What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
:lmao:
Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, Slapdash, yesterday you called Obama an idiot for saying he would not use the 14th Amendment in the event the House did not raise the debt ceiling. I've just been listening to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, and he makes a very convincing argument (at least to me) as to why Obama was right to do this, and you are wrong.

Toobin explained that nobody really knows whether or not Obama has the legal right to invoke the 14th- it would have to go to the Supreme Court. In doing so, that would create the same uncertainty to our marketplace that using the 14th would be designed to prevent. Therefore, even though Obama MIGHT have the legal power to do so, it would be incredibly unwise for him to actually do it. As Toobin explained, it's a non-starter. Thoughts?

 
Obama just announced that with the debt ceiling raise, he is willing to negotiate over "broad, budget issues". :thumbup:

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
The problem is going to come when the President renews his call for some combination of spending cuts + new revenues and Republicans refuse to consider new revenues, demanding instead that budget reform be comprised of nothing except spending cuts -- including to entitlements. That's what kicked this whole thing off, and there's no reason for optimism that I can see.

 
Obama just announced that with the debt ceiling raise, he is willing to negotiate over "broad, budget issues". :thumbup:

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
The problem is going to come when the President renews his call for some combination of spending cuts + new revenues and Republicans refuse to consider new revenues, demanding instead that budget reform be comprised of nothing except spending cuts -- including to entitlements. That's what kicked this whole thing off, and there's no reason for optimism that I can see.
I predict it won't even be discussed. First, they'll remove the device tax, plus a few other changes, and that will end the shutdown.

Next, during the 6 week period, they'll agree to change the sequester cuts to more targeted, reasonable cuts (something I've wanted all along.) They might put through Keystone. And everything else (revenue vs. more serious cuts) will be put off until 2014.

 
Obama just announced that with the debt ceiling raise, he is willing to negotiate over "broad, budget issues". :thumbup:

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
The problem is going to come when the President renews his call for some combination of spending cuts + new revenues and Republicans refuse to consider new revenues, demanding instead that budget reform be comprised of nothing except spending cuts -- including to entitlements. That's what kicked this whole thing off, and there's no reason for optimism that I can see.
I predict it won't even be discussed. First, they'll remove the device tax, plus a few other changes, and that will end the shutdown.

Next, during the 6 week period, they'll agree to change the sequester cuts to more targeted, reasonable cuts (something I've wanted all along.) They might put through Keystone. And everything else (revenue vs. more serious cuts) will be put off until 2014.
Well I certainly hope you're right.

 
Although Obama said he would negotiate, Boehner just said that the price of the 6 week debt ceiling raise is specifically for Obama to agree to go to conference- which Obama has refused to do until the shut down was lifted. The CNN expert suggests that Obama will either agree to this, or he will come back with a counterproposal that the shut down is lifted for 6 weeks as well. Either way, the suspicion is that some kind of deal is in the works.

 
Obama just announced that with the debt ceiling raise, he is willing to negotiate over "broad, budget issues". :thumbup:

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
The problem is going to come when the President renews his call for some combination of spending cuts + new revenues and Republicans refuse to consider new revenues, demanding instead that budget reform be comprised of nothing except spending cuts -- including to entitlements. That's what kicked this whole thing off, and there's no reason for optimism that I can see.
I predict it won't even be discussed. First, they'll remove the device tax, plus a few other changes, and that will end the shutdown.

Next, during the 6 week period, they'll agree to change the sequester cuts to more targeted, reasonable cuts (something I've wanted all along.) They might put through Keystone. And everything else (revenue vs. more serious cuts) will be put off until 2014.
Well I certainly hope you're right.
Me too. :unsure:

 
Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
:lmao:
Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, Slapdash, yesterday you called Obama an idiot for saying he would not use the 14th Amendment in the event the House did not raise the debt ceiling. I've just been listening to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, and he makes a very convincing argument (at least to me) as to why Obama was right to do this, and you are wrong.

Toobin explained that nobody really knows whether or not Obama has the legal right to invoke the 14th- it would have to go to the Supreme Court. In doing so, that would create the same uncertainty to our marketplace that using the 14th would be designed to prevent. Therefore, even though Obama MIGHT have the legal power to do so, it would be incredibly unwise for him to actually do it. As Toobin explained, it's a non-starter. Thoughts?
It's something that has to be avoided at all costs or the imperial presidency that many fear depending on who is in the White House will be a very real thing.

God my spelling is terrible today. This brief is killing me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
:lmao:
Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, Slapdash, yesterday you called Obama an idiot for saying he would not use the 14th Amendment in the event the House did not raise the debt ceiling. I've just been listening to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, and he makes a very convincing argument (at least to me) as to why Obama was right to do this, and you are wrong.

Toobin explained that nobody really knows whether or not Obama has the legal right to invoke the 14th- it would have to go to the Supreme Court. In doing so, that would create the same uncertainty to our marketplace that using the 14th would be designed to prevent. Therefore, even though Obama MIGHT have the legal power to do so, it would be incredibly unwise for him to actually do it. As Toobin explained, it's a non-starter. Thoughts?
It's something that has to be avoided at all costs of the imperial presidency that manner fear depending on who is in the White House will be a very real thing.
Umm- I don't understand this sentence.

 
Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
:lmao:
Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, Slapdash, yesterday you called Obama an idiot for saying he would not use the 14th Amendment in the event the House did not raise the debt ceiling. I've just been listening to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, and he makes a very convincing argument (at least to me) as to why Obama was right to do this, and you are wrong.

Toobin explained that nobody really knows whether or not Obama has the legal right to invoke the 14th- it would have to go to the Supreme Court. In doing so, that would create the same uncertainty to our marketplace that using the 14th would be designed to prevent. Therefore, even though Obama MIGHT have the legal power to do so, it would be incredibly unwise for him to actually do it. As Toobin explained, it's a non-starter. Thoughts?
It's something that has to be avoided at all costs of the imperial presidency that manner fear depending on who is in the White House will be a very real thing.
Umm- I don't understand this sentence.
Because my typing is awful today. Drink a little and it makes sense.

 
The longer this shutdown goes on, the worse the Republican railing against Obamacare is going to poll. More and more people are getting signed up for it and the Republicans know from the bottom of their hearts that the moment the clock ticks January 1st and the first subsidies and fees go through, it'll be impossible to repeal because even people from their own districts will have gotten a taste.

So yeah, go ahead and keep going along that tack.

 
Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
:lmao:
Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, Slapdash, yesterday you called Obama an idiot for saying he would not use the 14th Amendment in the event the House did not raise the debt ceiling. I've just been listening to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, and he makes a very convincing argument (at least to me) as to why Obama was right to do this, and you are wrong.

Toobin explained that nobody really knows whether or not Obama has the legal right to invoke the 14th- it would have to go to the Supreme Court. In doing so, that would create the same uncertainty to our marketplace that using the 14th would be designed to prevent. Therefore, even though Obama MIGHT have the legal power to do so, it would be incredibly unwise for him to actually do it. As Toobin explained, it's a non-starter. Thoughts?
We're creating the uncertainty regardless. The 14th has the prospect of taking the debt ceiling off the table forever, as it should be.

 
Matthias said:
I am pretty disgusted with most of the discussion here. Too many people worried about who is too blame, who looks worse in the polls. All these SOB's need to swallow their pride and do their job. There is nothing hard here....put some framework together for coming to agreement on fiscal issues and sign the resolution. Obama does not have to make a single concession on Obamacare. But he does have to come to the table and talk and stop being such a dickwad. He has to start leading and stop listening to the idiotic partisan hacks.
"I'm disgusted by people talking about whose fault it is. It's Obama's fault and he should fix it."
He is the president. He was elected to lead. hth
He is leading. He is setting the terms of the negotiation. You and the repubs might not like the terms, but that hardly matters.
not sure about that. it might matter

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
Hey dude. i was just kidding around. For you to write something like that- you really need to chill out a bit.

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I think you just crossed the streams in the FFA universe. Your computer should be blowing up in 5....4.....3....2.....

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
You may be wound a little too tight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
Hey dude. i was just kidding around. For you to write something like that- you really need to chill out a bit.
oh, so you think its a bad analogy?

 
I kind of wanted to see this place shut down. I feel like the Joker. I just wanted to watch the world burn for a little.
BGP has a club you can join for this.
Serious question.

Do you get more enjoyment out of watching other people suffer than watching people being happy?
Me? I'm all about the happiness. Here's a fun fact about me a lot of people don't know: I like to joke around a lot.

That said, some worldwide panic at the disco (as well as every other venue) might just be fun to watch for a couple weeks. Maybe the next time a situation like this came up, neither side would think about doing it again. Sometimes you have to burn your hand to realize not to touch the stove. :shrug:

 
Obama just announced that with the debt ceiling raise, he is willing to negotiate over "broad, budget issues". :thumbup:

Telling you guys, this is going to get done fairly quickly now.
Pretty sure we've been saying that for decades now. Well, some of us. Here's my prediction: they will kick the can further down the road, make no substantive changes, and we'll be stuck with the same debt/deficit problem next year, the year after that, and for the next five years after that.

 
What I find funny now is the change in message. A week ago it was "repeal obamacare"....now it's "we just want everyone in the system with us" and "we just want Obama to treat the people like he does companies". The latter is not a bad argument as a lot of us raised it as an initial question when he gave the waivers in the first place...glad they're finally catching up. Now if they can get out of their own way to get the point across, they might be making some progress.

I doubt anyone can provide a reasonable answer to "If you leave enrollment open and allow people to sign up for healthcare, why can't you rollback the mandate like you did for big business?" I personally see no issue with this solution. If the concern is "access to healthcare" as some suggest, they provided that access as of last Monday.
that's called N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.

Liberals keep incorrectly repeating that the R's are holding government hostage because the D's won't repeal Obamacare...
No, its called realizing that the President wasn't going to budge and trying to save face anyway they can.
save face by trying to negotiate with a man who said he would veto any attempt to negotiate or the man that said he would "talk" after he was given what he wanted?

Can't argue with that brilliant logic!
You won't read this, but i"m going to post it anyway....so they are now "negotiating" on things that have no impact to the budget. By "negotiating" back to this level and wanting the mandate to be delayed for people like it was for companies they are moving from behind the "budget/finance" rock and showing that they just want to stall Obamacare. Whether the government is part of the plan or not is immaterial to the budgetary bottom line. So now what?

 
He was 100% right to do that.
Negotiations on Obamacare are OVER. The GOP tried 43 times to kill it, all unsuccessful attempts. They took it to the Supreme Court and lost most of their claim. It's a three year old law now. You don't always get what you want in a representative democracy or a democracy. So you can't morally or ethically hold the American economy hostage because you didn't get your way. That was why the shutdown started and now, the republicans are trying to say that this wasn't what it was all about.

It's a very rare instance where one party is 100% to blame for a political issue, but this is one of those cases.
In a thread filled with stupidity, this argument is right up there with the leaders. Saying that there will be no negotiations over a 3 year old law, most of which hasn't even been implemented yet and which has already been altered several times, is absurd. I agree this isn't the forum for it, but we're no where near done modifying it.
:goodposting:

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
You may be wound a little too tight.
How about Republicans are Lilliputian?

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
You may be wound a little too tight.
How about Republicans are Lilliputian?
It was the literally thing. Andy D would not be happy with the usage there, so it's good he didn't see it. I mean, the GOP isn't putting people on trains just yet. So, while we can not like our political opponents, we need not go that far.

Lilliputian is too nice. Right now, they are coolectively the dumbest group of weakass dumb that any party has been in our government since the dems during the civil war.

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I think you just crossed the streams in the FFA universe. Your computer should be blowing up in 5....4.....3....2.....
It's certainly going to send JoJo further over the edge and I'm not so sure jon_mx will be there to catch him :popcorn:

 
All over conservative/Tea Party websites and blogs, and talk show hosts, the same phrase is being repeated: "STAND YOUR GROUND!"

It seems that the House Republicans are George Zimmerman, and President Obama is Trayvon Martin.
I like to think of it as the House Reublicans are hitler (literally) and Obama is Anne Frank.
You may be wound a little too tight.
It took Hitler to finally reach that conclusion? :lol:

 
You won't read this, but i"m going to post it anyway....so they are now "negotiating" on things that have no impact to the budget. By "negotiating" back to this level and wanting the mandate to be delayed for people like it was for companies they are moving from behind the "budget/finance" rock and showing that they just want to stall Obamacare. Whether the government is part of the plan or not is immaterial to the budgetary bottom line. So now what?
Why are you bringing up the budget? I assume you are replying to the wrong post.

You said:

What I find funny now is the change in message. A week ago it was "repeal obamacare"....now it's "we just want everyone in the system with us" and "we just want Obama to treat the people like he does companies".
I said:

that's called N-E-G-O-T-I-A-T-I-O-N.
to which you replied:

they are now "negotiating" on things that have no impact to the budget.
huh? budget?

followed by:

By "negotiating" back to this level and wanting the mandate to be delayed for people
huh? back to what level?

It's like you are throwing #### against the wall to see what sticks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top