The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

 

[timschochet]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.

As usual, you're all over the place. The Tea Party engineered this shutdown as a last second attempt to blackmail Obama into getting rid of Obamacare,. It has nothing to do with the debt.

 

[jon_mx]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.

As usual, you're all over the place. The Tea Party engineered this shutdown as a last second attempt to blackmail Obama into getting rid of Obamacare,. It has nothing to do with the debt.

This is polics. If you let the tea party dictate what is being debated, it is a severe lack of leadership. Obama can change the focus anytime he wishes, but he is playing politics to try to secure wins in the midterm elections. No one cares about what is best for the country. It is all about elections, and that is why Washington sucks.

 

[RCon]

Why do you hate Republican Presidents for doubling and tripling the national debt and vastly expanding federal deficits over the last 35 years?

You kind of answered your own question here, no?

 

[jon_mx]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.

Why do you hate Republican Presidents for doubling and tripling the national debt and vastly expanding federal deficits over the last 35 years?

You have seen what the deficit has done under Obama, no?

Neither party has any room to point fingers at either side.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

Um, no. Laws that get passed and are laws arent "negotiable". You can either pass legislation to repeal them or pass legislation to modify them. BUt you cant "negotiate" them. That already happened, dim bulb.

I think your sheer ignorance is a pretty good example of the KooK thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

 

[jon_mx]

Well, someone just became the second person i put on ignore. It is a tall wall to jump over, but congrats.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.

Why do you hate Republican Presidents for doubling and tripling the national debt and vastly expanding federal deficits over the last 35 years?

You have seen what the deficit has done under Obama, no?

Neither party has any room to point fingers at either side.

Yeah, the deficit has been significantly decreased from the absurd levels George W "Iraq War" Bush drove it to when he broke the world economy. Thanks for pointing out the fiscal responsibility Obama has shown.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Well, someone just became the second person i put on ignore. It is a tall wall to jump over, but congrats.

Only pansies ignore.

 

[timschochet]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

I agree with you that everything should be negotiable. But putting aside the fact, which you seem to want to ignore, that this shutdown is over Obamacare and has nothing to do with the any of the issues you mentioned, the fact is that it is almost impossible to negotiate with the Republican party these days when they refuse to discuss new revenue. This has been the main stumbling block over the the past 3 years or so: Dems are reluctantly willing to accept spending cuts in exchange for new taxes, while Republicans insist on the one without the other. The intransigence is all on one side.

Your description of President Obama is also inaccurate. As a Senator and before he was a very partisan liberal, IMO. But as a President he has governed as a centrist moderate, more conservative in some ways than many of his Republican predecessors. This is not even open to question. He is as far from a "partisan hack" as any President I can think of.

 

[jon_mx]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

 

[jon_mx]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

I agree with you that everything should be negotiable. But putting aside the fact, which you seem to want to ignore, that this shutdown is over Obamacare and has nothing to do with the any of the issues you mentioned, the fact is that it is almost impossible to negotiate with the Republican party these days when they refuse to discuss new revenue. This has been the main stumbling block over the the past 3 years or so: Dems are reluctantly willing to accept spending cuts in exchange for new taxes, while Republicans insist on the one without the other. The intransigence is all on one side.

Your description of President Obama is also inaccurate. As a Senator and before he was a very partisan liberal, IMO. But as a President he has governed as a centrist moderate, more conservative in some ways than many of his Republican predecessors. This is not even open to question. He is as far from a "partisan hack" as any President I can think of.

Again, the public does not give a rats ### about what the tea party wants. Just come up with some kind of plan that actually provides a better solution than flooring it for the upcoming cliff. Do your job and screw what the wingnuts on both sides want.

 

[timschochet]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

 

[jon_mx]

Your description of President Obama is also inaccurate. As a Senator and before he was a very partisan liberal, IMO. But as a President he has governed as a centrist moderate, more conservative in some ways than many of his Republican predecessors. This is not even open to question. He is as far from a "partisan hack" as any President I can think of.

He is still a partisan hack. Just because he puts a better face on it, does not change it. Obama has governed about as liberal as he possibly could have. The poblem is Presidents are kind of boxed in at how far they can go, so they all seem somewhat 'moderate'. But the better presidents like Reagan and Clinton can rise above and show leadership and get positive things accomplished by negotiating.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

Those that look only to confirm their belief that both sides are at fault have the same blinders that any partisan participant. And usually having checked out of the political debate those blinders are even worst. Does being neutral really mean refusal to weigh the choices at all?

What do you mean by this. Are you saying refusal to argue about the issues makes it less likely to understand the issues?

Close. Refusal to compare, contrast, and weigh the positions that make up issues makes it impossible to really understand the issues. And if you do those on both side may be generally guilty, but they will never be equal. One should look at things with an open mind, not come to conclusions with a blank mind.

I can understand just fine what our actual issues are with healthcare without understand the "positions" of these politicians. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure I give a single #### about the political positions of these rubes in office. Those are their problem, not mine, not yours, not anyones. If they robbed Peter to pay Paul and made deals with the devil to get where they're at, that's on them. Leave me out of it. Leave the country out of it. For example....I'd probably be on the Dem side of this one had they gone full on single payer while addressing the costs as well. But no...we get watered down bull#### solutions because Dems have to make sure they keep their jobs so they cut out "controversial" parts of the bill.

You're the second person that has used the phrase "equal". I can only assume that's TGunz putting words in mouths. My opinion is that there's no significant difference where one group can claim they are "better" than the other. To me it's like listening to a 299 lb chick arguing with a 300 lb chick over what "fat" is. Yeah, one's technically lighter than the other, but so what?? Is that difference really something to pound your chest over? I don't consider them "equal". As a matter of fact, the GOP is leading the dysfunctional movement at the moment. But again, when they are simply trying not to trip over the bar rather than actually raise it does it matter who's leading??

Where did I say the positions of politicians? And how is this entire rant not asserting the virtue of being closed minded? Na na na, I can't hear you! Na na na, I can't hear you!

Who's "positions" are you talking about above??

Eg. In the case of the current show down. What are the positions being represented by those willing to shut down government and potentially put the nation in default? Why now? Why was nothing done in advanced? Why is it important to each side not to blink first? How do political careers fit in?

That last one is a consideration here, but it is not the only one nor really the main one for understanding the issues involved.

Ultimately politics is the "art of the possible". You may not like it, but compromised solutions, desperate political power plays, etc. are not really a function of the people but the design. Making change hard, having artificial deadlines serve as wake up calls, crisis being opportunities not to waste, etc. is how things are supposed to work. It is supposed to be messy. It is supposed to be ugly. It is supposed to be unsightly. Inefficient, ineffectual government is what smart people want. We never want Y23 to have his 5 years being in charge uncontested no matter how much smart and reasonable we think he is. We don't want me to in charge uncontested. The political division. The ugly, sometimes nasty arguments. This is how it is supposed to be! It is only through all of this that the good ideas - mine rise to the top.

So you were talking about politician positions I think it's pretty naive to think that their careers are not one of the main considerations. I don't believe that if you locked them all in a room under the guise of anonymity that this would be so difficult to figure out. I can say that for just about any issue they run into but they have jobs to keep, lobbies to answer to and donors to appease. It's only because of their concern for their jobs and their "promises" to lobbies, companies etc that things get mucked up. I have no problem with compromised solutions if they are reasonable and effective. Compromise isn't the issue to me. The process isn't the issue to me. It's the motive of the people using the process, what's driving them and what's influencing their decisions. Heck, I'm not even convinced some of these yahoos know what the process is or actually works,but I am confident they know who their supporters are and who's giving them money.

 

[jon_mx]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

This is not about the tea party. The tea party has no power except what Washington allows them to have. The Republicans and Democrats are in control.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think Obama is the anti-Christ, but I do feel he was terribly under-prepared to be POTUS.

And the people who voted him in primarily due to party lines and skin color are who "we have to deal with".

There is a whole lot of stupid in this county from all sides of the aisle.

And THIS is who I think we have to deal with....not just those who voted for Obama.

 

[timschochet]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

I agree with you that everything should be negotiable. But putting aside the fact, which you seem to want to ignore, that this shutdown is over Obamacare and has nothing to do with the any of the issues you mentioned, the fact is that it is almost impossible to negotiate with the Republican party these days when they refuse to discuss new revenue. This has been the main stumbling block over the the past 3 years or so: Dems are reluctantly willing to accept spending cuts in exchange for new taxes, while Republicans insist on the one without the other. The intransigence is all on one side.

Your description of President Obama is also inaccurate. As a Senator and before he was a very partisan liberal, IMO. But as a President he has governed as a centrist moderate, more conservative in some ways than many of his Republican predecessors. This is not even open to question. He is as far from a "partisan hack" as any President I can think of.

Again, the public does not give a rats ### about what the tea party wants. Just come up with some kind of plan that actually provides a better solution than flooring it for the upcoming cliff. Do your job and screw what the wingnuts on both sides want.

Glad you feel this way. But the wingnuts on the liberal side are completely impotent already. They wanted single payer universal healthcare. They're not getting it. They want serious government action on global warming. They're not getting that either. Progressives have no influence whatsoever in Washington. On the other side, the Tea Party has incredible influence.

You have long chided me for my antipathy to the Tea Party, which you have called irrational. But perhaps now you are beginning to see that, for me, it's nothing personal. I admire certain Tea Party goals. But I just don't want extremism anywhere near the leadership of the two political parties. If we were living in 1972, I would be all over the Democrats, because they allowed the New Left to have far too much influence in their party. The New Left wanted to end the Vietnam War, an admirable goal, but their means to do so and their overall ideas for governance were so radical that they presented a danger to our political system. The Tea Party represents that danger these days.

 

[parasaurolophus]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

Please change the thread title to "Come here and just make stuff up"

 

[Sinn Fein]

This is not about the tea party. The tea party has no power except what Washington allows them to have. The Republicans and Democrats are in control.

Yes and no.

The republicans control the House, the democrats control the Senate. But, the Tea Party proponents are controlling the republican agenda right now.

The republicans are beholden to the Tea Party agenda to the extent that members of congress are: a) worried about re-election, and b) susceptible to a primary challenge.

In theory, the Tea Party should wield far less power, since extreme positions win primaries, and centrist positions win general elections. But since the parties have done such a job gerrymandering districts there are precious few districts where the public is a split as national polls would suggest. Most districts lean heavily one way or the other - so winning a primary is tantamount to winning the election. So you end up with crazies in the house - on both sides, but more recently it seems to have had an inordinate impact on the GOP.

 

[timschochet]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

Please change the thread title to "Come here and just make stuff up"

I should amend that to all great things that the government has done has been accomplished through politics. I am referring to issues such as abolition of slavery, end of Jim Crow, etc. I'm not referring to individual achievements of course. Was that your objection?

 

[jon_mx]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

 

[timschochet]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

 

[jon_mx]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

It is 100 percent true.

And it is not politics which accomplish things, it is leadership, negotiating and compromise. Politics is for winning elections.

 

[parasaurolophus]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

Please change the thread title to "Come here and just make stuff up"

I should amend that to all great things that the government has done has been accomplished through politics. I am referring to issues such as abolition of slavery, end of Jim Crow, etc. I'm not referring to individual achievements of course. Was that your objection?

Please change the thread title to "Come in here and make things up, then revise them repeatedly until you are really not saying anything"

 

[timschochet]

... Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. ...

They did come together and reach an agreement. Then Cruz went on his summer tour to rally the crazies to put the fear of "primarying" into the GOP representatives to stop that agreement from being implemented. Both democrats and republicans were blindsided by all of this.

So what. They could take this opportunity to do something good for the country instead of constantly kicking the can down the road. There is no leadership anywhere. 100 percent pure partisan politics by both sides. And I am sick of people excusing it.

You're wrong on two counts here. First off, the Tea Party is NOT playing politics. They are taking a stance they believe in. That, by the way, tends to be far more dangerous, and it is in this instance. The Tea Party are zealots. They are not playing the game; they mean it. That's the problem.

Second, there is nothing wrong with playing politics. All great things in this country's history has been accomplished through politics, and NOT by zealots. Zealots make things worse. I don't excuse politics; I welcome them.

Please change the thread title to "Come here and just make stuff up"

I should amend that to all great things that the government has done has been accomplished through politics. I am referring to issues such as abolition of slavery, end of Jim Crow, etc. I'm not referring to individual achievements of course. Was that your objection?

Please change the thread title to "Come in here and make things up, then revise them repeatedly until you are really not saying anything"

The point I was making was the same one that Hillary Clinton made against a far more partisan Obama when the two debated in 2008: that real change requires politics AND idealism, not just idealism alone. She was right, and Obama discovered that once he took office.

 

[igbomb]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Except for the future generations who are being left with this huge albatross of endless debt around their necks. Big win for them.

As usual, you're all over the place. The Tea Party engineered this shutdown as a last second attempt to blackmail Obama into getting rid of Obamacare,. It has nothing to do with the debt.

This is polics. If you let the tea party dictate what is being debated, it is a severe lack of leadership. Obama can change the focus anytime he wishes, but he is playing politics to try to secure wins in the midterm elections. No one cares about what is best for the country. It is all about elections, and that is why Washington sucks.

You do understand that Boehner is the one letting the Tea Party dictate the agenda, right? He can bring a clean CR to the floor at any point. Depending on who you believe he may or may not have the votes. Yet he is letting one faction of his own party dictate strategy.

 

[timschochet]

I also don't see how you can call Obama a weak leader, jon. You can disagree with him all you want, but it took tremendous leadership to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Not to mention the stimulus package, the decision to send troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc. IMO, despite the negative press he receives from partisan sources, Obama has been a pretty decisive guy.

 

[TheIronSheik]

63% upset with Reps

57% upset with Dems

53% upset with Obama

I'll state it again: No one's side is winning.

Isn't that how it always goes?

No. And I would guess that the Dems made a HUGE mistake by shutting down the parks like they did. I think that backfired on them big time. No one is blaming the Reps for parks being made inaccessible. Costly mistake, imo

 

[Slapdash]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

 

[RCon]

I also don't see how you can call Obama a weak leader, jon. You can disagree with him all you want, but it took tremendous leadership to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Not to mention the stimulus package, the decision to send troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc. IMO, despite the negative press he receives from partisan sources, Obama has been a pretty decisive guy.

You're wrong on this one. His leadership on the ACA was piss poor all the way around. You need look no further than his stance on the tax benefit of employer provided care, in which he stated that while employer provided care shouldn't receive any tax benefits (i.e. shouldn't be deductible), the country isn't ready for such a change. True leadership would have been to push for the right thing anyway.

 

[Henry Ford]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

To be fair, if the guy really was the Antichrist I would be really happy that truckers were stepping up like this.

 

[Slapdash]

I also don't see how you can call Obama a weak leader, jon. You can disagree with him all you want, but it took tremendous leadership to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Not to mention the stimulus package, the decision to send troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc. IMO, despite the negative press he receives from partisan sources, Obama has been a pretty decisive guy.

You're wrong on this one. His leadership on the ACA was piss poor all the way around. You need look no further than his stance on the tax benefit of employer provided care, in which he stated that while employer provided care shouldn't receive any tax benefits (i.e. shouldn't be deductible), the country isn't ready for such a change. True leadership would have been to push for the right thing anyway.

Right. He shouldn't even get credit for getting it passed, that was all Pelosi. Obama was pretty non-existent in most negotiations early on and disengaged entirely after Scott Brown was elected.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

To be fair, if the guy really was the Antichrist I would be really happy that truckers were stepping up like this.

On this we are in agreement.

 

[[icon]]

Anyone in here slit their wrists yet or we still just in the hand wringing phase?

 

[Jackstraw]

You can blame both sides for the deficit, but you can't blame both sides for the current impasse. Democrats adopted the Republicans' spending level for the continuing resolution and they still won't allow a vote on it in the House.

Actually you can blame both sides in the sense that you'd blame a person being extorted for refusing to pay the blackmail.

Party A: Give me $1,000,000 or I'll release the photos.

Party B: No.

But that seems sort of silly.

Of course you frame this in the most ridiculous terms. The reality here is both sides are taking hardline positions that make it impossible. You can always negotitate something. This idea that you can't even talk to the other side is absurd arroagance of power. If you can't acknowledge that, you are just being a partisan hack.

Negotiate what? There is nothing to negotiate, goofKooK.

Thanks for proofing my point, db. Everything is negotiable. Spending, taxes, defense, social programs. Everything. If Obama was a leader he could pull both sides together and make them come to some kind of agreement. But instead he is a partisan hack who only cares about who is winning public opinion. They all suck and the country is a trainwreck which neither side seems concerned about.

Hint: Perhaps Republicans could be less toxic to the voters and go win some elections. They lost and still want their way so they are putting us in a constitutional crisis. Surely rule by the minority party on the threat of destroying the economy was not what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[[icon]]

I also don't see how you can call Obama a weak leader, jon. You can disagree with him all you want, but it took tremendous leadership to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Not to mention the stimulus package, the decision to send troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc. IMO, despite the negative press he receives from partisan sources, Obama has been a pretty decisive guy.

You're wrong on this one. His leadership on the ACA was piss poor all the way around. You need look no further than his stance on the tax benefit of employer provided care, in which he stated that while employer provided care shouldn't receive any tax benefits (i.e. shouldn't be deductible), the country isn't ready for such a change. True leadership would have been to push for the right thing anyway.

Right. He shouldn't even get credit for getting it passed, that was all Pelosi. Obama was pretty non-existent in most negotiations early on and disengaged entirely after Scott Brown was elected.

Timmay has never let facts get in the way of a 1200 word response, though. Just let it slide this one time.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Why do you think the Dems rejected opening parts of the government? Do you think it was because they want the shutdown to be as painful as possible to prove their arrogant point?

 

[The Commish]

How do you guys avoid laughing long enough to type some of this crap out???

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I also don't see how you can call Obama a weak leader, jon. You can disagree with him all you want, but it took tremendous leadership to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Not to mention the stimulus package, the decision to send troops into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc. IMO, despite the negative press he receives from partisan sources, Obama has been a pretty decisive guy.

Is leadership a new word for bribes?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Why do you think the Dems rejected opening parts of the government? Do you think it was because they want the shutdown to be as painful as possible to prove their arrogant point?

I think because the Democrats realize that opening certain parts of the government reduces their ability to open the rest of the government.

 

[jon_mx]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

Step one, increase the deficit 300%...Step two, cut the deficit 10% for a couple years....Step three, have your minions pat you on the back for 'decreasing' the deficit.

 

[Doug B]

Democrats and republicans tend to have different perspectives on the relative merits of this relatively recent event. Removing the states ability to regulate every plan offered within its borders will result in the same things happening. Whether that is a good thing or not (as whole) is where the parties disagree.
Oh, and it is allowed in ObamaCare in the sense that states are free to for interstate compacts. Not quite the same.

Good read ... thanks, Bottomfeeder.

 

[Slapdash]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

Step one, increase the deficit 300%...Step two, cut the deficit 10% for a couple years....Step three, have your minions pat you on the back for 'decreasing' the deficit.

You're the one who said "positive progress"

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Leadership!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So the Republicans want to choose which parts of the Govt should be open and are crying that the Dems want all if the Govt open?

And yet the Dems are to blame? How about the house put it to a vote and let the chips fall. If it goes down then we will know that the Dems need to offer something, but if it passes then te agovt is open and everyone wins!

Why do you think the Dems rejected opening parts of the government? Do you think it was because they want the shutdown to be as painful as possible to prove their arrogant point?

I think because the Democrats realize that opening certain parts of the government reduces their ability to open the rest of the government.

Also, opening only the parts of government that Republicans think are most important might not be a winning strategy for Democrats.

I have no idea what Republicans are worried about though. Government doesn't do anything good and closing it will be completely painless. Why reopen anything?

 

[jon_mx]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

Step one, increase the deficit 300%...Step two, cut the deficit 10% for a couple years....Step three, have your minions pat you on the back for 'decreasing' the deficit.

You're the one who said "positive progress"

 

[Statorama]

Let's get this down to the bones. Whether or not you lefty nuts want to admit it, there are consequences to the senate ignoring the budget process. That consequence is negotiating with congress over the CR. in this negotiation, the Republicans have something they're willing to give, which is sign off on the CR. What are the Democrats offering? I haven't heard ANY offers from Democrats, let alone any reasonable ones.

I think that the Democrats are missing out on an opportunity to look magnanimous here. Offer a couple of nuggets. The medical equipment tax is extremely low hanging fruit, since even some Democrats want that gone. Then throw up your hands in disgust.

But to take the stance that the Congress is the only one that has to give something in the negotiation means that you need to get a better understanding of what the word negotiation means.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The tea party is no more potent than the lefty wingnuts. You can make most tea partiers happy if you just make positive progress on the budget. It does not have to involve Obamacare. Just because that is the line of some leaders, does not make it so. Do what is best and let the chips fall where they do. The tea party is as fractured of a group as any. Lots of differing viewpoints on different issues.

OK. I simply don't believe you on this.

Particularly given how the deficit has fallen the last couple of years. Yet here we are with brinkmanship and truckers driving to DC to stop the anti-christ.

Step one, increase the deficit 300%...Step two, cut the deficit 10% for a couple years....Step three, have your minions pat you on the back for 'decreasing' the deficit.

Um, you realize that Obama inherited a $1 trillion plus deficit, right? He didnt increase anything.

KooKLogic.