How are ratings equivalent to job creation? Or quality of news? If that's the bar, perhaps we should bring up Survivor and So You Think You Can Dance? when discussing Fox News.
And once again you, along with other conservatives, fail to realize that every instance of government action does not necessitate a slippery slope analysis. Any action can lead to something dangerous… if you piece the puzzle correctly. Policy isn't quite like court decisions — precedent doesn't always rule the day. *sigh*
Oh, and guess what? There's going to be a public option. Prepare the bomb shelters! HAHA
Our past presidents' and our Founding Fathers' inability to foresee exactly how legislation and our Constitution would be used under present-day circumstances is not a quality example of slippery-slope analysis. Further, you presented conservative viewpoints as if they're fact. One could argue that regulating CO2 (you don't embrace the science), our social safety net (you'll point at the financial troubles of Medicaid/Medicare, but I'll point at seniors who don't want you to touch their Medicare), and using the commerce clause in recent times (thank you, Roy Cooper, for preventing Tennessee from polluting our air) are immense benefits of past policy. All policy must stand the test of time. You stated that Nixon, LBJ, and the Founding Fathers failed to accurately predict how their legislation would be used in the future… well, what makes you think you or Mr. Crowder or anyone for that matter knows? Simply applying slippery slope analysis to every Obama action does not make for a very convincing argument. And I'm not talking about financial slippery slopes — I believe that those are issues that need to be addressed (I'm not a fan of legislation leading to spiraling costs and deficits). However, when you or Mr. Crowder or myriad other conservatives use slippery slopes to argue that Obama's actions are going to lead to the government running our lives, I'm inclined to call that analysis what it is: nonsense.
Mr. Crowder analogized Obama holding financial institutions accountable to the U.S. taxpayer with those of us who attend public schools. "Where does it end?" As if Obama is going to force us to do things because we are attending a university that is subsidized by the taxpayer. That is just silly and a great example of how preposterous criticism of Obama's policies has become.
P.S. – I did not argue that precedents do not exist in the legislative branch — only that they aren't always at the forefront of decision-making like in the judicial system.
haha i like those credits at the end.
say what?
ken lewis.
i can see you turning into the next glenn beck.
best of luck to you, let's hope you get as many ratings 😉
How are ratings equivalent to job creation? Or quality of news? If that's the bar, perhaps we should bring up Survivor and So You Think You Can Dance? when discussing Fox News.
And once again you, along with other conservatives, fail to realize that every instance of government action does not necessitate a slippery slope analysis. Any action can lead to something dangerous… if you piece the puzzle correctly. Policy isn't quite like court decisions — precedent doesn't always rule the day. *sigh*
Oh, and guess what? There's going to be a public option. Prepare the bomb shelters! HAHA
I am almost sorry you read CRdaily.
Our past presidents' and our Founding Fathers' inability to foresee exactly how legislation and our Constitution would be used under present-day circumstances is not a quality example of slippery-slope analysis. Further, you presented conservative viewpoints as if they're fact. One could argue that regulating CO2 (you don't embrace the science), our social safety net (you'll point at the financial troubles of Medicaid/Medicare, but I'll point at seniors who don't want you to touch their Medicare), and using the commerce clause in recent times (thank you, Roy Cooper, for preventing Tennessee from polluting our air) are immense benefits of past policy. All policy must stand the test of time. You stated that Nixon, LBJ, and the Founding Fathers failed to accurately predict how their legislation would be used in the future… well, what makes you think you or Mr. Crowder or anyone for that matter knows? Simply applying slippery slope analysis to every Obama action does not make for a very convincing argument. And I'm not talking about financial slippery slopes — I believe that those are issues that need to be addressed (I'm not a fan of legislation leading to spiraling costs and deficits). However, when you or Mr. Crowder or myriad other conservatives use slippery slopes to argue that Obama's actions are going to lead to the government running our lives, I'm inclined to call that analysis what it is: nonsense.
Mr. Crowder analogized Obama holding financial institutions accountable to the U.S. taxpayer with those of us who attend public schools. "Where does it end?" As if Obama is going to force us to do things because we are attending a university that is subsidized by the taxpayer. That is just silly and a great example of how preposterous criticism of Obama's policies has become.
P.S. – I did not argue that precedents do not exist in the legislative branch — only that they aren't always at the forefront of decision-making like in the judicial system.