How Will the "Crisis" in DC Turn Out?

[Mean Green 93-98]

What does he have to negotiate?

The mantra of Obama's entire presidency.

[Censored by Laurie]

The mantra of Obama's entire presidency.

Anyone wanna reply with something substantive?

[Mean Green 93-98]

Anyone wanna reply with something substantive?

So refute it.

[Censored by Laurie]

So refute it.

Refute what, exactly? Your asinine, off-the-cuff, ad hominem assertion that the mantra of Obama's entire presidency is his unwillingness to negotiate? I thought two months ago it was the opposite?

The ACA isn't a bill open for discussion, negotiation and change. It's law...discussed, negotiated, changed, voted on and passed by a democratically elected Congress...signed by a democratically elected President and vetted per the instruction of the oh-so hallowed and infallible document that all of these opponents claim to hold so dear.

There are legislative measures that can be taken to reform this law. But...that would take actual legislative work...something that I doubt highly those we've elected are capable of doing. I'm not sure if that's a sadder commentary on the elected or the electorate.

[FirefightnRick]

Dems did the sane damn thing, and Reagan was blamed, even though he attempted to sit down and negotiate. It was usually over increased spending, and Reagan, like a good Republican, usually always caved.

The media will make more out of this than it really is, and they will remind the public relentlessly that republicans were to blame, never once mentioning that Pres. Obama refused to negotiate.

Same ole same ole that has been going on for 30 years, except the media is even further left and the attacks will be much more vicious and they will get to the public in seconds, not days or weeks.

.

TV network stories blame GOP, 21-0, for shutdown

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536734

The nations big three news networks are falling right into place for President Obama and the Democrats, blaming the Republican Party for the government shut down by a whopping 21-0 story count.

According to a survey by the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center, in 39 stories during the two weeks leading up to the shutdown, CBS, ABC and NBC blamed the failure to cut a budget deal on the Republicans 21 times, both parties four times, and Democrats zero times. In 14 stories, nobody was to blame.

Rick

Edited October 2, 2013 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

What does he have to negotiate?

The House funds legislation. The house can (and has) chosen to defund Obamacare.

Really shouldn't be a surprise, since the House is still pissed about the use of reconciliation to bypass them in 2009. You know, when voters had elected that house specifically to stop Obamacare?

If he wants it to go through, he should negotiate with the house for a compromise.

But, if I were him, I wouldn't negotiate, either, because Republicans have shown time and again to be full of hot air when it comes to fiscal "principles" and will cave as soon as the political heat gets over body temperature.

Edited October 2, 2013 by UNT90

[Mean Green 93-98]

Your asinine, off-the-cuff, ad hominem assertion

Funny. Pot meet kettle. Isn't that 99% of what you do on this board?

I thought two months ago it was the opposite?

What did I say two months ago that was the opposite? No, I've been firmly convinced for a long time that Obama has no interest in negotiation, bipartisanship, or in uniting America together. None. But go ahead and keep making things up, if you feel like it makes your case better.

The ACA isn't a bill open for discussion, negotiation and change. It's law...discussed, negotiated, changed, voted on and passed by a democratically elected Congress...signed by a democratically elected President and vetted per the instruction of the oh-so hallowed and infallible document that all of these opponents claim to hold so dear.

I agree that the time for negotiation has probably passed. But there was a time for it previously, and that's what I was alluding to. Instead, this monstrosity of a bill was constructed behind closed doors, and advocated and passed by legislators who admitted that they had never read it, and had no idea what all was in it.

Your dripping sarcasm toward the Constitution is duly noted, and I would expect as much from an avowed Marxist. But if you think it is so worthless, I'm not sure why you would even appeal to its authority.

There are legislative measures that can be taken to reform this law. But...that would take actual legislative work...something that I doubt highly those we've elected are capable of doing. I'm not sure if that's a sadder commentary on the elected or the electorate.

I believe some want to do this. But for those on the Democrat side of the aisle, that's a sure way to lose the favor of Fearless Leader.

Edited October 2, 2013 by Mean Green 93-98

[UNT90]

.

TV network stories blame GOP, 21-0, for shutdown

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536734

Rick

It's like the 4th quarter against Georgia.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Obama Administration Blockades WWII Veterans.

http://dailycaller.c...nd-rejected-it/

Rick

..

Wow.!! You are learning the Fox and Rush L. method very well..

They take something true and twist it into something not even close to true.

It is true the Memorial was supposedly closed but it happened because CONGRESS refused to extend the national debt. Obama and his administration did not sign or veto anything to cause it to happen.

I honestly believe that if some Democrat claimed he loved his sister that Fox et. al. would report it and claim he and the Democratic party supported incest.

Thanks for demonstrating what those guys do with the truth.

..

[Mean Green 93-98]

..

Wow.!! You are learning the Fox and Rush L. method very well..

They take something true and twist it into something not even close to true.

It is true the Memorial was supposedly closed but it happened because CONGRESS refused to extend the national debt. Obama and his administration did not sign or veto anything to cause it to happen.

I honestly believe that if some Democrat claimed he loved his sister that Fox et. al. would report it and claim he and the Democratic party supported incest.

Thanks for demonstrating what those guys do with the truth.

..

Who made the specific decision to send guards to block WWII vets from the WWII Memorial?

[GreenBat]

Who made the specific decision to send guards to block WWII vets from the WWII Memorial?

John Boehner, when he decided he'd leave his head up his ass and let the government shutdown.

[UNT90]

John Boehner, when he decided he'd leave his head up his ass and let the government shutdown.

It's amazing how some buy the media spin every time.

Edited October 2, 2013 by UNT90

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

.

TV network stories blame GOP, 21-0, for shutdown

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2536734

Rick

..

So if 21 kids in a classroom tell the same story about what happened after the teacher stepped out and a kid named Fox tells a different one, you would believe the kid named Fox and not the all the others.... hmmmmm .... does that sound reasonable to you...??? Hope you are never in charge a situation like that ..... or on a jury where all the witnesses tell one story and you don't believe them unless their name is Fox.

..

[Mean Green 93-98]

John Boehner, when he decided he'd leave his head up his ass and let the government shutdown.

I don't think you understood the question. I said the specific decision. Someone ordered guards--employees of the federal government, even though the government is supposedly "shut down"--out to the WWII Memorial to block veterans from accessing the Memorial. Who gave that specific order?

[GreenBat]

It's amazing how some buy the media spin every time.

http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-government-shutdown-press-conference-2013-10

[UNTFan23]

http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-government-shutdown-press-conference-2013-10

Where in that article does it mention that Boehner ordered guards to the WWII Memorial Mall to prevent people from going in?

Edited October 3, 2013 by UNTFan23

[FirefightnRick]

Who made the specific decision to send guards to block WWII vets from the WWII Memorial?

More guards than they had to defend Benghazi?

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

1. Funny. Pot meet kettle. Isn't that 99% of what you do on this board?

2. What did I say two months ago that was the opposite? No, I've been firmly convinced for a long time that Obama has no interest in negotiation, bipartisanship, or in uniting America together. None. But go ahead and keep making things up, if you feel like it makes your case better.

3. I agree that the time for negotiation has probably passed. But there was a time for it previously, and that's what I was alluding to. Instead, this monstrosity of a bill was constructed behind closed doors, and advocated and passed by legislators who admitted that they had never read it, and had no idea what all was in it.

4. Your dripping sarcasm toward the Constitution is duly noted, and I would expect as much from an avowed Marxist. But if you think it is so worthless, I'm not sure why you would even appeal to its authority.

5. I believe some want to do this. But for those on the Democrat side of the aisle, that's a sure way to lose the favor of Fearless Leader.

1. 95%. But I do it well...and I don't indigently ask for my asinine and off-the-cuff comments to be refuted as if they were salient points.

2. I wasn't referring to you personally...I don't care enough about you to note or memorize any of your specific comments. I was referring to the sentiment that Obama would rather cow-tail and attempt to negotiate with the likes of Assad and Iran than take a firm stand and flex military muscle. He's weak, right? The world is laughing at us now, right?

3. Bills are drafted in committee. Are those your "closed doors"? This is already a watered-down version of the legislation Obama wanted...multiple concessions have already been made.

4. Your reading comprehension is poor...though not as poor as your assertions about me. The sarcasm is directed at those congress-people who every time a television camera is pointed their direction will laud the constitution endlessly and produce their pocket-sized copy that they always carry with them...as if it informs their every decision, from policy to what they want for dinner...but then become petulant children when the constitution's processes don't work out in their favor and they bemoan an un-bridled executive or an un-elected judiciary as being the downfall of this once great nation. As to my personal views...you're wrong...very...if you'd like my opinions on Marx and his philosophy, I'll gladly offer them...but I'll assume you don't and would rather hold your simple-minded opinion that anyone who could take merit from Marx and refuses to hold the idea of American exceptionalism must then be an American-hating Marxist.

5. sure, dude.

[Mean Green 93-98]

1. 95%. But I do it well...and I don't indigently ask for my asinine and off-the-cuff comments to be refuted as if they were salient points.

Indigently? Okay . . .

2. I wasn't referring to you personally...I don't care enough about you to note or memorize any of your specific comments. I was referring to the sentiment that Obama would rather cow-tail and attempt to negotiate with the likes of Assad and Iran than take a firm stand and flex military muscle. He's weak, right? The world is laughing at us now, right?

You were responding to me as though there was some inconsistency in what I was saying. So apparently not.

I really don't know why you're bringing in comments about going to war with Assad, because I was certainly never in favor of it, at least under the present circumstances. You seem to enjoy making false comments about my reading comprehension . . . maybe your writing coherency is what needs to be called into question?

3. Bills are drafted in committee. Are those your "closed doors"? This is already a watered-down version of the legislation Obama wanted...multiple concessions have already been made.

The Democratically-controlled House passed its plan in 2009 with nearly zero Republican input. In the Senate, the Gang of Six—Democratic Sens. Baucus (Mont.), Conrad (N.D.), and Bingaman (N.M.), and Republican Sens. Grassley (Iowa), Snowe (Maine), and Enzi (Wyo.)—failed to come to an agreement because the Republicans were concerned about the bill’s dramatic increase in taxes and spending.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/05/would-democrats-block-a-republican-plan-for-universal-coverage-out-of-spite/

4. Your reading comprehension is poor...though not as poor as your assertions about me. The sarcasm is directed at those congress-people who every time a television camera is pointed their direction will laud the constitution endlessly and produce their pocket-sized copy that they always carry with them...as if it informs their every decision, from policy to what they want for dinner...but then become petulant children when the constitution's processes don't work out in their favor and they bemoan an un-bridled executive or an un-elected judiciary as being the downfall of this once great nation. As to my personal views...you're wrong...very...if you'd like my opinions on Marx and his philosophy, I'll gladly offer them...but I'll assume you don't and would rather hold your simple-minded opinion that anyone who could take merit from Marx and refuses to hold the idea of American exceptionalism must then be an American-hating Marxist.

How is it wrong to say that you are a Marxist? I didn't think I was saying anything with which you'd disagree, considering you said:

Everybody should read Marx. The USSR did a remarkable job of butchering Marxist philosphy...especially since even Marx didn't believe that his principles could work on a large scale because human greed is inherent. This ties into the tired thought that Socialism is the philosophy of the lazy...cooperation does not mean lazy. Marx believed that the majority of people had the ability to work for each other...to measure their success not on the size of their wallets, but the happiness and vitality of their neighbors and community as a whole. He also identified, accuratly, that there were those who couldn't work for such goals...and that for the betterment of society they should be removed; on a small scale, that works, people are removed from the commune and asked to live and thrive elsewhere...on a large scale, you get Stalin. The worst thing you can ever do to a philosopher is to actually impliment his philosophies.

And if you agree that the Constitution is and should remain the authoritative law of our land, you're welcome to say so. Based on your previous comment referring to the Constitution as the "oh-so hallowed and infallible document" (whether representing your own view, mocking the views of Republicans, or both) and numerous other comments you have made on this board about the Constitution, I thought it was a fair inference that you do not hold the Constitution in the highest esteem.

5. sure, dude.

I'm assuming that's more of your sarcasm. So here, dude: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/sep/26/senate-democrat-joe-manchin-breaks-white-house-oba/

[Censored by Laurie]

1. How is it wrong to say that you are a Marxist? I didn't think I was saying anything with which you'd disagree, considering you said:

2. And if you agree that the Constitution is and should remain the authoritative law of our land, you're welcome to say so. Based on your previous comment referring to the Constitution as the "oh-so hallowed and infallible document" (whether representing your own view, mocking the views of Republicans, or both) and numerous other comments you have made on this board about the Constitution, I thought it was a fair inference that you do not hold the Constitution in the highest esteem.

1. If I said everyone should read the bible and that many of Jesus's teachings have merit, would that make me a Christian?

2. The Constitution is and should remain the authoritative law of our land...as the fluid and time-interpretive document our founders intended. What I don't hold in high-esteem is a rigid interpretation of a 226 year old document...attempting to manipulate the Constitution to limit rights...parading the Constitution out when it's politically expedient...believing that our Constitution should serve the model for all of our current and future forays into "Nation Building".

[forevereagle]

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It's amazing how some buy the media spin every time.

..

It is more amazing that some just believe one particular network when every other network .. plus printed news sources are saying something entirely different..

Also ask yourself..... did the all others all get together and just make stuff up??? Why would they do that anyway. ?

Edited October 3, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

1. If I said everyone should read the bible and that many of Jesus's teachings have merit, would that make me a Christian?

2. The Constitution is and should remain the authoritative law of our land...as the fluid and time-interpretive document our founders intended. What I don't hold in high-esteem is a rigid interpretation of a 226 year old document...attempting to manipulate the Constitution to limit rights...parading the Constitution out when it's politically expedient...believing that our Constitution should serve the model for all of our current and future forays into "Nation Building".

1. Nothing in your post seemed to limit your hearty approval to "many" of Marx's teachings. But I'll assume you're adding the caveat now, and that you do not consider yourself a Marxist. My mistake.

2. The founders didn't intend for the Constitution to be a "fluid and time-interpretive document." They provided the means for Constitutional amendment. So if portions of the Constitution need slight revising or adaptation, or outright change, that's what needs to be done. It is dishonest for the judiciary or any other branch of government to twist laws to mean something they never were intended to mean, or could legitimately imply considering their original intent.

[GreenBat]

In their own words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eziI4h3J0Eg

[FirefightnRick]

1. Nothing in your post seemed to limit your hearty approval to "many" of Marx's teachings. But I'll assume you're adding the caveat now, and that you do not consider yourself a Marxist. My mistake.

2. The founders didn't intend for the Constitution to be a "fluid and time-interpretive document." They provided the means for Constitutional amendment. So if portions of the Constitution need slight revising or adaptation, or outright change, that's what needs to be done. It is dishonest for the judiciary or any other branch of government to twist laws to mean something they never were intended to mean, or could legitimately imply considering their original intent.

Good post.

Rick