|
On October 09 2013 00:41 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote: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:
[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.
Which is why I added "till they get their way". Republicans have shut down the government, creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the Democrats will cave and put off ACA. They may have offered ways to marginally improve the situation, especially for people they traditionally cater to. The fact is still that they have forced a terrible situation and it is insane to blame Democrats for not cooperating in making things slightly better for the GOP voters.
|
On October 09 2013 00:44 ragz_gt wrote:
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.
Why do you persist in refusing to visit the link or read any of the contents?
8. Obama Closes Over 100 Privately-Managed Parks That Cost No Money to Run - The U.S. Treasury actually makes money from the rent paid by a private company that "employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across about a dozen states." No federal money is used to operate these parks. No federal employees are used to staff these parks. Taxpayers make a profit from these parks. Still, Obama had them closed and as a result 400-500 employees and a private business are taking it in the neck.
9. Obama Closes Self-Sustaining Colonial Farm It Hasn’t Supported Since 1980 - "For the first time in 40 years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm has always been exempted since the NPS provides no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”
12. Obama Closes Privately-Owned Hotel, Police Block Parking Lot - "The operator of a 51-room inn located on U.S. government-owned land in North Carolina abandoned his defiant stance on Thursday to keep the property open despite being ordered to close as part of the federal government shutdown."
October is this inn's prime season. The GOP have offered compromise funding opening the parks. Obama said he will veto that compromise.
State troopers blocked customers from entering the inn's parking lot.
These places are completely capable of going about their everyday business with zero federal funding.
The feds have sent armed men to forcibly prevent them from doing business.
Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
Please, do less posting and more reading. I am begging you. Read. Learn. Understand.
|
On October 09 2013 00:47 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:41 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Which is why I added "till they get their way". Republicans have shut down the government, creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the Democrats will cave and put off ACA. They may have offered ways to marginally improve the situation, especially for people they traditionally cater to. The fact is still that they have forced a terrible situation and it is insane to blame Democrats for not cooperating in making things slightly better for the GOP voters.
Obama has been unnecessarily shutting places down "creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the [Republicans] will cave and [fund] ACA".
It's important to understand that these shutdowns are unnecessary, even with no budget passed. To blame unneeded blockades ordered by Obama on Republicans is a bizarre spin.
The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain [...] In fact, there are a number of examples where Obama seems to be spending more money and using more resources to close and block and inconvenience than to just leave it alone. The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama's shrill pettiness. Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown
I really recommend you read that list so you can get a better understanding of what you are defending.
|
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.
The ACA isn't some minor piece of legislation about sidewalk etiquette, you know. It's really disingenuous to characterize this as the Republicans objecting to just one thing among many, many important pieces of legislation. The ACA is huge. It's at the core of the Democratic Party's platform, and has been for a long time. Seriously, it's Obama's signature policy; it's the one thing that everyone associates with his presidency. No shit the Democrats won't agree to not fund it. It would undermine the entire premise of what they've been trying to do.
The quibbling about closing farms and whatnot is just that -- quibbling. You're trying to extract way, way too much from those examples.
|
On October 09 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:47 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 00:41 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Which is why I added "till they get their way". Republicans have shut down the government, creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the Democrats will cave and put off ACA. They may have offered ways to marginally improve the situation, especially for people they traditionally cater to. The fact is still that they have forced a terrible situation and it is insane to blame Democrats for not cooperating in making things slightly better for the GOP voters. Obama has been unnecessarily shutting places down "creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the [Republicans] will cave and [fund] ACA". It's important to understand that these shutdowns are unnecessary, even with no budget passed. To blame unneeded blockades ordered by Obama on Republicans is a bizarre spin. Show nested quote +The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain [...] In fact, there are a number of examples where Obama seems to be spending more money and using more resources to close and block and inconvenience than to just leave it alone. The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama's shrill pettiness. Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown I really recommend you read that list so you can get a better understanding of what you are defending.
Huh? He's just negotiating with republicans. Because if you're arguing on the side of the republicans you pretty much have to say that shutting things down willy nilly is a valid way to get leverage.
|
On October 09 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:47 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 00:41 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Which is why I added "till they get their way". Republicans have shut down the government, creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the Democrats will cave and put off ACA. They may have offered ways to marginally improve the situation, especially for people they traditionally cater to. The fact is still that they have forced a terrible situation and it is insane to blame Democrats for not cooperating in making things slightly better for the GOP voters. Obama has been unnecessarily shutting places down "creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the [Republicans] will cave and [fund] ACA". It's important to understand that these shutdowns are unnecessary, even with no budget passed. To blame unneeded blockades ordered by Obama on Republicans is a bizarre spin. Show nested quote +The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain [...] In fact, there are a number of examples where Obama seems to be spending more money and using more resources to close and block and inconvenience than to just leave it alone. The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama's shrill pettiness. Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdown I really recommend you read that list so you can get a better understanding of what you are defending.
I have read your list, and nothing shocking is on there (even if Obama is killing children with cancer). The whole government shutdown is costing us more money, than not shutting down would have and it hurts hundreds of thousands of Americans very badly so picking out a few items that do the same on a smaller scale is not really an argument.
I do not defend shutdowns. What I'm defending that when someone is saying:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it.
Hey there are a couple of things that were shutdown which we don't really want to be shutdown, could you please keep them open.
No? Do you not care that this whole spectacle is unnecessary and will hurt some US citizens? Are you a monster?"
You do not give in and just let them get their way. It is the same principle as not negotiating with terrorists. It may hurt us in the short term, but it needs to be clear that this "negotiation tactic" of hurting the country cannot work so you shouldn't try it in the future.
|
On October 09 2013 01:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +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. The ACA isn't some minor piece of legislation about sidewalk etiquette, you know. It's really disingenuous to characterize this as the Republicans objecting to just one thing among many, many important pieces of legislation. The ACA is huge. It's at the core of the Democratic Party's platform, and has been for a long time. Seriously, it's Obama's signature policy; it's the one thing that everyone associates with his presidency. No shit the Democrats won't agree to not fund it. It would undermine the entire premise of what they've been trying to do. The quibbling about closing farms and whatnot is just that -- quibbling. You're trying to extract way, way too much from those examples.
If it were just "quibbling" then the administration wouldn't be going out of their way to blockade them. Obviously they feel they have something to gain by unnecessarily shutting these places down and trying to pin the blame on Republicans.
You're right that the Democrats think the ACA is important. So important they are willing to go out of their way to cause maximum inconvenience and suffering to citizens in an attempt to force the budget through without compromise.
|
On October 09 2013 01:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 00:59 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:47 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 00:41 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 00:38 rasnj wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Which is why I added "till they get their way". Republicans have shut down the government, creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the Democrats will cave and put off ACA. They may have offered ways to marginally improve the situation, especially for people they traditionally cater to. The fact is still that they have forced a terrible situation and it is insane to blame Democrats for not cooperating in making things slightly better for the GOP voters. Obama has been unnecessarily shutting places down "creating a bad situation, and hopes that in order to avoid this bad situation the [Republicans] will cave and [fund] ACA". It's important to understand that these shutdowns are unnecessary, even with no budget passed. To blame unneeded blockades ordered by Obama on Republicans is a bizarre spin. The List: Unnecessarily Shut Down by Obama to Inflict Public Pain [...] In fact, there are a number of examples where Obama seems to be spending more money and using more resources to close and block and inconvenience than to just leave it alone. The media may or may not report on these individual occurrences, but what they will never do is provide the American people with the full context and scope of Obama's shrill pettiness. Below is a list of illogical, unnecessary, and shockingly spiteful moves our government is making in the name of essential and non-essential. [...] http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/list-obama-closures-for-shutdownI really recommend you read that list so you can get a better understanding of what you are defending. Huh? He's just negotiating with republicans. Because if you're arguing on the side of the republicans you pretty much have to say that shutting things down willy nilly is a valid way to get leverage.
I am sure you thought that was clever, but it's incoherent.
|
On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it.
So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA.
I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care.
I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama.
|
On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama.
You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA.
|
On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama.
So george bush jr, by not ending the spread of american imperialism, held the people of the twin towers hostage.
Yeah, no. Learn how to use words correctly. The person who is pointing the gun generally holds the hostages. Since Obama is not the House, he cannot take the budget hostage as that is not within his power. I can see how you would be confused, as the president does live in the White House, but I assure you that is not related to the congressional body which has decided to shut down the government.
|
On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA.
Oh, wow. I thought you were talking about Obama.
It's difficult to understand when people aren't explicit. In context we were talking about the unnecessary shutdowns which have nothing to do with the budget not being passed but rather are done by Obama out of spite.
I don't see a problem with not passing a budget. Congress has authority over budgets for a reason.
Obama going out of his way (spending additionally) to shut down places that aren't dependent on a budget being passed (and therefore can't possibly be the Republican's fault) is where, to me, the metaphorical "hostage taking" is happening.
|
On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA.
And the democrat Senate refused to approve any appropriation bill coming from the house except a "clean" CR. You can spin this both ways.
|
On October 09 2013 01:25 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA. Oh, wow. I thought you were talking about Obama. It's difficult to understand when people aren't explicit. In context we were talking about the unnecessary shutdowns which have nothing to do with the budget not being passed but rather are done by Obama out of spite. I don't see a problem with not passing a budget. Congress has authority over budgets for a reason. Obama going out of his way (spending additionally) to shut down places that aren't dependent on a budget being passed (and therefore can't possibly be the Republican's fault) is where, to me, the metaphorical "hostage taking" is happening.
Incorrect. Government shutdown means nonessential services gone. If it's on the list of non-essential services, it can go. Furthermore, shutting down highly visible things like monuments and parks is very useful to the american people because it pisses people off and in turn they put pressure on their representatives to pass a budget.
|
On October 09 2013 01:26 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA. And the democrat Senate refused to approve any appropriation bill coming from the house except a "clean" CR. You can spin this both ways.
Not really. This is about as stupid as the motorcycle safety (and abortion) bill that we passed in North Carolina a few months back.
|
On October 09 2013 01:27 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:25 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA. Oh, wow. I thought you were talking about Obama. It's difficult to understand when people aren't explicit. In context we were talking about the unnecessary shutdowns which have nothing to do with the budget not being passed but rather are done by Obama out of spite. I don't see a problem with not passing a budget. Congress has authority over budgets for a reason. Obama going out of his way (spending additionally) to shut down places that aren't dependent on a budget being passed (and therefore can't possibly be the Republican's fault) is where, to me, the metaphorical "hostage taking" is happening. Incorrect. [...] shutting down highly visible things like monuments and parks is very useful [...] because it pisses people off and in turn they put pressure on their representatives to pass a budget.
You lead your post with "incorrect", then end up absolutely 100% agreeing with me.
This is all I have been saying all along. Unnecessary shutdowns are just political grandstanding (hostage taking) by the Obama administration.
|
It seems to me just about everyone in this tread understands... With you as the exception...
|
On October 09 2013 01:29 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:27 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2013 01:25 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA. Oh, wow. I thought you were talking about Obama. It's difficult to understand when people aren't explicit. In context we were talking about the unnecessary shutdowns which have nothing to do with the budget not being passed but rather are done by Obama out of spite. I don't see a problem with not passing a budget. Congress has authority over budgets for a reason. Obama going out of his way (spending additionally) to shut down places that aren't dependent on a budget being passed (and therefore can't possibly be the Republican's fault) is where, to me, the metaphorical "hostage taking" is happening. Incorrect. [...] shutting down highly visible things like monuments and parks is very useful [...] because it pisses people off and in turn they put pressure on their representatives to pass a budget. You lead your post with "incorrect", then end up absolutely 100% agreeing with me. This is all I have been saying all along. Unnecessary shutdowns are just political grandstanding (hostage taking) by the Obama administration.
Unnecessary shutdowns are the point of a government shutdown. You shut down everything that is unnecessary. In fact all of this goes along with the whole republican spin of a 'slimdown'.
|
On October 09 2013 01:32 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 01:29 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:27 Jormundr wrote:On October 09 2013 01:25 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:20 rasnj wrote:On October 09 2013 01:17 Zaqwe wrote:On October 09 2013 01:09 rasnj wrote:
"We will shutdown the government until you give us what we want. We know it will hurt the US citizens, but so be it. So we are basically in agreement. Obama is holding everything he possibly can hostage in an attempt to force Republicans to fund the ACA. I am not even taking a stance on whether that is acceptable or not. Support it or don't, I do not care. I only entered the thread to point out that so many shutdowns are not a result of budget, but a deliberate political manouver by Obama. You do realize that my quote describes how the Republicans have been behaving right? No matter who you supports and how much your views differ surely you cannot think the Democrats started this by saying they would shut down the government right? You can argue that shutting down is a legitimate tactic (I disagree), but it was the Republican house who refused to approve any budget that did not defund ACA. Oh, wow. I thought you were talking about Obama. It's difficult to understand when people aren't explicit. In context we were talking about the unnecessary shutdowns which have nothing to do with the budget not being passed but rather are done by Obama out of spite. I don't see a problem with not passing a budget. Congress has authority over budgets for a reason. Obama going out of his way (spending additionally) to shut down places that aren't dependent on a budget being passed (and therefore can't possibly be the Republican's fault) is where, to me, the metaphorical "hostage taking" is happening. Incorrect. [...] shutting down highly visible things like monuments and parks is very useful [...] because it pisses people off and in turn they put pressure on their representatives to pass a budget. You lead your post with "incorrect", then end up absolutely 100% agreeing with me. This is all I have been saying all along. Unnecessary shutdowns are just political grandstanding (hostage taking) by the Obama administration. Unnecessary shutdowns are the point of a government shutdown. You shut down everything that is unnecessary. In fact all of this goes along with the whole republican spin of a 'slimdown'.
We are talking about unnecessary shutdowns, not shutdowns of unnecessary services.
The point of a shutdown is to stop spending money on unnecessary services.
Spending money to blockade private businesses--who generate profit for taxpayers--is not the point. These blockades themselves are what is unnecessary.
|
I'll take political grandstanding that affects a insignificant number of people over a partial government shutdown, which will shave a few tenths off our our gdp growth, over a bill that cleared both houses, the presidency, and the supreme court.
Quibbling. That is you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
