80,000 vets and friends have volunteered to come forward and shove those "Barrycades" up Obama's arse. ;)

Have they also volunteered to provide security and clean up the mess the visitors leave behind? How about clean and stock the toilets?

These are open-air memorial sites. There are no restrooms at these sites, because there ARE NO ROOMS, at all.

It's just being mean spirited.

I get it. It's more of the political game they play in Washington. What I don't get, and I never will, is why they play it with Honor Flight vets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Flight

It's their last time (and sometimes their only time), for these vets of WWII and Korea, etc., to visit these memorials.

Erect barricades around them? Wow! That will win your party no friends, and no votes, I can assure you. :(

Well, clearly those things are more important than children being able to eat eh?

Once again you have proven yourself to be ignorant of the facts, running around yelling the sky is falling because FOX said so, and generally full of shit.

By the way, the WW II Memorial... I'm a card carrying, Lifetime Charter Member. You know, one of the people that actually put up money to build those toilets.

You're not from around here are you?

I'd be curious to know the arrangement for Franklin Square park. It's really just a one block city park with meandering foot paths and an occasional dirt shortcut. But it's technically part of the National Park system, and it hasn't been barricaded. No bathrooms, but somebody has been emptying the trash cans. Maybe it's a private trash company and the account has been paid in advance for the next month or something.

I seriously doubt the president ordered the barricades specifically. It's probably SOP when the Parks service closes certain things indefinitely.

I have this fantasy that if the trash started overflowing and there was no pickup service in sight then the community would step up and clean up. I know that's not likely.

I thought about that too, Perry. Then I thought of all the people who leave used tissues in the shopping carts and don't push the carts together in the cart corrals. It's always someone else's job. (this is a known pet peeve of mine...you can fit 8 carts in the corral if you just push them in there, and even less when the more likely action is to shove them in there and let them go all sideways. I estimate you can fit 20 or 30 carts in there when they're all mated up and even like they should be. I think these folks think they are doing the good societal thing. NOT helpful, folks. Whew. Glad I got that off my chest. ;) )

Is Adak seriously saying that President Obama ordered the barricades, and did so to SPITE?
Good lawd in heaven. I think he thinks that posting such rot here, it will get picked up by folks who are googling and therefore his agenda will get to more of the masses. Maybe he's on Faux News' payroll?

It's very interesting to me how this veterans turned away at the WW2 memorial site has resounded with Republicans. It's not just Adak, it's all over Facebook too.

At first I was like WTF? This is trivial. But then it struck me. Republicans (and conservatives) are all about symbolism. This is a perfect confluence of symbols. You have the veterans. You have a memorial, which is just some bricks and stones and fountains and stuff, but is the ultimate symbol, and you have the jackbooted thugs trying to stop the brave vets from paying their respects. It's a perfect confluence of symbolism for conservatives.

You might think that they would be upset over new cancer patients not getting into NIH studies, or social security payments being put in jeopardy in a couple weeks, or any of the thousands of other concrete things. But it's the symbolic stuff that speaks to them.

A handful of people were disappointed when their plans got messed up, so they made a fuss and got their plans straightened out. It's a non story. But the symbolism, man. The symbolism!

I don't know if all 'at falls under social securiy benefits, but if so, your checks should arrive on time. My RSDI check was auto-deposited into my bank account today.

I wonder why this large group of WW II vets happen to pick that day to visit?
Smells like teaparty to me.

I don't think it's (all) due to the TeaParty... My wife has been taking
physical therapy for knee surgery, and several weeks ago she told me
that a elderly man in her PT group had been offered an "honor flight" to
DC (i.e., $ free) to visit the Memorial.

Besides, the TP'ers don't strike me as being that public spirited.
I think they are just taking advantage of a coincidental situation.

Looks like you're right, they're just opportunists, using the vets.

The government shut down is causing safety inspections to be omitted.

Soon we will see industries burning off their wastes that otherwise
they would have to pay to process in hazardous waste disposal sites.

On top of that, brazen criminals are breaking federal laws by
tearing off the tags from their mattresses.

Oh, the humanity... think of the children

My dad was complaining about telemarketers calling his new home phone number.

"No problem," says I, "give me a second and I'll put the new number on the Do Not Call list."

Er... nevermind.

Some people like to say that government can't do anything right.
But the "Do Not Call" Registry is one of the most successful laws ever passed.
Our dinner-times are so much more peaceful now.

For what?

If I could afford it, the entire thing (except the seat cushion) would have a Tri-Helical Plasteel 1000 Molecular Bonded Shell plating similar to that of the original K.I.T.T., and it would transform into an exo-skeleton much like the Robotech bikes:

I'M SO GLAD you brought up the problem of new cancer patients getting into NIH studies.

It's their last hope - a new drug trial, when standard drugs have failed.

So Harry Reid was asked this VERY question about it by CNN's reporter. Here's what the bastard had to say:

Read this through and you'll understand EXACTLY why I hate the idea of the Feds running our health care, etc.

Because so many are like this Democratic leader:

From CNN and Canada Free Press:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58331

And that's why I don't like Obamacare, or any gov't intrusion into any more area's of our lives.

We have them in too much of it, already.

I agree that Reid "lost it" in this exchange, and it will be quoted again and again by the GOP.
But..., and there is a always a "but" with these kinds of "gotcha" scenes.

Just as the Reid lost this bout, the GOP face is losing in the long run because
that "just one child" was already waiting there in line all along ... well before
the GOP forced this shut down.

The GOP knew - or should have known - that NIH research would be affected,
and children would be dying because of their rigidity that caused the shut down.

It makes for juicy TV for both sides, but "just one child" is being overwhelmed
in public opinion by what caused it:

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind.:

No one would have predicted that the NIH would have been shut down, AND that the Senate would not approve (or possibly even vote on), a resolution from the House, to keep it working.

Marlin Stutzman sounds like he's been asleep for the last 5 days or so.

Another shut down victim:

Mt. Vernon museum - yes, George Washington's Home. The feds don't own it, so they couldn't shut it down - but they do own the land that the Mr. Vernon parking lot uses.

So they erected their Barrycades. The museum is still open, but you can't park your car as is normal.

It's all about making us uncomfortable. We the People don't own the parking lot - the gov't owns the parking lot, and they'll decide we We the People, can use it.

:bs:

First, the position of the Senate was well-known before even
the first vote by the GOP demanding de-funding Obamacare.

Next, NIH did not shut down... they continued all patient support,
and interrupted only their non-essential management activities.

Further, the "just one child" is faux drama by the GOP.
NIH does not take on patient treatment for the sake of the person who is suffering.
Each individual is enrolled in NIH research only if they meet the given research criteria.
In fact, the person may be given "non-therapeutic treatment" as part of,
for example, a classic double-blind control study.

I agreed with you that the "gotcha" question sent Reid off in a tizzy,
but to suggest the GOP didn't know what they were doing or
could not foresee the ramifications is not tenable.

Bit then, if you want to argue the GOP does not know what it is doing,...

it says a something about (your opinion of) the GOP.

This is the Google News on "Republicans" today (10/4/13), yet the GOP says they are winning.

Yeah, but that's just the liberal main stream media Obama owns. ;)

So, because the Sen. Majority Leader Reid announces that he will let no compassionate bill be passed, during the shutdown...

Somehow, that makes him a good guy?? No! That just makes him a predetermined SonOfABitch.
That wasn't argued. READ THE DAMN ARTICLE! NEW patients (including children), will NOT be accepted into NEW trials, because they "couldn't be registered", into them.

Somehow, due to the media coverage, the registration is now going forward. Problem solved. No thanks to Reid or the Democrats.

Quit the quibbling. It was not FAUX drama, and all the rest of the above is well known.

The point was, EVEN IF the patient met the study criteria, NO ONE was being admitted to them, because they "couldn't be registered", for it.
You can't fail to see the hand of the gov't bureaucrat in this.

The GOP knew what they were doing however, no one knows how the President will respond. He has fairly broad discretion in deciding what will, and what will not, be shut down.

But we can be sure that Obama will do everything he can to make us as uncomfortable as possible, during the shutdown. Then he will continue to make us paupers, at his leisure. I can hardly wait. :(

To be fair, Obama wasn't the first President to use this strategy. I'm hearing that Nixon came up with it, but never used it. I don't remember Ford using it during his shut down, but Ford was a nice guy. Same with Carter. Inept President, but undoubtedly one of the most civil Presidents we've ever had, despite some very trying times. (bad economy and hostages in Iran)

Clinton used it during the shutdown quarrel with Gingrich, closing the Washington Monument, I remember. He didn't close the open air memorials, I don't believe. Hard to remember it all.

Mainstream Republicans are VERY uncomfortable with the shutdown. This may be a harbinger of the future of politics. If the Democrats elect socialists, the conservatives will simply shut down the gov't, in order to be represented in a liberal government that, like Reid and Pelosi, want their way or the highway, for everybody else.

How can you negotiate something - anything - with a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. They're absolutists, and will make it clear even before any "negotiations", that they won't negotiate.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Harry Reid did here? He finally got called into the White House to negotiate, but he wouldn't do it.

OK, you SonsOfBitches, enjoy your shut down. :)

OR, the republicans could build their base by taking care of their constituents so they have enough votes to hold their own in congress, instead of whoring themselves to the 1%.

It is FAUX drama and as you say... all the rest above is well known.

Why is the government shutdown happening in the first place ...
Is it because the GOP is fighting in every way it can to kill Obamacare ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.

If the so, how do you balance your "just one child" against the GOP goal
of killing a program of health care benefits for several millions.
Among those millions, would there be "just one child" to die for lack of medical care ?
I think the answer for most people is a simple, Yes.


It's the difference between the GOP's concern over $,
and the Democrat's concern for the people's welfare,
by advancing government programs to do the most
good possible for those that need it most.

When it comes down to it, naming-calling and "gotcha moments" are, indeed, faux drama.

No. Obamacare is just ONE problem. The bigger problems are:

1) Obama wants to "redistribute wealth", which never goes over well with conservatives. They have that odd idea that their money should stay with them.

I know, what a concept. ;)

2) Obama has relentlessly expanded gov't. Number of employee's - way up, expenses - WAY UP, debt ceiling - WAY UP! Obamacare simply moves the feds into your entire medical treatments, etc. Conservatives definitely don't WANT the federal gov't, running their lives, or running their medical care! Once your medial records are all digitized, how long before your personal ID information is hacked into and stolen?

You say "Oh, that could never happen!". That's what you thought about Operation Prism when the Patriot Bill was passed, remember?
Gov't computers are hacked - even the Pentagon's.

As gov't continues to grow, YOU become smaller, and have far less control over your life.

3) Obama refuses to take obvious steps that would endear him to business: keystone pipeline project, remove the medical devices tax he just added, simplify the tax code a bit, and surprise, lower the medical costs, by simply enacting some parts of the legislation in Obamacare, without the rest of it.

4) Obama has given very little respect to the Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, throughout his term. Every serious error he's made, has been glossed over by the media so incredibly, it's ridiculous.

And then there's sonOfABitch in the Senate, and Reid is just someone who's hard to get any negotiating done with. Same with Pelosi, when she was House leader.

I did get a hell of a laugh out of Pelosi's statement: "food stamps are a great way to stimulate the economy". That one had me rolling in the aisle.:D :D

Now Obama wants to negotiate, as will Reid and the Senate, ONLY after the shutdown is ended, and the debt ceiling is raised.

Sure! "I'll be glad to negotiate with you, right after I've gotten everything I wanted!"

That's not negotiating, is it? That's what the democrats are calling it, but that's not negotiating.



Since every person will be treated in any emergency room, with or without money, your argument is mostly false. Clearly, lots of people don't get the kind of regular medical exams, etc., that would benefit them, however. I agree that we need a better health care plan in the country. But I don't want the feds running it.

Strangely enough, I'd like doctors, hospital managers, and medical insurance experts running our health plan.

Adak, do you re-write your posts each time like this,
or do you copy/paste from some where ?

If you wish, you could just insert a link. Here it is it for your post above.
http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p...4&postcount=91

Likewise, I'll just insert a link for my response, like this.

----

OK, now back for the reason the GOP caused this government shutdown... Obamacare.

Lets quibble a bit....

As examples:
NIH is a federal facility that is treating (some) patients as part of health research projects.
VA hospitals are federal facilities around the country that are treating veterans.

Who do you feel should run these... for-profit corporations ?

As alternative examples:
With Obamacare, anyone can sign up for A.C.A. plans of health care coverage.
All of their care will come via existing hospitals and doctors,
managed by hospital managers in health care plans created
by medical insurance experts ... not as part of the federal facilities system.
Then reimbursement $ comes from that plan's health insurance provider.

In some situations, patients who qualify for Medicare and/or Medicaid
(and/or perhaps some other federal programs) will also be treated
in these same non-federal system hospitals, but reimbursement $
comes from the federal government.

How does Obamacare NOT fit you "likes" ?

I write up every reply, individually. A link isn't well received and won't be used, unless it's corroborating the posted text of your reply.

to fit my likes:

1) my medical history stays OUTSIDE any federal databases.

2) the national plan is for everyone. No exemptions, no tax credits, refunds, etc.No unions or corporations get a pass to stay outside the system, etc. If they want more medical coverage than the national plan offers, they can buy it, of course, but EVERYONE is in the national plan if they are a citizen.

Non-citizens are not in the plan, and can't join the plan. They don't get free medical care on our dime, as is currently the case.

Without a broad base of healthy people, any medical insurance system will go broke, or have to charge exorbitant prices, before long.

3) no "send Grandma home with a pain pill instead of a treatment". "Grandma" gets the same good treatment as the rest of us, if she's in the plan.

4) we pay the same prices as Canada, and the rest of the world, for our drugs. Having us forced to pay 2 to 5 x as much, is a travesty.

5) no changes can be made to the national plan, without a 45 day period of consideration, AFTER the bill is proposed, IN FULL.

No more of this "we'll find out what's in the bill, after we pass it".

I'm quite familiar with the VA hospitals. Their policies nearly killed my dad.

If the shills for the 1% hadn't been screaming bad, socialist, redistribution of wealth, and actually worked for it, then everything thing you've listed could have been in this act.

But because of that obstructive action Obama had to weaken the plan by making deals with the drug companies, AMA, Insurance companies, medical equipment manufacturers, et al.
And don't tell me they should have debated it longer before voting, that's bullshit. The same people would have voted the same way, like they were told to.

Those corporations are powerful because they've got money out the wazoo to buy politicians and hire enough lobbyists to keep a tight rein on them.
But the fact remains, no matter how big a war chest the politicians are given, it's stupid voters,(hey that's my party right or wrong) and apathetic voters, (why bother my vote don't count) that allow them to keep screwing us.

Despite my " liberal tendencies "... I do try to read the occasional conservative news source. :eek:

I came across this article from Bloomberg News that I find interesting and believable.
But be warned, the article is about a report from a highly Democratic political strategist.

Bloomberg - The Ticker
Francis Wilkinson
Oct 4, 2013
Why Republicans Shut Down the Government
http://www.democracycorps.com/attach...ticle/954/dcor rpp fg 1000313 final.pdf
This link (above) will download a pdf file of the "memo" entitled:

Inside the GOP: Report on focus groups with Evangelical,
Tea Party, and moderate Republicans
The Bloomberg article continues...
I downloaded the pdf memo and I do recommend it those interested in straight and raw politics .
As the Forbes article says, it is both unsurprising and shocking.
These focus groups definitely are NOT always using politically correct language ! :rolleyes:

Through early morning fog I see
Through never ending debates I see
Visions of the things to be
Visions of lost security
The pains that are withheld for me
The culture running away from me
I realize and I can see...
I realize and I can see...

That suicide is painless
That govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please

I try to find a way to make
I try to find a way to make
All our little joys relate
All our political views relate
Without that ever-present hate
Without that ever-present hate
But now I know that it's too late, and...
But now I know that it's too late, and...

Suicide is painless
Govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please

The game of life is hard to play
The game of politics isn't hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
We're gonna nay it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
The loser's price I'll someday pay
So this is all I have to say
So this is all I have to say

That suicide is painless
That govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please

The only way to win is cheat
The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
And vote it down into defeat
And to another give my seat
And on another put some heat
For that's the only painless feat
For that's the only priceless feat

And suicide is painless
And govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please

The sword of time will pierce our skins
The budget cuts will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
It doesn't hurt when they begin
But as it works its way on in
But as they work their way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...
The pain grows stronger...watch them grin, but...

Suicide is painless
Govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please

A brave man once requested me
A President once requested me
To answer questions that are key
To gather votes that are key
'Is it to be or not to be'
To pass through Congress by majority
And I replied 'Oh why ask me?'
And I replied 'Oh that's not me?'

'Cause suicide is painless
'Cause govm't shutdown is painless
It brings on many changes
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it if I please
And I can take or leave it if I please
...and you can do the same thing if you choose
...and you can do the same thing if you're a fool

The timing of the next election for Representatives, is critical. The Republicans that were elected in 2012, will be up for re-election next year, and they BETTER be able to show their districts/precincts that they have taken conservative actions during their term.

Or they won't have another one.

I'd like to believe that Obamacare can be fixed, and put back into the national health care plan I noted, in my last post. I'm afraid however, that it will wind up with an arcane set of regulations, rivaling that of the IRS - with umpteen winners and losers, and tiers in between, all wrapped up in a Gordian Knot.

The shut down is just the answer to the question "What can a conservative do, to slow down the fast-running liberal train, in American politics?

Right now, that "thing you can do" is to help slow or stop Obamacare, and maybe through negotiations, win some other concessions. Maybe a cut in actual spending NOW, maybe the keystone pipeline, but throw them a bone, a win of some kind, here.

Not Obamacare, of course, but SOMETHING tangible.

Because nothing else the conservatives have done in the past 2 years, has amounted to a hill of beans. The conservatives know it. The conservative Representatives know that their voters know it, and neither their voters at home, nor the Reps in Congress, are happy about it.

For his part, Boehner knows he has been way too quiet, and way too compromising, for way too long. If he kept it up, he'd have been replaced (again!) as the Republican leader in the House.

So the Democrat egged on enough Republicans to get something racist, something anti-gay, something goofy or dumb, and he has it published as "REAL".

Why am I not surprised? I can do the same leading questions to a bunch of Democrats, and wind up with the same stupid replies, to justify my position that Democrats are racists, intellectually dishonest, and baby-killers.

Proving absolutely nothing. No consensus has been reached, no negotiations have made progress. It's just name calling, the other side.

Sure, that's what we need right now - more name calling - that writer must be a political genius! :rolleyes:

The longer the shut down, the more closely the repercussions of it will remain as part of Obama's legacy.

In the short run, they (Obama and the media) can pin this on the conservatives, but those lousy historians will keep it tied right in with Obama's term.

I'm curious how far each party wants to go with this, as the deadline for a debt crisis, draws every closer.

I thought Obama did the right thing by calling the parties together to negotiate, and I'm not surprised that no actual negotiations took place. It's too early for that.

Time and tide, time and tide.

And that's what this is all about for ADAK & Co, do everything possible to make that uppity Muslim Kenyan look bad, regardless of the damage to the country and the people.

I don't care if the President is purple - if he has good policies that succeed in running the country, and abides by the Constitution and our laws - then I'm for him/her/whatever.

Let's remember, just for a moment, what party was formed, to fight the slavery issue.

What party was that?

What party did Abraham Lincoln belong to?

What party did Martin Luther King Jr. belong to?

When Little Rock revolted against racial integration, and the President had to order in the 101st Airborne Regiment, to restore order, what party did that President belong to?

For ALL the above, that would be the Republican Party!


What party did all the Southern Jim Crow lawmakers belong to, for decades?

What party did the governors who rallied the townspeople against racial integration in the schools, causing riots, belong to?

In Arkansas, where the 101st Airborne Regiment was brought in to restore civil order and enforce integration, what party did that governor belong to?

And in Alabama, when the governor not only rallied his city against racial integration, but himself tried to physically block it, what party did he belong to?

All the KKK lynchers were all card carrying members of what party?
(can't prove this, but everyone knew)


For all the second part, the answer would be the Democratic Party.

In truth both parties have their racists, but historically, the Democrats have FAR outweighed the Republicans in racists.

That's true in Federal, as well as state governments. So your racist slur is a bit off the mark, Bruce.

And living in the rural South, I have a long memory of the separate drinking fountains, separate entrances, separate businesses, etc. If you want to get a feel for what it was like, read the book "Black Like Me". It's not a horrific account of an adventure being a black man, but you get an accurate depiction of it, imo.

It was a movie as well.

Side Note: The guy who dyed his skin black (with the help of a doctor), did eventually die of cancer caused by the treatments to make his skin black, iirc.

I've always found this to be curious. Why did the racists jump from the embrace of the Democrats to the Republicans over the course of 50 years?

Of course, the racism of today isn't usually as blatant as it was 50 years ago. Much more subtle.

Pres Johnson predicted the jump when he signed the Civil Rights Bill

It's now the difference is between racism de jure vs de facto, particularly
in those areas of the country affected by the Civil Rights Law.

After Kennedy was assassinated, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and sense of loss. President Johnson used that (he was a power broker politician, I can tell you!), to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Truly landmark law, that Kennedy wanted, but couldn't get enough support for. President Johnson did, and no one wanted to be on record voting against it - except the racists, of course.

Other civil rights legislation followed, with Democrats in charge. Racists bailed. Some old and politically strong Republicans were racists, and they coddled them for further support.

Democrats were sick of them, by then anyway.

Read up on Nixon's Southern Strategy as well.

It's not the party, the party is what the party does, and that changes regularly. The hard core conservative racists migrate occasionally, the last time to the tea party hoping the tea party would save America, but ended up getting owned and becoming shills for the fat cats.
I spent enough time in the south during the 50's to know Jim Crow.
Unfortunately it's dead on when mimicking the conservative wing that's taken over talk radio and a huge chunk of the internet, spewing hate and lies with great abandon.

I get emails forwarded to me that are making their way through the conservative network. Mostly outrageous claims and twisted truths, but the email will contain links proving they're telling the truth. But if you go to the links they say the exact opposite, which means these morons in the header history, read it, believed it, forwarded it, but never checked it.

Yes, JFK's murder brought the country together, and Johnson used it to do good.
9-11 brought the country together and we know what Bush did with it.:rolleyes:

According to the National Journal (whoever the hell they are) Senate Democrats attempted to start negotiations 19 times only to be blocked by teabags.



1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.

10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.

15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.

18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war with Al-Qaeda and their supporters, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. That was mandated by the oath of his office.

Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.

Too bad that it took the military years to figure out how to win the Iraqi people, over to our side.

Bush wasn't a conservative, especially in his fiscal policies, but at times he was close to it, in social policies.

I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages you receive. Because I've never received one, but messages that are blatantly wrong, sound more like disinformation messages. Sent out by radical liberals, the source could hide under the guise of Conservatism, to discredit the right. I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds suspiciously like it.

I used to believe "that would never happen", but now I absolutely know differently. The radicals are out there, and wow! are they radical!

I don't listen to enough talk radio to have caught any racist baloney, but I'm sure it's out there, just as it is in every walk of life, if you look closely enough, long enough. The people I listen to are pragmatic, and color is not an issue. If you can do the job well, you're hired. If you can't do the job, then you're not hired. Simple as that. If you have a problem working with a person of color, you need to get over it, because that is your problem.

@Griff:
Yes, the Democrats are anxious to negotiate. The only pre-condition to the negotiation, is that the Republicans give them EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT, FIRST.

*A large increase in the debt ceiling - because the Dem's don't want to have this debate again in just 3 months.

*No changes for introducing Obamacare.

Does that sound, even faintly, like negotiations? Oh Hell No! :( Harry Reid has already stated that no House Bill amending the shut down, or causing any delay to Obamacare, will even be voted on, by the Senate. A few he did let through, because they were politically, too hot to turn down, but the rest - absolutely not!

This is Harry Reid we're talking about here.

You know, there ARE problems with Obamacare. Primarily all the exemptions. If the Republicans fixed Obamacare to get rid of those exemptions the Democrats would have no choice but to go along.

But delaying or scrapping it won't ever get through. Fixing it will.

There's that mouse again...

Agreed. It's a very imperfect start, but a start. Far better than anything conservatives have come up with. It can be modified, adjusted, refined ... but not in the context of holding the country hostage. Pass the bloody budget and then get down to tinkering.

At this point I say, make it a single-payer public system. Leave private insurance intact alongside. That's what has worked in Europe.

So you're really saying, since both Reid and the President have already stated that they will NOT negotiate, that first, the Republicans should give the Democrats everything they want.

THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION THEY WILL LISTEN TO, THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED, both in public, and in private.

And THEN, the Democrats will negotiate. Is that R-E-A-L-L-Y your plan?

You don't think that's just a bit naive and well - S-T-U-P-I-D - do you?

Because it sure sounds like it is. WHY would the Democrats negotiate with you AFTER they have everything they want?

WHY?

@Lamplighter:
So you have an increasing obsession with toys for cats?

Failing to accept reality will cause inner conflicts in one's psyche. The immediate problem is believing what your own eyes see, or believing the lies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al.

Is there ANYONE in the US, who believes that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are willing to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, with the Republicans, to end the shutdown?

Anyone?

I'd be surprised if there was.

@Bruce:

Found out today that the WWII Memorial was paid for by private funds, AND is maintained by private funds, as well. There is NO expense to the Feds.

The reason it was barricaded off, was because the politicians all know that WWII vets are brought in on "Honor Flights"; free of charge, from all over the country, to see it the memorial one time, before they die.

So Obama knew he could hurt them quite badly, when it was barricaded off. End of story.

I'm sure some people are still thrilled with Obama. I'm appalled with his actions, here. (It has since been opened up after all the bad press for the Democrats).

I was referring to the ACA, not the current standoff. Are you a little bit S-T-U-P-I-D, or are you just incapable of following arguments?

I'm saying that, since the Republicans have lost the Congressional vote, the Supreme Court decision (2012), and the electoral vote/mandate (2012), they should stop holding the country hostage as a means to their ends in the 2014 elections and address their differences within the context of a functioning Congress.

I truly wish the US had a Queen (like the Queen of Canada) who could fire all the self-serving assholes currently in Congress and give the populace a real-time chance to choose again. Your Repubtards wouldn't do well in a snap election. I say this as a former Republican-turned-Independent.

Adak, Did you even read Griff's posting above, and did you get the significance of it ?

I think most people are aware of the history of the GOP in dealing with Obama.
Their sudden "we demand that Obama negotiate with us" doesn't hold water.

Do you remember the story of the boy that cried "wolf" ?
It has much to do with the futility of attempts to demonize now.

That's correct.
That is incorrect. The memorial is on federal land and operated by the National Park Service. Learn the difference between maintenance and operating expenses.

See this is one of those misleading half truths you keep coming up with, the bullshit oozing out of the religious rights bunkers. 'But, but', you say, 'I'm not one of them'. No, you're just one of the dupes they use to funnel this crap to the public. You hear it, and it matches what your preconceived notions, what you want to be the truth, so you accept and repeat it.

That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.

Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.

Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.

NO! Saddam was looking to get a quick conquest on a rich little country like Kuwait, because his own economy in Iraq, was in utter shambles. Yes, he thought we wouldn't mind, but our Ambassador NEVER told Saddam it would be OK.

Saddam wanted to be a big shot in the Middle East, and throughout the Muslim countries of North Africa. There was a power vacuum after Egypt's failure in the last war with Israel (and their subsequent move to peace), and Gaddafi's step back from supporting WMD and terrorism.

He never wanted to be a US ally. Quite the contrary. If he could get our oil companies to spend a lot of money re-building his oil facilities, he would be glad to do it, but he wanted to be big in the Middle East, not a sincere ally of the US.

You know Limbaugh makes a lot of sarcastic comments, and you're taking one of them, entirely out of context in your quote.

If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.

And note: They also are the only large collection of people, who actually pick up their own trash, after an event!

What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.

The land it's on is Federal, so of course, it's operated by the National Park Service. The cost of operating the open air memorial, is such a pittance, it boggles the mind.

No. It was shut down and barricaded, expressly to hurt the WWII vets being flown in on the "Honor Flights", along with anyone whose visit to the Mall would have included it.

Similarly:
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/touris...nce-8C11336423

Somehow, does this strike you as "Obama wants to negotiate an end to this shutdown", or does this strike you as "Obama is being a vindictive A-hole and like he has stated, won't negotiate ANYTHING, until he has everything he has asked for".

To me, it's the latter. This is something that he will regret later on, I'm sure. History will stick this to him, with Guerrilla Glue, as a reflection of the man's character.

Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist

So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.

Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.

They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.

Yes, I read and commented on it. Obama and Harry Reid would be glad to negotiate with the Republicans,

If and ONLY if they first are given everything they want:

*full funding for Obamacare/ACA

*a debt ceiling high enough to last for the next several months.

That's not negotiating. You don't get everything you want, before you agree to negotiate.

Your words, not theirs...

The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bill for Obamacare.
The GOP House of Representatives voted to pass the funding Bills for all of the budget in the Debt Ceiling
The Senate passed and the President signed those Bills
The total of all these Bills passed by the GOP House exceeds the current debt ceiling.

Now the GOP House is attempting to renege on it's agreements.
Reid is opposed to rewarding their recurring bad behavior. :rolleyes: