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

[The Commish]

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.

Weren't the arguing over whether the budget number should be 1.2 trillion vs something like 989 billion or some such? I'm pretty sure the Dems said they'd give the GOP their number (989 or whatever it was). That seems like a step in the right direction in terms of the budget. Though I fully admit the devil's in the details.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

 

[Todd Andrews]

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.

What negotiation? The CR is a silly procedural signoff on spending Congress already passed. If the House KooKs dont sign off on it, they tank the economy. Why offer someone something to pay their bills?

KooKLogic.

 

[joffer]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme CoPo urt. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

This

 

[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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

 

[The Commish]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

 

[TPW]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

 

[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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

You may as well. But if holding onto AP means that the league will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations and will no longer have games every week, he'll probably just sit and wait until you stop acting like a dork and tell him what you actually want within reason.

 

[TPW]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"Letters from the White House."

 

[badmojo1006]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"Letters from the White House."

You are not seriously comparing the ACA with slavery are you?

SeriouslY????

 

[CBusAlex]

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.

The Democrats have actually already made several "compromises" already. They have:

- not insisted on creating a national gun registry as a precondition for funding the government

- not insisted on extending unemployment benefits as a precondition for funding the government

- not insisted on repealing the partial-birth abortion ban as a precondition for funding the government

- not insisted on expanding Obamacare into a single-payer, socialized health care system as a precondition for funding the government

If Republicans were willing to make any similar compromises, the shutdown would be over by now.

 

[cstu]

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.

There are plenty of things Republicans could be proposing here than would be reasonable, however repealing ACA is not. They might as well be asking Obama to give them Malia or Sasha.

 

[Ballstein]

The republicans want to change their roster lineup...after the games have been played. If not, they will cut all their players, or leave A blank lineup, until they get what they want. A threat that may cause shutdown of the league.

 

[The Commish]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?

Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

 

[TPW]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"Letters from the White House."

You are not seriously comparing the ACA with slavery are you?

SeriouslY????

I am comparing two instances when the federal government got things seriously wrong and the ongoing attempts by some to correct those mistakes despite substantial resistance from institutional powers.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

Perfect! The dems will also sign off on the CR! Hooray! They'll even do it at the exact figures the Republicans want to use! Glad this is all worked out.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"Letters from the White House."

You are not seriously comparing the ACA with slavery are you?

SeriouslY????

One of the things that drives me nuts about the FFA is the sheer number of people who don't understand the concept of an analogy.

When someone draws an analogy between X and Y, they're not saying that X and Y are identical in all respects. They're saying that X and Y are similar in some particular respect that happens to be relevant to the argument at hand.

For example, if someone claims that it's somehow wrong for a party to oppose the ACA because it was passed by a duly-elected legislative body and upheld by the Supreme Court, segregation is a perfectly fine counter-example because it too was put into place by state legislatures and upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."

PERSPECTIVE.

"Letters from a Birmingham private hospital with concierge service"

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

"Letters from the White House."

You are not seriously comparing the ACA with slavery are you?SeriouslY????

I am comparing two instances when the federal government got things seriously wrong and the ongoing attempts by some to correct those mistakes despite substantial resistance from institutional powers.

You know who else liked to compare unlike things in order to demonstrate his perception of the unreasonable position of his opponent?

Hitler.

 

[mr roboto]

Henry on fire in here.

 

[Henry Ford]

Continuing Legal Education really ups my post quality.

 

[msommer]

Who shut down the government over the Jim Crow laws?

 

[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.

It's extremely ironic that you righty nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word negotiation, when you closed the government in response to a law that is already in place, passed by both houses of Congress, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on.

Most negotiations start with asking for something of great benefit with an eye toward "settling" for something that's still pretty cool. Negotiation 101

That "something" typically isn't already a law though. There's a different mechanism that deals with laws. That's what a lot of the lawyers don't seem to understand...go figure.

Think of it in FF terms. You need a RB to put you on top and I have AP. My first offer is going to ask for a significant amount. In the end I may settle for some friendly contracts for some high upside guys, but I may as we'll ask for the moon when I have something you desperately need (due to your ignoring the budget process I mean RB position in the draft)

Yeah...you ignored what I posted just a couple posts above....I believe the Dems caved on the budget number. They wanted 1.2T and the GOP wanted 989 (or something close). So...the GOP asked for the moon (Obamacare even though it's law and this isn't the way to go about it) and the Dems came back and gave them their budget number then the GOP rejected that very budget number. So, now what?Perhaps you should be schooling the GOP on how to negotiate. They seem to be the ones having problems understanding the concept at the moment, not the folks in the FFA....well, except for a few.

your thesis is incorrect

 

[Henry Ford]

Who shut down the government over the Jim Crow laws?

Winston Churchill

 

[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.

There are plenty of things Republicans could be proposing here than would be reasonable, however repealing ACA is not. They might as well be asking Obama to give them Malia or Sasha.

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

"It's extremely ironic that you abolitionist nuts want to discuss the meaning of the word segregation when you challenge Jim Crow laws in court that are already in place, have been passed by many states, and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in "Plessy v. Ferguson". Maybe you should take your own advice, and study up on the topic. There is absolutely no reason to "negotiate". Admit that you lost, and let's all move on."PERSPECTIVE.

Hey, anyone know how these laws and court cases were changed?

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

There are plenty of things Republicans could be proposing here than would be reasonable, however repealing ACA is not. They might as well be asking Obama to give them Malia or Sasha.

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

What is unrealistic about the democrats' demand that Congress fund the government?

 

[Statorama]

Do you people understand the difference between a demand and an offer?

 

[RCon]

I hate the debt and the deficit, and I agree with the Tea Party/GOP that we desperately need to cut spending, but the GOP is being stupid here by making this about Obamacare.

 

[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.

There are plenty of things Republicans could be proposing here than would be reasonable, however repealing ACA is not. They might as well be asking Obama to give them Malia or Sasha.

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

What is unrealistic about the democrats' demand that Congress fund the government?

Besides the fact that our debt is spiraling out of control at unsubstainable rates and that future generations of Americans are doomed to be slaves to China.....nothing at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

Do you people understand the difference between a demand and an offer?

Well, I'm only a lawyer. Try to explain it slowly.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

There are plenty of things Republicans could be proposing here than would be reasonable, however repealing ACA is not. They might as well be asking Obama to give them Malia or Sasha.

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

What is unrealistic about the democrats' demand that Congress fund the government?

Besides the fact that our debt is spiraling out of control at unsubstainable rates and that future generations of Americans are doomed to be slaves to China.....nothing at all.

What are the Republicans requesting in this negotiation which will fix that?And are you under the impression that not funding the government will make any of that better?

 

[jon_mx]

Besides the fact that our debt is spiraling out of control at unsubstainable rates and that future generations of Americans are doomed to be slaves to China.....nothing at all.

What are the Republicans requesting in this negotiation which will fix that?And are you under the impression that not funding the government will make any of that better?

I have been highly critical of the GOP demands and focus too. It ticks me off though that than many want to give Democrats a free pass in this mess. There is lots of suckiness on both sides contributing to this mess.

If the shutdown stimulates discussion on fixing our problems, it will have been well worth it. I am not holding my breath though. It will be some crappy agreement which will probably serve to make matters even worse.

 

[Doug B]

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

It's not the positions, it's the tactic: purposefully failing to call an annual apropriations bill to vote is not a legitimate means to open a negotiation. This is not how business is done.

 

[Doug B]

It ticks me off though that than many want to give Democrats a free pass in this mess. There is lots of suckiness on both sides contributing to this mess.

Democrats are getting a free pass in this specific instance because this specific Republican tactic is what's being roundly criticized.

This really isn't a broad, overreaching thing here. It's just one thing -- failure to call a clean CR to vote -- and only one party is doing it right this second.

 

[jon_mx]

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

It's not the positions, it's the tactic: purposefully failing to call an annual apropriations bill to vote is not a legitimate means to open a negotiation. This is not how business is done.

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

 

[Statorama]

I hate the debt and the deficit, and I agree with the Tea Party/GOP that we desperately need to cut spending, but the GOP is being stupid here by making this about Obamacare.

It's my contention that they never expected any movement on the ACA, but used it to be in a position to "settle" for something of slightly lesser perceived value.

Total win win for them. The hardcore anti-ACA crowd is appeased since the R's went to bat for them, conservatives appeased because they got something with the very minor leverage they had. The story they feed the press is that when the D's finally quit throwing a hissy fit and actually sat at the negotiating table, the process sorted itself out.

I do agree that their focus should be the out of control spending instead of the ACA, but that gorilla needs feeding I guess

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Besides the fact that our debt is spiraling out of control at unsubstainable rates and that future generations of Americans are doomed to be slaves to China.....nothing at all.

What are the Republicans requesting in this negotiation which will fix that?And are you under the impression that not funding the government will make any of that better?

I have been highly critical of the GOP demands and focus too. It ticks me off though that than many want to give Democrats a free pass in this mess. There is lots of suckiness on both sides contributing to this mess.

If the shutdown stimulates discussion on fixing our problems, it will have been well worth it. I am not holding my breath though. It will be some crappy agreement which will probably serve to make matters even worse.

What specific Democratic demand are you 'highly critical' of?

 

[Statorama]

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

It's not the positions, it's the tactic: purposefully failing to call an annual apropriations bill to vote is not a legitimate means to open a negotiation. This is not how business is done.

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Excellent retort

 

[Henry Ford]

Negotiations always start from the point of both sides making unrealistic positions. It is the negotiations which try to somehow find common ground somewhere. This spitting back rhetoric back and forth is about as useful as the couple of left-wing nuts here who insist on bringing personal insults into this discussion.

It's not the positions, it's the tactic: purposefully failing to call an annual apropriations bill to vote is not a legitimate means to open a negotiation. This is not how business is done.

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Having closed door sessions with only one party in attendance to craft a bill is a pretty standard way for business to be done.

 

[Doug B]

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Actually, IMO if a party has a super-majority of a house, it's OK to pass stuff without reaching across the aisle. Charlie Krauthammer picked this same bone in the op-ed posted earlier today, but I don't buy the argument. Are all concievable political parties supposed to get a seat at the table even if they don't have votes that can block anything?

 

[Statorama]

Do you people understand the difference between a demand and an offer?

Well, I'm only a lawyer. Try to explain it slowly.

I went to LSU, I'm familiar with the concept

 

[Lutherman2112]

What are the Democrats offering?

A Continuing Resolution that funds the government at $986 billion.

What do the Republicans want?

 

[Doug B]

Excellent retort

Only if you hold that doing so was a prima facie wrong.

 

[Soonerman]

It ticks me off though that than many want to give Democrats a free pass in this mess. There is lots of suckiness on both sides contributing to this mess.

Democrats are getting a free pass in this specific instance because this specific Republican tactic is what's being roundly criticized.

This really isn't a broad, overreaching thing here. It's just one thing -- failure to call a clean CR to vote -- and only one party is doing it right this second.

I disagree with this. The whole CR process itself is a joke and should be ditched in favor of reasonably sized appropriations.

 

[Statorama]

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Actually, IMO if a party has a super-majority of a house, it's OK to pass stuff without reaching across the aisle. Charlie Krauthammer picked this same bone in the op-ed posted earlier today, but I don't buy the argument. Are all concievable political parties supposed to get a seat at the table even if they don't have votes that can block anything?

If you're the only one in the house with a job, you still discuss big decisions with your spouse.

 

[Doug B]

Having closed door sessions with only one-party invited where you craft the future of American health care is not how business should be done either.

Also, this is a tu quoque. Again, the Republicans are taking heat for something being done right now. Whatever was wrong with the way the ACA came to life, it doesn't excuse the current Republican tactic.

 

[Doug B]

If you're the only one in the house with a job, you still discuss big decisions with your spouse.

When a house has a supermajority, is the lesser party really an equal player?

A better argument might be that the Democrats should have reached across the aisle more with the ACA because eventually they wouldn't have the supermajority. They may have midjudged the extent of how much the Republican Party was marginalized in 2008-09, which in reality wasn't mear enough to forestall a Republican majority in 2010.

Be that as it may, the ACA was properly brought to a vote on the House floor and passed. End of story. Not relevant that the vote was along strict party lines.

EDIT: to boil this down, the way the Democrats passed the ACA may have been a screw-up in realpolitik terms ... but since it went to the House floor for a vote in the end, it was tactically legitimate.

 

[Doug B]

I disagree with this. The whole CR process itself is a joke and should be ditched in favor of reasonably sized appropriations.

I agree with you, but I guess they gotta walk before they can run