Government Shut Down

[Griff]

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.

[Adak]

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.

[glatt]

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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war ...
Iraq was a poor decision...
Bush wasn't a conservative, especially ...
I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages ...
I don't listen to enough talk radio ...
<snip>

There's that mouse again...

[orthodoc]

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

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).

[orthodoc]

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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>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?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

@Bruce:
Found out today that the WWII Memorial was paid for by private funds, AND is maintained by private funds, as well.

That's correct.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

There is NO expense to the Feds.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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:

Thousands of Americans flock to Normandy each year to see the beaches and sharp cliff-faces where Allied soldiers made their first entry into Nazi-occupied France during a massive invasion on June 6, 1944, known as D-Day.

A year from the invasion's 70th anniversary, many came especially to visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, known for its pristine rows of white crosses, only to discover that its gates were chained shut.

"Due to the U.S. Government shut-down this site is closed to the public," read a sign on the gate. Dozens of roses had been strewn underneath by visitors.

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.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.

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

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

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.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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.

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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

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.