth sending them to their potential death, but I don't feel bad about the basic concept of sending them to their potential death.

If you are not willing to die, don't join the military when we are fighting multiple conflicts already.

And they voted for Trump.

Sometimes doing the right thing will make people hate you. When a regime deploys poison gas against its own citizens and another regime that our President has professed admiration for defends it, doing the right thing (stopping the regime in question) should be a no-brainer.

Like Beirut which led to 250 marines dying from a Hezzbullah attack,
Like Iraq and Afghanistan, which led to Al Qaeda attacks on the US, attacks on Embassies, ships, the WTC the first time and finally 9/11
Or Somalia which led to Al Qaeda shooting down US choppers.
Or Iraq II which led to ISIL
Or Libya which led to terrorist attacks killing embassy personnel.

Sorry when does "doing the right thing" help us again in the Middle East?
We send to people hit by hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Cool. We help the Philippines, SE Asia, and Pacific Rim countries when nature is cruel. Cool. But sending troops ito the Mideast just helps the bodybag industry.