Because there was no real intent of forcing a default, it was pure grandstanding, if it was 51-49 "no"
they would have voted again later that day or the next and it would have passed.


Ah, so until the no actually happens and it sticks, it's just grandstanding.

So, right now, what we have, is normal grandstanding, not hostage-taking.

3 votes is a pretty close margin on which to risk the full faith and credit of the United States (sorry, said 2, but presumably Cheney would have broken the tie in Bush's favor).

To continue with Steny Hoyer's analogy, then, the Democrats wouldn't be shooting someone's child in the head, they were just shooting the gun near the child's head and were totally, super sure that it would miss, which is totally responsible behavior. The target was like a whole foot to the right of the child's head, so it was cool, brah.

But again, I have little doubt that the consternation here about the Democrats (and a few Republicans) ploy in which they risked the full faith and credit of the United States to score a political point was thick and heated, I just can't find it because of a lack of good searchable archives. But I'm a trusting type of guy, so I have no problem giving Sammy and the others my full faith and credit in their intellectual consistency that has to do with the merits of a position, not the letter next to a politician's name. If a stathead can't have full faith and credit in other statheads, where would we be today?

Isn't the issue with this argument that the D caucus in the Senate could easily have filibustered the vote but chose not to?

In other words, they actually had the ability to hold the vote hostage but chose not to. That makes things a bit different. As other people have stated, there was no real intent to negotiate or bargain for concessions in exchange for a vote on the debt ceiling. It was just silly posturing for people back home.

Or in other words:

What DJS is performing here is generally known as a "reach."

But Szymborski is totally not a Republican and is completely above partisan politics.

But <Dan> is totally not a Republican and is completely above partisan politics.

1. Dan is not a Republican.
2. Dan is not being disingenuous.
3. Dan honestly believes that there's no difference between the Dem Senate caucus of 2006 and the Tea Party wing of the GOP caucus today.

This is not intellectual dishonesty or misrepresentation. It's just poor analysis of the facts.

This is not intellectual dishonesty or misrepresentation. It's just poor analysis of the facts.

What makes it insufferable is how ####### smug he is about it.

It's just poor analysis of the facts.

Now, Sam, you keep being such a charitable soul, and your well-earned reputation for wickedness will be all kaput. Then what?!?

So, right now, what we have, is normal grandstanding, not hostage-taking.

The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that we were downgraded by S&P. The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that the uncertainty had a tangible effect on the market.

Pretending there is no difference doesn't make it so.

Pretending there is no difference doesn't make it so.

It might if you just keep reaching, reaching, reaching, reaching ...

Now, Sam, you keep being such a charitable soul, and your well-earned reputation for wickedness will be all kaput. Then what?!?

Well, there's always his former role of Mr. Sophistication to fall back on.

Now, Sam, you keep being such a charitable soul, and your well-earned reputation for wickedness will be all kaput. Then what?!?

David will come back around and a day later all will be as it was.

The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that we were downgraded by S&P. The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that the uncertainty had a tangible effect on the market.


The Dems in 2006 had secret future knowledge that it wouldn't? They simply lucked out that one of their bullets didn't kill a hostage. Why do you defend hostage takers?

But yeah, the S&P was all the Republicans fault. Just look at the S&P's *actual justification*.

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United
States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term
rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from
CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

OK, they don't *say* Republicans, but with Republicans in Congress on 4/18/11 and President McCain being in the 3rd year of his first term as president, clearly it's all the Republicans fault.

I know it can be tricky without the (D) and the (R) clearly put in front of names so you know just how to think! Maybe there should be a law.

The Dems in 2006 had secret future knowledge that it wouldn't?

It wasn't secret future knowledge. It was simple whip counting of their caucus before it went to the floor. You do know what whip counting is, right? You do realize that party leadership knows how every member is going to vote on any given bill (in both Houses) prior to it ever going to the floor, right?

But yeah, the S&P was all the Republicans fault. Just look at the S&P's *actual justification*.

I have no dog in the "who to blame for S&P's downgrade" fight. I'll only point out that S&P are to blame for their downgrade, and they took that action due to their own fiscal priorities as a money making venture, and that I have no idea why anyone with a functional frontal cortex is giving two shits of a damn about what S&P thinks given their ratings of CDO's and pay-for-play behavior during the housing bubble.

I know it can be tricky without the (D) and the (R) clearly put in front of names so you know just how to think! Maybe there should be a law.

i'd just like to point out what you're saying here is not that your ideological compatriots are doing the right thing, what you're saying is just that because people you disagree with did it before, you have every right to do it now.


i believe the word to describe that kind of thing is 'deranged'.

Why do you defend hostage takers?

also, that's a really rich thing to say considering what you're defending.

I doubt it. While you can grow your own if easily if you're willing to accept crappy product, you need to be pretty serious about things to get top-quality (precise management of light cycles with total darkness during the off-stages, properly identifying and discarding the males before fertilization, proper curing, etc.). With that effort (and expense, since good grow lights are high-wattage), it will only be cost-effective for some sort of distribution. And just like some people don't drink Budweiser, some people don't use crappy weed; there's a market for high-quality stuff that won't just go away.


good weed is not that hard to produce. 1k watt bulbs on all the time til budding 12 on off and your good.

edited to add you need a good strain to start with, ditch weed gets you ditch weed no matter what you do. But a seed or clone of a quality strain will turn out pretty good

If the gun control debate was about something else...

The following was spoken by a United States senator in 2006 during the debate to increase the debt limit:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Who was it?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011613-640869-more-guns-means-less-crime.htm#ixzz2IHw62uOu

John Lott's latest predictable piece

My recreation of his data adding the USA

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff59/RollingWave/ChartUSA_zpse63da042.jpg

most unsurprising result ever

test

i'd just like to point out what you're saying here is not that your ideological compatriots are doing the right thing, what you're saying is just that because people you disagree with did it before, you have every right to do it now.

In other words "It's OK when the guys I like do it, but when the guys I don't do, I'll compare political disagreements to kidnappings and child murder."

also, that's a really rich thing to say considering what you're defending.

Why are you murdering children?

Regressives sure don't like it when their tactics are used against them, do they?

I love how Obama being called a "socialist" is the worst thing since the Holocaust, because it isn't technically true from a pure definition standpoint (and it isn't), but then calling a threat not to raise the debt limit as "hostage-taking" which isn't remotely the definition is OK.

I'm not a fan of big government, but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

I'm not a fan of big government, but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

So your point of disagreement is basically pedantic, over the use of the metaphor "hostage taking?"

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011613-640869-more-guns-means-less-crime.htm#ixzz2IHw62uOu

John Lott's latest predictable piece

That piece is amazing for its lack of honesty or rigor. Estonia is a developed country? Chile is too? But I see that Russia is not, despite being very similar in PPP.

What a bad joke.

Dumb question: can you use this thread for other OT stuff besides politics or will that lower your BTF cred?

In other words "It's OK when the guys I like do it, but when the guys I don't do, I'll compare political disagreements to kidnappings and child murder."

Why are you murdering children?

for a generally smart person, you're really bringing the retard here.

All's fair in love and war.

Threatening to not raise the debt ceiling is a valid scare tactic. So is labeling it as "hostage taking".
I mean, only a bizarre fetishist or dupe would actually listen to what a politician says, rather than watch what they DO.

NOT actually raising the debt ceiling, on the other hand would be grounds for censure. Well, unless it's part of a coordinated default policy.

but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

Oh Dan, it's doesn't become you to play "shocked on the behalf of the real victims" card. Or do you seriously get the vapors when politicians or their supporters exaggerate?

Dumb question: can you use this thread for other OT stuff besides politics or will that lower your BTF cred?

I think standard etiquette would be "yes, as long as it's not the NFL/NHL/NBA/Soccer/College Football/College Basketball." If it's an OT post about a topic that it's own dedicated OT thread, go there. Otherwise, drop the tangent here. Gods above and below know we could use a diversion from next week's episode of "what will Joe say about gun control next?"

they were threatening to default if obama didn't give in to their demand. Thats the definition of hostage taking. McConnell called it a hostage. This is dumb.

they were threatening to default if obama didn't give in to their demand. Thats the definition of hostage taking.

Nonsense. If that was the definition of hostage-taking, you would have called the police.

By your definition, the grocery store just held my food hostage until I paid $100. And the electric company is holding my future electricity hostage for $180! OH NOES! CALL THE FBI!

You may think that choosing not to increase the government's borrowing authority is a bad idea. I do too -- I feel the budgetary process is the more practical place to have these arguments -- but there's no inherent right to have legislation you desire be enacted in Congress.

Fact is, progressives love to seize on hyperbole, declare it the worst thing in the world, demand public penance from the speaker, demand disavowals from everyone remotely associated with the speaker, in a whole, theatrical auto-da-fé. And then they turn around and use the exact same hyperbole non-stop.

Oh Dan, it's doesn't become you to play "shocked on the behalf of the real victims" card. Or do you seriously get the vapors when politicians or their supporters exaggerate?

Oh, I'm not actually shocked on the behalf of the real victims (I clearly don't have any moral right to). But I love hypocrisy and the circle-jerk crowd here essentially baked me a bourbon pecan pie with freshly whipped vanilla cream on top. I love watching stuffed shirts who have invested so much time into making sure they know they're smarter people and better people than the hoi polloi demonstrate just as much intellectual coherence as some right-wing ######### blaming Obama for evolution in schools on facebook.

Calling Democrats against the Patriot Act unpatriotic and unAmerican was wrong then and of the same type and degree as calling Republicans that wish to make long-term spending reform in return for the approval of increase governmental borrowing limit hostage-takers now. If you want to engage in hyperbole about others, that's fine, but let's spare the crocodile tears when those others use hyperbole about you.

By your definition, the grocery store just held my food hostage until I paid $100. And the electric company is holding my future electricity hostage for $180! OH NOES! CALL THE FBI!

Dan, assuming you're not in one of you "block Sam" phases, you're inching of the Rationality res at this point.

By your definition, the grocery store just held my food hostage until I paid $100.

This is a weird analogy for a power-of-markets point-of-a-gunner.

Dan's beef appears to be with Mitch McConnell.

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”

Dan, assuming you're not in one of you "block Sam" phases, you're inching of the Rationality res at this point.

It's his stupid definition of hostage-taking, not mine.

This is the definition of hostage-taking:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

He said what the Republicans did "fit the definition" of hostage-taking. I assume he called the police to notify them that there was an ongoing crime.

I assume the response is "oh, it's hyperbole" which it is. But the progressoscists here constantly disavow the use of hyperbole and colorful language by anyone but them.

It's his stupid definition of hostage-taking, not mine.

It's also Mitch McConnell's and the political right's definition as well. Do we need to link to the plethora of comments from Red State or other Tea Party friendly sites calling on the GOP House to "shoot the hostage?" I understand where you might argue "this is a stupid metaphor and everyone's an idiot for using it," but it's a bit of a long stretch to assign the usage to one side of the aisle. For better or worse, "hostage taking" is the currently vogue metaphor for the attempt by the House caucus to hold the debt ceiling authorization back in hopes of beneficial changes to other policies that they prefer.

He said what the Republicans did "fit the definition" of hostage-taking. I assume he called the police to notify them that there was an ongoing crime.

You're approaching a David-esque level of pedantry on the definition of a simple political metaphor.

hmm, hes the definition I found after 2 seconds of googling

hos·tage (hstj)

n.
1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2. One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3. One that is manipulated by the demands of another: "National policies cannot be made hostage to another country" (Alan D. Romberg).
[Middle English, from Old French, probably from host, guest, host; see host1.]

Failed assassination attempt in Bulgaria.

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Bulgarian police detained a man after he pointed a gas pistol at an ethnic Turkish party leader as he was delivering a speech at a party caucus in the capital Saturday. No shots were fired.

The video from the Saturday event in Sofia shows the man climbing the podium where Ahmed Dogan, the leader of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, was speaking, and pointing the gun to his face.

Dogan struck the man before he could pull the trigger, while other delegates wrestled the assailant to the ground. TV footage showed several people punching, kicking and stomping on the man when he was on the ground.

One that is manipulated by the demands of another: "National policies cannot be made hostage to another country"

Ah, so arguing policies is manipulation by demands, eh?

I plan to call you all hostage-takers at every opportunity.

By your argument, you also fit the definition of having committed murder as I find your defense of one-way hyperbole to be "outrageous and blameworthy" (merriam-webster, 2b). Would you not think it hyperbole if I called you a murderer in every post for now on?

Sorry, but the use of "hostage-takers" is obvious hyperbole of the same type that the people using it throw a fit about when they're the target.

Calling Democrats against the Patriot Act unpatriotic and unAmerican was wrong then and of the same type and degree as calling Republicans that wish to make long-term spending reform in return for the approval of increase governmental borrowing limit hostage-takers now.

You do realize you're comparing a metaphorical claim to literal ones, yeah? And, as others have pointed out, the Teaper crowd has embraced, rather than disavowed, the "hostage-taking" metaphor. The claim that Obama's a socialist does not belong in the same conversation.

I plan to call you all hostage-takers at every opportunity.

Should I ever hold back something you have a reasonable right to assume I would not hold back, in lieu of your giving in to my demands for something else, feel free. Please note however that I do not believe that you have a particularly reasonable right to assume I will give you "agreement on all of your positions and arguments" during an academic debate on the internet, especially not to the extent that I believe the Congress of the United States should be assumed to not hold back the full faith and credit of the United States government over ideological aims.

If I hold my opinion about a debate topic "hostage" in this thread, the global economy doesn't collapse.

Democracy is just the dictatorship of the 50.1%.

It was a while back but this is really odd. Do you know what a dictatorship is?

My favorite part:

In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people)

Aside: Complaining about the metaphor "hostage taking" is just as useful as complaining about the term "fiscal cliff". Just because a term is wrong doesn't mean it isn't being used.

Dan, assuming you're not in one of you "block Sam" phases, you're inching of the Rationality res at this point.

Truth time. I've never actually blocked you. People like Treder or Shipman or dp who ape your rhetoric, but don't have your wit or joie de vivre, I will happily go to my grave never having interacted with them for the rest of my life. But as frustrating as you are generally, you're too damn good a writer to not read. If I ran the Washington Post, I'd fire Greg Sargent and give you his job.

If I hold my opinion about a debate topic "hostage" in this thread, the global economy doesn't collapse.

So then, Obama's holding the global economy hostage. The Republicans have expressed a desire to come to a middle ground in a debate over legislation. Obama has not. Obama's the hostage-taker.

If I ran the Washington Post, I'd fire Greg Sargent and give you his job.

I'll fire up the resume!

So then, Obama's holding the global economy hostage. The Republicans have expressed a desire to come to a middle ground in a debate over legislation. Obama has not. Obama's the hostage-taker.

A position with which I disagree, but which is constructively rational under the current terms of debate.

I'll fire up the resume!

Sadly, if I end up running the Washington Post, we've gone down some crazy timeline in which hamburgers eat people.

I wish you wrote in your blog more often!

If I ran the Washington Post, I'd fire Greg Sargent and give you his job.

I'd better get whatshername's job reviewing classical music.

I'd better get whatshername's job reviewing classical music.

Heretofore I have every intention of referencing Lassus as "whatshername" in these threads.

If I ran the Washington Post, I'd fire Greg Sargent and give you his job.

I'd better get whatshername's job reviewing classical music.

Just let me fire Gene Weingarten and the morons who write their headlines.

Sadly, if I end up running the Washington Post, we've gone down some crazy timeline in which hamburgers eat people.

I hope this catches on an replaces the rather tired and played out "zombie apocalypse" trope.

I've only skimmed this hyperbole sub-thread, but is the person who uses "government with guns" and "at gunpoint" in describing tax collection now concerned about one side's using "hostage taking" (as if both sides haven't been using that metaphor for years) in the debate on the debt limit? I wonder what his take is on David's favorite bit of rhetoric, i.e. when the government taxes him it's "stealing" his "life"?

And as others have noted, there's a bit of a difference between a metaphor used to describe an action and a direct questioning of someone's patriotism. The "socialist" and "collectivist" labels may be clownish and ahistorical, but at least they're not personal attacks on the same level as "anti-American" or "traitor".

I hope this catches on an replaces the rather tired and played out "zombie apocalypse" trope.

It's already happened in Rand McNally.

I've only skimmed this hyperbole sub-thread, but is the person who uses "government with guns" and "at gunpoint" in describing tax collection now concerned about one side's using "hostage taking" (as if both sides haven't been using that metaphor for years) in the debate on the debt limit? I wonder what his take is on David's favorite bit of rhetoric, i.e. when the government taxes him it's "stealing" his "life"?

And as others have noted, there's a bit difference between a metaphor used to describe an action and a direct questioning of someone's patriotism. The "socialist" and "collectivist" labels may be clownish and ahistorical, but at least they're not personal attacks on the same level as "anti-American" or "traitor".

I can only assume that it's some form of bizarre performance art.

In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people)

If you are in the political minority and lose the vote, aren't you governed without consent?

If you are in the political minority and lose the vote, aren't you governed without consent?

No, you're governed by a party you did not vote for. You consent to that possibility by being part of a democracy.

Schadenfreude alert: 5 people shot at 3 gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day.