So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Mister Earl]

Link please.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326425-reid-boehner-backed-out-of-deal

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Did you have an argument to accompany your opinion/judgment/belief?

You mean you want him to copy/paste a set of links like you did instead of really making an argument? Politico? The Hill? Really?

Pasting links to make an argument for you is not really making an argument. It' would be one thing if you made an argument and then put in some links to back it up, but that's not what you did. Not to mention that after addressing these arguments so many times, it's not very worthwhile to once again type up a long response to someone who just pasted a bunch of web sites.

 

[MikeMangum]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326425-reid-boehner-backed-out-of-deal

Thank you. So, according to Reid, he and Boehner had a deal. A deal that was not announced anywhere else nor was it apparently the result of a caucus decision (for either side).

Reid and Boehner could privately agree to sell Louisiana back to France but the other members of Congress have some say in the matter.

 

[Mister Earl]

Thank you. So, according to Reid, he and Boehner had a deal. A deal that was not announced anywhere else nor was it apparently the result of a caucus decision (for either side).

Sure, Reid could be lying through his teeth about it. But why would Boehner not call him out on it? Callout out a lie like that would probably make his day, week, month...

Reid and Boehner could privately agree to sell Louisiana back to France but the other members of Congress have some say in the matter.

Just pointing out that people who say the Democrats are just as bad for not negotiating are dead wrong. It can't be simpler than that.

 

[MikeMangum]

You mean you want him to copy/paste a set of links like you did instead of really making an argument? Politico? The Hill? Really?

Pasting links to make an argument for you is not really making an argument. It' would be one thing if you made an argument and then put in some links to back it up, but that's not what you did. Not to mention that after addressing these arguments so many times, it's not very worthwhile to once again type up a long response to someone who just pasted a bunch of web sites.

My arguments were really quite simple, and the wall of links was merely evidence in support of my arguments that 1) there was a substantial group of Democrats who were hoping for a shutdown (the evidence is certainly not dispositive), 2) Democrats will not negotiate at all (the evidence of this is absolutely dispositive), and 3) Republicans have been trying to pass at least some measures to minimize the impact of the shutdown on the public (again, dispositive evidence).

Of course, the Democrats want to maximize the impact on the public.

 

[MikeMangum]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/

The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

Police closed the Vietnam War Memorial, an open air memorial that is normally open 24/7; "It takes more manpower and costs the government more money to close down an outdoor wall than to let people walk past it and pay their respects." The Federal government had to actually rent the barricades used to block off the (completely open) WWII and Vietnam War memorials.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/#ixzz2gvKgBaR1

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

http://dakotawarcollege.com/federal...hmore-from-highway-with-tim-johnsons-support/

With South Dakota’s most famous park, Mt. Rushmore, many people can stop along the highway and take pictures because… Well, because IT’S A MOUNTAIN.

In fact, I was just there last weekend, and took this picture myself from the highway.

But the Obama administration won’t have any of that. They have actually gone to the step of putting parking cones along the highway, so you can’t stop and take a freaking picture of the nation’s most famous mountain from the road, as I did above.

http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.ar...rom-highway-viewing-areas-near-Mount-Rushmore

Blocking access to trails and programs at South Dakota’s most popular attraction was one thing, but state officials didn’t expect Congress’ budget stalemate to shut down a view of Mount Rushmore.

The National Park Service placed cones along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore this week, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures of the famed monument.

In that last case, they aren't even closing a park, they are blocking off parking areas on the side of a highway simply so that people can't stop and take pictures of Mt Rushmore.

In addition, the Feds tried to close some state parks that the Federal government doesn't even run.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...r-federal-shutdown-b99111708z1-226154141.html

The state Department of Natural Resources on Wednesday refused a directive from the National Park Service to close a host of popular state properties because of the federal government shutdown.

The park service ordered state officials to close the northern unit of the Kettle Moraine, Devil's Lake, and Interstate state parks and the state-owned portion of the Horicon Marsh, but state authorities rebuffed the request because the lion's share of the funding came from state, not federal coffers.

...

On Wednesday, state and federal authorities came to loggerheads over access to state land when the Park Service directed the DNR to close properties in which the state and the federal government had a cooperative financial agreement.

The federal agency provided the DNR $701,000 for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to the DNR. The DNR said the majority of money for the parks comes from the state and that it would usestate funds to continue operations.

Again, they are clearly not attempting to minimize the impact of the shutdown, but to maximize it.


Sorry for the "wall of links". I thought it was usually best to provide some sort of supporting evidence for an assertion. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Travis]

Like I said, some win, some lose. You got yours, screw those that didn't and are worse off. You are totally justified in being ticked off with the GOP trying to delay or take yours away. Those that got screwed because of Obamacare feel different.

Please find me people that will now go without healthcare with Obamacare in place.

 

[davefoc]

My arguments were really quite simple, and the wall of links was merely evidence in support of my arguments that

1) there was a substantial group of Democrats who were hoping for a shutdown (the evidence is certainly not dispositive)

So what? A substantial group of Democrats hope that the Republicans do something irrational, harmful, and hypocritical so that people won't continue to vote for Republicans. Do you think that the situation would be different if the parties were reversed? Does this in some way mitigate the fact that the Republicans are engaged in a cynical game that they know will damage the country significantly without any chance of winning because the opposition party has no choice but to not cooperate with their childish behavior?

2) Democrats will not negotiate at all (the evidence of this is absolutely dispositive),

The Democrats shouldn't negotiate. This would be obvious to a partisan such as yourself if the party roles were reversed. Would you be complaining about how the Republicans weren't negotiating with the Democrats who were holding the country hostage unless they got their way?

3) Republicans have been trying to pass at least some measures to minimize the impact of the shutdown on the public (again, dispositive evidence).

This is loony tunes partisan crap that only a partisan such as yourself would be taken in by. Of course, the Republicans are desperately trying to do something to hide the odious nature of their childish scheme. Screw them. The Republicans have become a dysfunctional band of deeply cynical people and this is just the latest in a long string of Republican crap that is harming this country.

 

[a_unique_person]

My arguments were really quite simple, and the wall of links was merely evidence in support of my arguments that 1) there was a substantial group of Democrats who were hoping for a shutdown (the evidence is certainly not dispositive), 2) Democrats will not negotiate at all (the evidence of this is absolutely dispositive), and 3) Republicans have been trying to pass at least some measures to minimize the impact of the shutdown on the public (again, dispositive evidence).

Of course, the Democrats want to maximize the impact on the public.

if Obama gives into this blackmail, you can guarantee that the radical right will think of more programs to remove from funding. It will cause chaos, which is what they want.

 

[MikeMangum]

So what? A substantial group of Democrats hope that the Republicans do something irrational, harmful, and hypocritical so that people won't continue to vote for Republicans. Do you think that the situation would be different if the parties were reversed? Does this in some way mitigate the fact that the Republicans are engaged in a cynical game that they know will damage the country significantly without any chance of winning because the opposition party has no choice but to not cooperate with their childish behavior?

The Democrats shouldn't negotiate. This would be obvious to a partisan such as yourself if the party roles were reversed. Would you be complaining about how the Republicans weren't negotiating with the Democrats who were holding the country hostage unless they got their way?

This is loony tunes partisan crap that only a partisan such as yourself would be taken in by. Of course, the Republicans are desperately trying to do something to hide the odious nature of their childish scheme. Screw them. The Republicans have become a dysfunctional band of deeply cynical people and this is just the latest in a long string of Republican crap that is harming this country.

A partisan such as myself? Just so you know, I don't root for either the blue team or the red team, although I do realize that for some people, which teams win is the most important thing.

You're the one who just said you hoped that members of the red team did something that you've claimed is bad for the country just so that the members of your team can take control. And I'm the partisan?

"This would be obvious to a partisan such as yourself if the party roles were reversed. Would you be complaining about how the Republicans weren't negotiating with the Democrats who were holding the country hostage unless they got their way?"

YES.

EDIT: and for the record, I think it is absolutely stupid to try to work halt the ACA by denying funds to implementation and enforcement. If the Republicans want to repeal the ACA, they should repeal the ACA, not leave a law on the books that isn't enforced or implemented, leaving millions of people in limbo to the point where technically they are violating the law but they don't have the option of following it. Again, I don't give a crap about your red team vs blue team concerns.

 

[MikeMangum]

if Obama gives into this blackmail, you can guarantee that the radical right will think of more programs to remove from funding. It will cause chaos, which is what they want.

Blackmail? Would it be blackmail if Obama threatened to veto a spending measure that would get the government running again? Just so that I can be clear on definitions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Blackmail? Would it be blackmail if Obama threatened to veto a spending measure that would get the government running again? Just so that I can be clear on definitions.

they aren't propsing that, they are only proposing funding what they choose to fund, iow, the same stunt done a different way.

 

[MikeMangum]

they aren't propsing that, they are only proposing funding what they choose to fund, iow, the same stunt done a different way.

That didn't really clear up for me why the one is blackmail and the other isn't. It is 2 different entities essentially saying "my way or the highway". I'm curious why it is that in one of those cases it is blackmail but the other case isn't.

 

[a_unique_person]

That didn't really clear up for me why the one is blackmail and the other isn't. It is 2 different entities essentially saying "my way or the highway". I'm curious why it is that in one of those cases it is blackmail but the other case isn't.

I think that's what I said, they are both the same.

 

[Matthew Best]

Democrats have been hoping for a shutdown for a while now.

If this is the best thing to happen to Democrats in ages, why on earth are the Republicans playing right into their hands by doing exactly what they want?

 

[marplots]

If this is the best thing to happen to Democrats in ages, why on earth are the Republicans playing right into their hands by doing exactly what they want?

Maybe the Republicans are secretly Democrats, who are secretly - I don't know - lizard people?

 

[Tiktaalik]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/


Police closed the Vietnam War Memorial, an open air memorial that is normally open 24/7; "It takes more manpower and costs the government more money to close down an outdoor wall than to let people walk past it and pay their respects." The Federal government had to actually rent the barricades used to block off the (completely open) WWII and Vietnam War memorials.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/3/pruden-the-cheap-tricks-of-the-game/#ixzz2gvKgBaR1


http://dakotawarcollege.com/federal...hmore-from-highway-with-tim-johnsons-support/


http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.ar...rom-highway-viewing-areas-near-Mount-Rushmore


In that last case, they aren't even closing a park, they are blocking off parking areas on the side of a highway simply so that people can't stop and take pictures of Mt Rushmore.

In addition, the Feds tried to close some state parks that the Federal government doesn't even run.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...r-federal-shutdown-b99111708z1-226154141.html


Again, they are clearly not attempting to minimize the impact of the shutdown, but to maximize it.


Sorry for the "wall of links". I thought it was usually best to provide some sort of supporting evidence for an assertion. Maybe I'm wrong.

I work for the NPS. We are not trying to make anything more painful for anybody, let me assure you. We have been directed to keep 'through roads' open but to close campgrounds, overlooks, pullouts, and non-through roads as well as facilities. Here, we own a 200-foot wide road for 26 miles, with a number of pullouts and overlooks along it. Many people do not realize that we own that road. The pullouts are closed; the road itself is open. Nobody has passed on any information telling any of us to 'make things difficult'. None of us want to do that. None of us enjoy kicking people out of the parks and being cursed at and threatened and called various things that I can't type here. And none of it has anything to do with how much money it costs us to do these closures; that was never considered in the shutdown. I guarantee it will cost us more money to close things than to keep them open, but we don't have the choice to unilaterally keep a park open just because we want to. If any of us did that, we would not have a job to return to when this is over.

 

[Dymanic]

That didn't really clear up for me why the one is blackmail and the other isn't. It is 2 different entities essentially saying "my way or the highway".

The same could be said of any entity refusing to capitulate, either in whole or in part, to anyone saying essentially, "my way or the highway".

Perhaps you've never had to deal with a petulant two-year-old who wanted, say, to eat a bag of candy instead of his dinner, and was prepared to unleash his full arsenal of persuasive weaponry in order to enforce his wishes, but I wonder (and you may answer hypothetically if need be): Would you regard it as responsible parenting to simply give the kid what he wants and make the awful screaming stop so you can attend to the task of cleaning up the mess he made by throwing his food in every direction? No? Half the bag, you think? Maybe just a piece or two?

 

[Peephole]

1) there was a substantial group of Democrats who were hoping for a shutdown (the evidence is certainly not dispositive),

Hoping for Republicans to run their party into the ground, isn't the same thing as actually supporting a shutdown.

2) Democrats will not negotiate at all (the evidence of this is absolutely dispositive), and

There's nothing to negotiate about. Boehner has to simply allow an up or down vote, and the US government will be funded again.

3) Republicans have been trying to pass at least some measures to minimize the impact of the shutdown on the public (again, dispositive evidence).

A pure face saving measure to try to limit the damage. And also a way to trick Democrats into funding programs Republicans like, and eventually leaving all programs Democrats like unfunded. Democrats shouldn't fall into that trap.

 

[ehcks]

Hoping for Republicans to run their party into the ground, isn't the same thing as actually supporting a shutdown.

It's more like "Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake".