SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

More importantly, Republicans are not attempting to negotiate. All the talk coming out of the camp is to defund Obamacare and not modify it (see Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell). There has been and appears to be no real good faith effort to negotiate by Republicans.

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

this is not less-bad and bad. It's ****ing horrible and something workable.

I couldn't disagree more. Gingrich and Clinton talked multiple times a day during the last furlough. Now? Obama is not a shmoozer and I'm sorry, the President of the United States needs to talk to everyone - including morons - if it means the largest business in the world stays open

IronWillGiroud wrote:it's not about the parties,

my thing is: how the hell does anyone consider it an option to 'shut down' a government? the most powerful country in the universe?

where are we??

A very good point. I wonder at what point does this stop being considered "diplomacy" and instead be properly recognized as "treason".

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

this is not less-bad and bad. It's ****ing horrible and something workable.

I couldn't disagree more. Gingrich and Clinton talked multiple times a day during the last furlough. Now? Obama is not a shmoozer and I'm sorry, the President of the United States needs to talk to everyone - including morons - if it means the largest business in the world stays open

As bad as it was for Clinton, I don't think he has ever had to deal with this degree of stupidity. Tea Party types don't negotiate. They simply make demands and vote against anything that is not 100% their way. By the way, this is coming from someone who considered himself more of an Eisenhower Republican.

when the tea partyers first emerged, I didn't vote for them but I thought how the movement sprung up was kind of cool because of how American it is. Now they've just proven to be a bunch of opportunistic morons. I wish Obama would have simply granted individuals a one year waiver from opting into the healthcare exchange - like the tea partyers asked for - just so it looks like they won something. And then when their constituents see how much it helped, everyone opts in and the tea morons don't get re-elected. And all this happens without internationally damaging the credibility of the USA. That last point is why I think Obama deserves criticism

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

this is not less-bad and bad. It's ****ing horrible and something workable.

I couldn't disagree more. Gingrich and Clinton talked multiple times a day during the last furlough. Now? Obama is not a shmoozer and I'm sorry, the President of the United States needs to talk to everyone - including morons - if it means the largest business in the world stays open

As bad as it was for Clinton, I don't think he has ever had to deal with this degree of stupidity. Tea Party types don't negotiate. They simply make demands and vote against anything that is not 100% their way. By the way, this is coming from someone who considered himself more of an Eisenhower Republican.

when the tea partyers first emerged, I didn't vote for them but I thought how the movement sprung up was kind of cool because of how American it is. Now they've just proven to be a bunch of opportunistic morons. I wish Obama would have simply granted individuals a one year waiver from opting into the healthcare exchange - like the tea partyers asked for - just so it looks like they won something. And then when their constituents see how much it helped, everyone opts in and the tea morons don't get re-elected. And all this happens without internationally damaging the credibility of the USA. That last point is why I think Obama deserves criticism

Congress already had a chance to debate the AFA and they passed it. If they want a 1 year waiver, then they just have to pass legislation indicating there will be a waiver. That's how a democracy works.
They won't take yes for an answer from Obama anyway. If he gives a 1 year waiver, they'll demand 2.

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

this is not less-bad and bad. It's ****ing horrible and something workable.

I couldn't disagree more. Gingrich and Clinton talked multiple times a day during the last furlough. Now? Obama is not a shmoozer and I'm sorry, the President of the United States needs to talk to everyone - including morons - if it means the largest business in the world stays open

As bad as it was for Clinton, I don't think he has ever had to deal with this degree of stupidity. Tea Party types don't negotiate. They simply make demands and vote against anything that is not 100% their way. By the way, this is coming from someone who considered himself more of an Eisenhower Republican.

when the tea partyers first emerged, I didn't vote for them but I thought how the movement sprung up was kind of cool because of how American it is. Now they've just proven to be a bunch of opportunistic morons. I wish Obama would have simply granted individuals a one year waiver from opting into the healthcare exchange - like the tea partyers asked for - just so it looks like they won something. And then when their constituents see how much it helped, everyone opts in and the tea morons don't get re-elected. And all this happens without internationally damaging the credibility of the USA. That last point is why I think Obama deserves criticism

Congress already had a chance to debate the AFA and they passed it. If they want a 1 year waiver, then they just have to pass legislation indicating there will be a waiver. That's how a democracy works.
They won't take yes for an answer from Obama anyway. If he gives a 1 year waiver, they'll demand 2.

I understand the legalities of this. Laws also get amended all the time. This bipartism bull**** pisses me off. I live in the DC area and see this all the time. Compromise: that's what democracy is all about. If you ram **** down people's throats they get desperate and resist - regardless of how good the policy is. The fact that a bunch of idiot tea partyers derailed the system should not shock anyone at all when Mr President Obama!! wouldn't even discuss. And I disagree about hte 1 year waiver - the tea party essentially asked for individuals to get a 'matching' waiver that the corporations apparently get

Sure, laws get amended - and there's a specific procedure for that. You pass the amendment in the House and the Senate and then the President signs it into law. You don't unilaterally threaten to stop paying all the bills you already racked up - at least not if you want to have a functioning democracy. What does ram **** down people's throats mean here? The AFA was passed in both houses of Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Then the guy running against Obama said he would repeal the AFA and he lost in a landslide.

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I am not a Republican or a Republican sympathizer - I think they suck. But I also think the Democrats and liberals suck just as much. Obama has met with no one and has made it *impossible* for the Tea Partyers to take anything back to their constituencies.

I think both parties are bought but one sucks a lot less than the other, which is why I vote Democrat in any national election. I'm also not following you on Obama not being diplomatic with the Tea Party as a whole. When he extended the Bush era tax cuts, maintained our absurd defense spending and disproportionally balanced the sequester on the backs of his constituents, was he not giving Tea Party something to take back to their people? When has the Tea Party returned that favor? And would you really want to capitulate to backwoods politicians that insist on cutting spending indiscriminately?

I've never been into comparing tragedies. The Tea Party is almost comical at this point but what's the point in comparing bad to less-bad?

this is not less-bad and bad. It's ****ing horrible and something workable.

I couldn't disagree more. Gingrich and Clinton talked multiple times a day during the last furlough. Now? Obama is not a shmoozer and I'm sorry, the President of the United States needs to talk to everyone - including morons - if it means the largest business in the world stays open

As bad as it was for Clinton, I don't think he has ever had to deal with this degree of stupidity. Tea Party types don't negotiate. They simply make demands and vote against anything that is not 100% their way. By the way, this is coming from someone who considered himself more of an Eisenhower Republican.

when the tea partyers first emerged, I didn't vote for them but I thought how the movement sprung up was kind of cool because of how American it is. Now they've just proven to be a bunch of opportunistic morons. I wish Obama would have simply granted individuals a one year waiver from opting into the healthcare exchange - like the tea partyers asked for - just so it looks like they won something. And then when their constituents see how much it helped, everyone opts in and the tea morons don't get re-elected. And all this happens without internationally damaging the credibility of the USA. That last point is why I think Obama deserves criticism

what the tea party is doing is hostage taking, and you don't compromise with that. Why are you giving them the option of a 1-year opt out? That would throw states and the new health care markets off and also establish that a minority of congressmen can hold up country whenever they want.

Absolutely the wrong type of decision.

martin wrote:

playa2 wrote:This US Government shutdown is nothing of the sort. 80% of federal employees are at work locking the country down. No access to National Forests, open waters, and privately funded landmarks is just the beginning. Wait until travel is openly restricted. At some point, people will begin to realize martial law is being implemented RIGHT NOW!

A giant stage production to take us down a path.... Beware people. Something bad happening here and they are all in on it whether all of them realize it or not.

if you got nothing but conspiracy theories, please stay out of this discussion. Nothing of the sort is happening.

i thought it was messed up that they kicked out campers of the national parks,

why do national parks always suffer?

if you ask me, we should fund nature and parks much more than we do,

this pisses me off because i love nature and animals