|
On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault".
Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy.
Care to clarify?
|
On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. Show nested quote +The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
Yeah, it's like Obama is actually doing what the Republicans didn't believe he would... Let the shutdown actually be a shutdown. Well.. By voting in these nutjobs you had it coming.
If the Republicans would truely care about these children, why was there no vote about the budget as a whole yet? Oh right, this would end the "war on democracy" the Republicans started in a heartbeat.
You could also argue that the Republicans are using these childrens as leverage to force "compromise" (lol) on Obama.
|
On October 08 2013 23:55 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown Yeah, it's like Obama is actually doing what the Republicans didn't believe he would... Let the shutdown actually be a shutdown. Well.. By voting in these nutjobs you had it coming. If the Republicans would truely care about these children, why was there no vote about the budget as a whole yet? Oh right, this would end the "war on democracy" the Republicans started in a heartbeat. You could also argue that the Republicans are using these childrens as leverage to force "compromise" (lol) on Obama.
If you read the link you would notice they are shutting down places that receive no federal funding and in fact generate profit and pay the government.
They are spending taxpayer money for no reason other than to cause maximum suffering.
If the government ever really did shut down they wouldn't be able to send goons with guns to prevent people from enjoying colonial farms which recieve no federal funding, etc.
|
On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify?
If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really.
|
On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really.
You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty.
|
On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty.
Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was.
|
On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. Show nested quote +The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
That is a fairly strange move by the White House, especially considering the following:
On Monday, Congress unanimously agreed to pass a standalone measure to pay the troops during the partial government shutdown, and President Obama signed the bill into law. But on Thursday morning, Senate majority leader Harry Reid blocked votes on House-passed bills to fund veterans, the military reserves and National Guard, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and national memorials.
As Politico reported Thursday, during the 1995 government shutdown congressional Republicans and President Bill Clinton were able to agree to a "stopgap bill to assure funding for veterans, welfare recipients and the District of Columbia."
Why won't Senate Democrats and President Obama agree now to any more stopgap funding bills?
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York told The Weekly Standard following a noon press conference Thursday that in 1995 "it was a different world." Why is that? "Because we have a Tea Party," Schumer said without elaborating as he walked away.
[ http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/landrieu-schumer-reid-oppose-bills-fund-veterans-affairs-national-institutes-health_759134.html ]
|
On October 08 2013 23:25 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained. You really can't claim that the debt ceiling is about 'future' spending. All of it consists of spending that has already been appropriated by congress. If congress objected to the debt ceiling reaching this level they should have worried about it when they passed the legislation that got it to this point, right now there's nothing that anyone can do short term to avoid going through the ceiling. Also, Obama is not asking congress to pass his budget. He's asking them to pass a budget that's already been negotiated by republicans and democrats, which is very close to the original republican proposal as I understand it or, alternatively a clean CR.
That's exactly what the debt ceiling is about. It's a mechanism to take stock of future spending according to current obligations (i.e., laws) and to bring future spending back to sustainable levels. Many countries don't have this, but as the mechanism does exist, it would be foolish for the Republicans to ignore it. In fact, most serious analysts ignore the political spat and discuss the actual debt situation. Here's two documents.
CBO on the debt ceiling here.
CBO's revised budget estimates that account for the economic downturn.
It's the second document that is at the core of the debt issue. Last year's estimate turned out to be very optimistic, and now the US is headed for another debt crisis in the long run. This means that spending planned under the optimistic estimate needs to be revised too.
And please don't say nonsense like the budget was negotiated or "nothing anyone can do" - the whole situation clearly shows that the negotiations are not complete and Congress IS doing something about it.
|
On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was.
The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans.
The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it.
Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government.
|
On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was. The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans. The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it. Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government.
You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense.
|
On October 08 2013 23:02 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 16:46 omnic wrote:On October 08 2013 15:22 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 15:13 micronesia wrote:On October 08 2013 15:08 Alex1Sun wrote:On October 08 2013 12:45 GTPGlitch wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. Okay, I don't mean to be a jackass, but really how stupid can you be? There have been a handful of republicans that admitted they planned this, there's been a memo/email that was circulated by the Tea Party that was a 'How we'll shut down the government' and a blatant power play by one of the Tea Partiers. If you really think Obama planned all that... On October 08 2013 12:43 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2013 12:37 Alex1Sun wrote:
IMHO the blame is on President Obama here.
I am not a Republican, and I do not agree with many Republican ideas. However it seems to me that President Obama orchestrated this whole government shut down just to hit the Republicans.
President Obama has always been rather centrist and always tried to find a compromise with Republicans. They got used to it. I am certain that Republicans were sure the President Obama would start compromising this time as well. I also think that President Obama counted on them behaving the way they did. Then President Obama suddenly changed his usual behaviour and refused to cater to Republicans' demands. That must have been a big surprise for Republicans. Now President Obama can blame Republicans for the government shutdown, because he successfully tricked them into doing it. The majority of Americans side with President Obama here, so he has reached his goal of lowering the Republican popularity by hurting his own people and the economy. So it's his fault for tricking them into being destructive ideological assholes because without his compromising in the past they'd have set their destructive ideological asshole scopes on less ambitiously destructive things? Well, I just shared my opinion and expected some constructive feedback. Several forum members (both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat) game constructive feedback. Pro-Democrat GTPGlitch however decided to call me stupid, and pro-Democrat KwarK decided to call Republicans destructive ideological assholes without any explanation. Previously I had an idea that Democrats on average would be more level-headed. This thread seems to confirm the opposite. That is not to detract from responses by Djzapz, JonnyBNoHo and some other forum members. They have given good feedback, and I would like to thank them for that. Your theory was pretty wacky, and I don't think you should try to judge a political party and its supporters by how they responded to your particular conjecture. No, president Obama is not some brilliant mastermind who has manipulated the republicans over the years of his presidency into the type of situation you described. Even if your theory was somehow completely accurate, blame would surely not fall entirely on president Obama, as you suggested. Well, yeah, I partially agree now. However is wackiness reason enough for name calling? I somehow thought these forums had a different policy... You're right having an opinion that is a bit wacky isn't reason enough for some one to start name calling. Mostly because there is never a good reason for name calling(because it isn't productive).People are resorting to it out of frustration and I would ask that you try to understand their frustrations before discarding their opinions. Why you should do this this should be self evident in my opinion so I'm going to assume you agree but if you don't agree with me that it's self evident say so and I'll post why I believe that is so. All that said the problem really is that people are trying to justify what the republicans are doing through mental gymnastics. There are people who are currently arguing on this subject by implying or flat out saying that the government shut down is just as much the democrats fault as the republicans. The basis of these arguments usually rely on the idea that what the republicans are currently doing is no different than them trying to argue against the bill before a law is passed and that the republicans are being just as reasonable as the democrats. Going further the stance many have taken is that this is acceptable and that because government shutdowns have happened in the past means that this doesn't set a dangerous precedent because it deflates the gravity of a government shutdown. Government shut downs are a big deal just not in the way the words "government shut down" implies. People think that just because a government shut down doesn't mean complete anarchy it also means business as usual which it does not. Now considering that lets take a look at what you said. You said that Obama manipulated republicans into doing something that would hurt them in the long run. This implies that the republicans are somehow vindicated for their part in the government shut down and that most of the blame should be shifted onto the democrats (or more specifically Obama.). It also implies that Obama would willingly hurt the american people indirectly if it means hurting the republican party and that's not nothing. It's actually a VERY disgusting thing if it was true which is why you got the reactions you did. You can't just throw a claim out there like that and expect people to treat it (or you) with respect because you're not treating the subject with respect unless you have some pretty solid evidence supporting it. p.s. I'm sorry if I came across as a dick but I probably did because i'm a dick. Thanks for your answer Omnic, it is very well written and not offensive in the slightest. I agree with most of what you said here, however why do you think that President Obama willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Republican party is so unbelievable? Democrat supporters seem to believe that the Tea Party is willingly hurting American people in order to hurt the Democrats (and not to fix things as the Tea party claims). Why would President Obama be exempt from being a suspect as well? Again, I am not accusing anybody here, I am merely speculating and trying to understand. The have been a number of posts here that tried to refute my poorly worded hypothesis, however nobody seemed to challenge the following post by Ghanburighan. What do you think about it? Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained. By the way Ghanburighan thanks a lot for your opinion. I would really like to see what other have to say here.
I'll post again later tonight regarding ghanburighan because I only have a moment before I have to leave for work but let me say this. Nobody that I know or has heard of is critical of the tea party in that manner. As far as i'm concerned and everybody I know believes that the tea party believes in what they are doing. They don't simply say or do things to purposely hurt others just to hurt democrats, because hey really believe what they are trying to accomplish is a good cause. So I wouldn't say Obama is exempt because it's not an exemption.
|
On October 09 2013 00:12 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:25 Derez wrote:On October 08 2013 15:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
Alex's theory was not wacky, it was unexplained. This happens a lot on TL. Regarding "tricking" Republicans into this situation, it's basically accepted by analysts once you put some meat on the bones of that statement.
One of the main roles of the opposition in the legislature is to discuss the budget. The budget is the key to the running of the government, so it's the prime candidate for contention. Governments all around the world rise and fall according to their ability to pass the budget. The US has an additional mechanic to emphasize the role of the legislature on the budget, that's the debt ceiling. Not only does the budget have to make sense, it has to either keep the underneath the debt ceiling or Congress has to negotiate a deal how to raise it (standardly, this involves spending cuts and tax raises to bring the debt down eventually). The ACA demand was merely the opening gambit of the Republican party, the actual cuts are decided at negotiations.
In 2011, as in countless years prior, the same discussion has led to negotiations and the proper running of government. This time, Obama said he's unwilling to negotiate, taking a very hard line position. This did catch the Republicans (and the Democrats, at first) off guard as Obama is now asking the legislature to rubber stamp his budget and debt without the standard procedures its there for. This is unlike previous budget and debt ceiling negotiations going back through time. Furthermore, he has orchestrated a PR campaign to make it look like its all the Republican's fault.
So to call Republicans "ideological assholes" and whatnot is out of place and quite rude (no surprises here, Kwark) and Alex's position was actually sound, if poorly worded and worse explained. You really can't claim that the debt ceiling is about 'future' spending. All of it consists of spending that has already been appropriated by congress. If congress objected to the debt ceiling reaching this level they should have worried about it when they passed the legislation that got it to this point, right now there's nothing that anyone can do short term to avoid going through the ceiling. Also, Obama is not asking congress to pass his budget. He's asking them to pass a budget that's already been negotiated by republicans and democrats, which is very close to the original republican proposal as I understand it or, alternatively a clean CR. That's exactly what the debt ceiling is about. It's a mechanism to take stock of future spending according to current obligations (i.e., laws) and to bring future spending back to sustainable levels. Many countries don't have this, but as the mechanism does exist, it would be foolish for the Republicans to ignore it. In fact, most serious analysts ignore the political spat and discuss the actual debt situation. Here's two documents. CBO on the debt ceiling here.CBO's revised budget estimates that account for the economic downturn.It's the second document that is at the core of the debt issue. Last year's estimate turned out to be very optimistic, and now the US is headed for another debt crisis in the long run. This means that spending planned under the optimistic estimate needs to be revised too. And please don't say nonsense like the budget was negotiated or "nothing anyone can do" - the whole situation clearly shows that the negotiations are not complete and Congress IS doing something about it.
When I say nothing anyone can do, I mean to say that there is no way in which congress and the president can pass legislation before the debt ceiling reaches its limit. The debt ceiling is going to have to be raised either way because congress already spent the money in the past, that is the cause of the raise in the debt ceiling. Unless Obama starts selling off the US carrier fleet, there's no way to avoid the US not being able to meet some of its current (major) obligations. Even if Obamacare was delayed for a year (which is what Cruz wants), the debt ceiling would still need raising.
As for the budget that's been negotiated on, as far as I'm aware there's a budget (in the senate? not sure) that has been negotiated by both parties and is pretty damn close to the republican proposal for a budget, much closer than it was to the democratic one. Reid has said he'd pass it and Boehner did as well at some point.
|
So if the shutdown is a clever Obama plot that doesn´t actually impact any of his interests and lets him harm random citizens he doesn´t like for some reason - why do the Republicans maintain the shutdown?
|
On October 09 2013 00:01 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 23:55 Velr wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown Yeah, it's like Obama is actually doing what the Republicans didn't believe he would... Let the shutdown actually be a shutdown. Well.. By voting in these nutjobs you had it coming. If the Republicans would truely care about these children, why was there no vote about the budget as a whole yet? Oh right, this would end the "war on democracy" the Republicans started in a heartbeat. You could also argue that the Republicans are using these childrens as leverage to force "compromise" (lol) on Obama. If you read the link you would notice they are shutting down places that receive no federal funding and in fact generate profit and pay the government. They are spending taxpayer money for no reason other than to cause maximum suffering. If the government ever really did shut down they wouldn't be able to send goons with guns to prevent people from enjoying colonial farms which recieve no federal funding, etc.
Ahm... As far as i understand the problem is, that you don't get what a Goverment Shutdown actually is (supposed to be)?
Goverment Shutdown = Stuff run by the goverment which is not considered essential is shutdown (what is and what isn't or shouldn't be essential is another topic/story, but i'm pretty sure the same guys that made this thing happen had a big say in what this encompasses...).
So, it's only: "Essential vs Non-Essential"-Goverment services... Economics don't really matter here. You shutdown your goverment which means, goverment stops its work, it doesn't matter if that work is actually profitable, charitable or whatever.. Shutdown = Shutdown.
|
On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was. The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans. The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it. Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government. You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense.
I think you would really benefit from visiting the link and attempting to read it.
Most of these places were not blockaded during previous shutdowns. It costs more money to "shut them down" than it would to leave them open. In this context "shut down" means sending armed goons to prevent people from going about their business as usual. It's not like they are just not staffing places any more, the exact opposite is happening: they are sending staff to set up blockades when it isn't needed.
It's really hard to have a conversation when you are only arguing against your own imagination instead of addressing the facts.
|
On October 09 2013 00:30 Unentschieden wrote:
So if the shutdown is a clever Obama plot that doesn´t actually impact any of his interests and lets him harm random citizens he doesn´t like for some reason - why do the Republicans maintain the shutdown?
The GOP have agreed to fund the parks. Obama has threatened a veto.
|
On October 09 2013 00:32 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was. The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans. The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it. Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government. You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense. I think you would really benefit from visiting the link and attempting to read it. Most of these places were not blockaded during previous shutdowns. It costs more money to "shut them down" than it would to leave them open. In this context "shut down" means sending armed goons to prevent people from going about their business as usual. It's not like they are just not staffing places any more, the exact opposite is happening: they are sending staff to set up blockades when it isn't needed. It's really hard to have a conversation when you are only arguing against your own imagination instead of addressing the facts.
The shutdown as a whole is costing way more, than it would to not shut stuff down. By your logic we might as well just re-open the whole government and only have a shutdown on paper because that would be better for everyone. The only reason we can't do that is that republicans are not willing to open the government till they get their way.
|
On October 09 2013 00:30 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:01 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:55 Velr wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown Yeah, it's like Obama is actually doing what the Republicans didn't believe he would... Let the shutdown actually be a shutdown. Well.. By voting in these nutjobs you had it coming. If the Republicans would truely care about these children, why was there no vote about the budget as a whole yet? Oh right, this would end the "war on democracy" the Republicans started in a heartbeat. You could also argue that the Republicans are using these childrens as leverage to force "compromise" (lol) on Obama. If you read the link you would notice they are shutting down places that receive no federal funding and in fact generate profit and pay the government. They are spending taxpayer money for no reason other than to cause maximum suffering. If the government ever really did shut down they wouldn't be able to send goons with guns to prevent people from enjoying colonial farms which recieve no federal funding, etc. Ahm... As far as i understand the problem is, that you don't get what a Goverment Shutdown actually is (supposed to be)? Goverment Shutdown = Stuff run by the goverment which is not considered essential is shutdown (what is and what isn't or shouldn't be essential is another topic/story, but i'm pretty sure the same guys that made this thing happen had a big say in what this encompasses...). So, it's only: "Essential vs Non-Essential"-Goverment services... Economics don't really matter here. You shutdown your goverment which means, goverment stops its work, it doesn't matter if that work is actually profitable, charitable or whatever.. Shutdown = Shutdown.
This is about a budget issue. Blockading places that generate a profit and receive no federal funding is not needed. Doing so costs more than doing nothing. This is something that was never done during any other government shutdown.
They are even blockading private businesses who simply use a portion of federal land--which they pay for.
I don't understand why people arguing against me refuse to read the link. I suppose people who read the link suddenly feel there is no basis to disagree?
|
On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:32 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:
I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38.
[quote] That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was. The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans. The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it. Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government. You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense. I think you would really benefit from visiting the link and attempting to read it. Most of these places were not blockaded during previous shutdowns. It costs more money to "shut them down" than it would to leave them open. In this context "shut down" means sending armed goons to prevent people from going about their business as usual. It's not like they are just not staffing places any more, the exact opposite is happening: they are sending staff to set up blockades when it isn't needed. It's really hard to have a conversation when you are only arguing against your own imagination instead of addressing the facts. The shutdown as a whole is costing way more, than it would to not shut stuff down. By your logic we might as well just re-open the whole government and only have a shutdown on paper because that would be better for everyone. The only reason we can't do that is that republicans are not willing to open the government till they get their way.
Republicans are very willing to open the government. They are also willing to piecemeal open anything the Democrats will agree to.
The only thing the Republicans won't agree to fund is the ACA. Democrats won't agree to fund anything but.
|
On October 09 2013 00:32 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:26 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:15 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:06 ragz_gt wrote:On October 09 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:03 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:52 Zaqwe wrote:On October 08 2013 23:47 ragz_gt wrote:On October 08 2013 23:28 Zaqwe wrote:I apologize if this has already been posted. Visit the link for a full list, currently up to #38. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public PainWhile our president still enjoys his essential employees and locations: the White House chefs, Camp David, and a military golf course, there doesn't seem to be any question that in mercenary pursuit of a political win, this White House is determined to unreasonably punish as many everyday people as possible. And this includes children sick with cancer. That might sound like hyperbole, but it is not. Although Barack Obama's chefs have been deemed "essential," employees at the National Institutes of Health who offer last-chance experimental cancer treatments for children suffering from cancer have not. Worse still, House Republicans have offered to compromise with the president and single the NIH out for funding. The White House has threatened a veto. Using children sick with cancer as pawns is community organizing on steroids. And the media are covering for him. When the media thought they could emotionally blackmail the GOP with these sick children, telling their story was all the rage. Now that it is Obama and Senate Democrats wrist-flicking refusing treatment for these children, suddenly the media aren't too interested in telling their story. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown That's kinda arsebackward logic... "If you don't give me 1 million dollar I will kill this child and it's your fault". Sorry, I don't really understand your analogy. Care to clarify? If the you initialized the shutdown, and can stop it anytime you truly want, you can't really blame others for not willing to comprise about the damage from shutdown. Simple, really. You are still being needlessly vague. Both of your posts could equally be applied to Republicans or Democrats depending on your party loyalty. Exactly. I blame both sides. Like I said, it's a monkey vs donkey show, only they are using my tax money to do it. They can both crash and burn for all I care. On the other hand, PR BS is BS no matter who put it out, which is all that piece was. The most egregious "PR BS" at play here would be the unnecessary shutdowns which are being done in a deliberate attempt to cause suffering to American citizens. The gambit is angry citizens will direct their anger at Republicans. The site I linked is just an aggregated list of completely unneeded shutdowns. Go try reading it. Sure, both sides could cave in and end the stalemate. Only one side is going out of their way to shut down colonial farms which recieve no taxpayer money, and other such attractions which actually generate profit for the federal government. You can't just go "oh, they don't get funding, so they don't need to be shutdown" when you shutdown the frigging government... It's a faulty premise to start with, as what's shutdown and what not is detailed in provision as part of the deal way before the whole cluster fuck start, same as during previous shutdown. The shutdown is not even a fiscal issue, rather than logistic issue, as it is illegal to keep institute operational with private donation and such, even though it makes practical sense. I think you would really benefit from visiting the link and attempting to read it. Most of these places were not blockaded during previous shutdowns. It costs more money to "shut them down" than it would to leave them open. In this context "shut down" means sending armed goons to prevent people from going about their business as usual. It's not like they are just not staffing places any more, the exact opposite is happening: they are sending staff to set up blockades when it isn't needed. It's really hard to have a conversation when you are only arguing against your own imagination instead of addressing the facts.
What blockade has anything to do with your original argument that "Obama is closing things that doesn't need to be closed to hurt people and push his agenda"? There is no "business as usual" if it's shutdown. You can't "business is usual" when something is shutdown and pretend it's not, armed blockade or not. You are just showing that you have no concept of what shutdown is.
It's like you can't go into a public swimming pool after it's closed, even though it cost them money to keep you out rather than let you "business as usual", because there are procedure / policies involved with it, such as insurance, security etc. To not understand that just shows how little you understand how things actually work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
494
116
EPT
