Harry Reid and Barack Obama want a government shutdown.

[Recidiva]

I admit "Revenge Politics" has an enormous appeal. It's simply not practical in the "real world". I realize failing to hold people responsible for their miscreant behavior simply encourages more of the same (see also: Miles).

In some respects, you're playing into the conservative game: Murica loves to define arguments as a conflict between "good guys" and "bad guys". This is why, for example, Israel literally gets away with murder in the Middle East, they've convinced America that they are the "good guys", which allows them to basically inflict genocide on the Palestinian population and use Palestinian boys as human shields.

But I digress.

In addition to near-constant attempts to shift blame and avoid responsibility for their actions, keep in mind that one of the "core components" of conservatism is a persecution complex. Conservatives have honed "playing the victim card" to an exact science, largely due to fundamentalist Christians having decades of experience in doing so. They use situational outrage to gin up support, inevitably attempting to portray themselves as victim-y little Davids against monolithic Gummint Goliaths.

In that respect, President Obama is doing a masterful job. He's doing a rope-a-dope technique, refusing to take symbolic steps that would give Congressional Republicans and Fox News a target.

Denied a target, Fox and the Republicans are lashing out indiscriminately, for lack of a clear direction. Make no mistake, America is noticing this. People are becoming more and more aware that Republicans are simply complaining for the sake of complaining (aka "Vetteman mode").

I think President Obama is playing a long game here, he has his eyes focused on the big picture.

In any event, time will tell, right?

I think I'm complaining about Democrats letting the Republicans do the same thing over and over with little in the way of political consequence. The Republicans are doing it because it works, Obama is saying it doesn't work. Yeah, it does. It has. It will continue to work.

Republicans will continue to get elected because if they want something, they gang up and go to the mat and do what it takes and all that "Play to Win" crap that I despise but which works because politics is about who wins.

I want another game entirely to be played. I am not going to get it. I had hopes of getting it.

If the Republicans are like a pack of dogs that go after a target and drag it down, at least they're a pack of something that has a strategy.

If you've stymied an opponent with that strategy over and over and the target won't put down traps and knock some dogs out metaphorically and make it cost them, then the pack of dogs will get the vote because it works and Presidents and parties don't get the sympathy vote. He got the inspiration vote, and he's fumbled it.

If the next Democratic candidate does the equivalent of the brilliant "Don't Give Them The Car Keys" strategy, people who want strong leadership would rather have the scarred grinning dog than the person complaining about the bite mark.

This is my opinion about the game overall, I think the Democrats are not playing the right game. They want it to be about being better people and having that shine, and what other people see are that they're not willing to stand up and do some game play.

If their job is to stop a pack of dogs, then stop them. That is the job right now. All he's doing is pointing them out. Every time he points out their "crimes" he's being their PR guy and saying "Look how unreasonable and mean they are!" and people are hearing "Look what they can get done when they put their mind to it. And look what I can't do."

Being the American Hockey team against the mean Russians is only effective if you WIN the motherfucking game.

He's acting like the American people are the ref. "Look at that! Call them on it! Give them a penalty card!" and people see that he can't win the game by the rules, but damned if somebody else can't. They've managed to effectively push the game out of bounds over and over. The conclusion? Republicans cheat, but Obama can't win in bounds.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm ready for civil war with you guys. I think its time for blood to flow across America. We need about 5 years of slaughter and mayhem.

The Republican party IS the insurrection that never accepted the outcome of the Civil War.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Republican party IS the insurrection that never accepted the outcome of the Civil War.

Dear, you didn't get the memo about what the war was all about.

Ignore the blabber you read and the chatter you hear, the meaning of anything is the outcome you get.

One Tallahassee woman said it all, THANK YOU JESUS! NO MORE DO I HAVE TO FEED AND CLOTHE AND HOUSE ANYONE WHO DOESNT WORK. All the useless darkies suddenly found themselves sitting on the curb with no pot to piss in nor window to throw it out. And this one, SURE, YOURE FREE TO GO, BUT THEM SHOES AND OVERALLS BELONG TO ME. LINCOLN DIDNT EMANCIPATE THEM.

 

[Recidiva]

Dear, you didn't get the memo about what the war was all about.

Ignore the blabber you read and the chatter you hear, the meaning of anything is the outcome you get.

One Tallahassee woman said it all, THANK YOU JESUS! NO MORE DO I HAVE TO FEED AND CLOTHE AND HOUSE ANYONE WHO DOESNT WORK. All the useless darkies suddenly found themselves sitting on the curb with no pot to piss in nor window to throw it out. And this one, SURE, YOURE FREE TO GO, BUT THEM SHOES AND OVERALLS BELONG TO ME. LINCOLN DIDNT EMANCIPATE THEM.

Yeah, try again, half of my family is Creole. I've heard all about the War of Northern Aggression and I get it just fine.

Please don't call me dear again.

 

[zipman]

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

Sounds like a teenager rather than a congressman.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think I'm complaining about Democrats letting the Republicans do the same thing over and over with little in the way of political consequence. The Republicans are doing it because it works, Obama is saying it doesn't work. Yeah, it does. It has. It will continue to work.

Republicans will continue to get elected because if they want something, they gang up and go to the mat and do what it takes and all that "Play to Win" crap that I despise but which works because politics is about who wins.

I want another game entirely to be played. I am not going to get it. I had hopes of getting it.

If the Republicans are like a pack of dogs that go after a target and drag it down, at least they're a pack of something that has a strategy.

If you've stymied an opponent with that strategy over and over and the target won't put down traps and knock some dogs out metaphorically and make it cost them, then the pack of dogs will get the vote because it works and Presidents and parties don't get the sympathy vote. He got the inspiration vote, and he's fumbled it.

If the next Democratic candidate does the equivalent of the brilliant "Don't Give Them The Car Keys" strategy, people who want strong leadership would rather have the scarred grinning dog than the person complaining about the bite mark.

This is my opinion about the game overall, I think the Democrats are not playing the right game. They want it to be about being better people and having that shine, and what other people see are that they're not willing to stand up and do some game play.

If their job is to stop a pack of dogs, then stop them. That is the job right now. All he's doing is pointing them out. Every time he points out their "crimes" he's being their PR guy and saying "Look how unreasonable and mean they are!" and people are hearing "Look what they can get done when they put their mind to it. And look what I can't do."

Being the American Hockey team against the mean Russians is only effective if you WIN the motherfucking game.

He's acting like the American people are the ref. "Look at that! Call them on it! Give them a penalty card!" and people see that he can't win the game by the rules, but damned if somebody else can't. They've managed to effectively push the game out of bounds over and over. The conclusion? Republicans cheat, but Obama can't win in bounds.

Obama's ironclad resolve not to negotiate over the debt limit appears to finally be sinking in among GOP leaders

More and more Republicans have realized the game is over. The only thing left is trying to save face (i.e. declare victory and go home)

LINK

 

[Recidiva]

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

Sounds like a teenager rather than a congressman.

Barbara Bachman holding her eyes open to prove how she's not going to blink.

 

[Recidiva]

Obama's ironclad resolve not to negotiate over the debt limit appears to finally be sinking in among GOP leaders

More and more Republicans have realized the game is over. The only thing left is trying to save face (i.e. declare victory and go home)

LINK

Of course it's going to come to an end and both sides are going to claim victory.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rob is tending his sore anus as we speak:
<snip>

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/Soonyigump/vettescat2.jpg

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Of course it's going to come to an end and both sides are going to claim victory.

Rob is tending his sore anus as we speak:

57 HOUSE DEMS HAVE ABANDONED PELOSI, OBAMA TO KEEP PARTS OF GOVERNMENT OPEN

by MIKE FLYNN 3 Oct 2013, 3:55 PM PDT

Since the government shutdown on Tuesday, House Republicans have pushed legislation to reopen selected parts of the federal government. They have proposed legislation to reopen National Parks, the Veterans Administration and fully fund the National Guard, among other measures. To date, 57 House Democrats, almost a third of the caucus, have broken ranks with Leader Pelosi and President Obama to support the GOP refunding efforts.

"Despite these bipartisan votes," Mike Long, spokesman for Rep. Kevin McCarthy, said in a statement to Breitbart News, "Leader Reid and Co-Leader Schumer continue to object to up or down votes on any of these bills including funding for veterans, active service military personnel and pediatric cancer patients."

As Breitbart News has pointed out, the federal government is ordinarily funded by specific appropriations bills covering one or two agencies at a time. There is nothing unusual about the House, or Senate, moving bills to fund individual agencies. Apparently, 57 House Democrats agree with this approach.

As the shutdown stretches on, it will become increasingly clear to the American public that the Democrats won't negotiate or compromise. Their extremist position goes so far as to block how Congress has normally funded government. One-third of the House Democrat caucus is in open revolt of this strategy, however. Democrat defections will likely increase as the shutdown lingers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...pen?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Boy, that didn't take long...

 

[jeninflorida]

Boy, that didn't take long...

does it hurt? being as stupid as you are, I wasn't sure. maybe because you are so stupid you can't tell?

help me understand

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

does it hurt? being as stupid as you are, I wasn't sure. maybe because you are so stupid you can't tell?

help me understand

Help me understand first. I've asked you this question over and over and you have yet to respond.

Why is it ok for the federal government to subsidize your flood insurance but not poor people's health insurance? Socialist hypocrite.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=933281

 

[landslider2000]

Obama lectured the country on civility in the wake of the Giffords shooting.

Reid and Pelosi have called Repubs "anarchists" and "arsonists."

Eliz Warren -- revealing an eye for nuance worthy of a former professor -- spoke of an "anarchy gang" desiring a "future without government."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obama lectured the country on civility in the wake of the Giffords shooting.

Reid and Pelosi have called Repubs "anarchists" and "arsonists."

Eliz Warren -- revealing an eye for nuance worthy of a former professor -- spoke of an "anarchy gang" desiring a "future without government."

Don't worry, your spirtual soulmate Congressman Tim Griffin admonished President Obama for his "violent rhetoric" scant seconds after the shooting stopped in DC this afternoon.

 

[phrodeau]

Obama canceled his no-doubt expensive trip plans to Indonesia and Brunei.

Where's the praise from vetteman and busybody for the frugal POTUS?

 

[Que]

The Republican party IS the insurrection that never accepted the outcome of the Civil War.

If only that were true. If the outcome of the War Between the States had not been won by Lincoln who was a Republican who abolished the federal government and replaced it with a national government.

Today's version of the Republican Party is very similar to the Democratic Party.

Give lip service to the idea of smarter leaner more efficient or un the democrats case kinder more compassionate and more effective government.

In reality all that either party wants is more government, so they can parcel the goodies out to those that help re-elect them.

But to answer the original question. Of course the Democrats won a government shutdown. They plan for and baited it. They have to have some form of economic mudslinging to claim that the lethargic, goverment spending top-heavy economy is somehow or another the Republicans fault even though Obama's had 100 percent control of all of the spending he's ever wanted since he's been in office. He uses language saying that hey these charges have been incurred in these bills have to be paid were not dead beats. Keep in mind we're still working without a budget because we're still spending the amounts that the Democrats control of all three houses Resulted in.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think I'm complaining about Democrats letting the Republicans do the same thing over and over with little in the way of political consequence. The Republicans are doing it because it works, Obama is saying it doesn't work. Yeah, it does. It has. It will continue to work.

Republicans will continue to get elected because if they want something, they gang up and go to the mat and do what it takes and all that "Play to Win" crap that I despise but which works because politics is about who wins.

I want another game entirely to be played. I am not going to get it. I had hopes of getting it.

If the Republicans are like a pack of dogs that go after a target and drag it down, at least they're a pack of something that has a strategy.

If you've stymied an opponent with that strategy over and over and the target won't put down traps and knock some dogs out metaphorically and make it cost them, then the pack of dogs will get the vote because it works and Presidents and parties don't get the sympathy vote. He got the inspiration vote, and he's fumbled it.

If the next Democratic candidate does the equivalent of the brilliant "Don't Give Them The Car Keys" strategy, people who want strong leadership would rather have the scarred grinning dog than the person complaining about the bite mark.

This is my opinion about the game overall, I think the Democrats are not playing the right game. They want it to be about being better people and having that shine, and what other people see are that they're not willing to stand up and do some game play.

If their job is to stop a pack of dogs, then stop them. That is the job right now. All he's doing is pointing them out. Every time he points out their "crimes" he's being their PR guy and saying "Look how unreasonable and mean they are!" and people are hearing "Look what they can get done when they put their mind to it. And look what I can't do."

Being the American Hockey team against the mean Russians is only effective if you WIN the motherfucking game.

He's acting like the American people are the ref. "Look at that! Call them on it! Give them a penalty card!" and people see that he can't win the game by the rules, but damned if somebody else can't. They've managed to effectively push the game out of bounds over and over. The conclusion? Republicans cheat, but Obama can't win in bounds.

The problem I have with this post is the sheer one-sidedness of it.

It is the reason we are at loggerheads today.

One party = MANDATE

Don't tell us how to hold the mop.
That's nice Eric, but we won.
We're going to get the car out of the ditch, you cannot get in.

Now he's announced no negotiations over the debt limit. That is the reason Harry passed no budgets for five years; it would mean negotiations, it would mean compromise and the Democrats have no use for compromise as long as they hold two branches of government. Why the hell should the Republicans be any different in such a toxic atmosphere especially when they are being called terrorists, a word we are now to squeamish to apply to actual terrorists!

In the past several weeks I have watched with delight as poster after poster told me the Tea Party was dead and without any influence, just a joke, but suddenly, this week, the joke is on the Republican Party because now 16 people have hijacked the whole party and put a gun to its head...

And the great uniter, ala Blazing Saddles, has now pulled the Tea Party gun and put it to his own head daring us to defy him lest he pull the trigger.

Barry: [low voice] Hold it! Next man makes a move, the nigger gets it!
Harry: Hold it, men. He's not bluffing.
Nancy: Listen to him, men. He's just crazy enough to do it!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The most ubiquitous conventional wisdom is that the ultimate cause of these troubles is out-of-control tea-party anarchists.

But is this really where the causal chain ends? The Tea Party was created by Obama’s first-term overreach, most specifically Obamacare. This frantic fight against the law today is the fruits of the way it was originally enacted.

From Social Security to civil rights to Medicaid to Medicare, never in the modern history of the country has major social legislation been enacted on a straight party-line vote. Never. In every case, there was significant reaching across the aisle, enhancing the law’s legitimacy and endurance. Yet Obamacare — which revolutionizes one-sixth of the economy, regulates every aspect of medical practice, and intimately affects just about every citizen — passed without a single GOP vote.

The Democrats insist they welcomed contributing ideas from Republicans. Rubbish. Republicans proposed that insurance be purchasable across state lines. They got nothing. They sought serious tort reform. They got nothing. Why? Because, admitted Howard Dean, Democrats didn’t want to offend the trial lawyers.

Moreover, the administration was clearly warned. Republican Scott Brown ran in the most inhospitable of states, Massachusetts, on the explicit promise to cast the deciding vote blocking Obamacare. It was January 2010, the height of the debate. He won. Reid ignored this unmistakable message of popular opposition and conjured a parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Brown.

Nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions only with bipartisan majorities. Having stuffed Obamacare down the throats of the GOP and the country, Democrats are now paying the price.

I don’t agree with current Republican tactics. I thought the defunding demand impossible and, therefore, foolish. I thought that if, nonetheless, they insisted on making a stand, it should not be on shutting down the government, which voters oppose five to one, but on the debt ceiling, which Americans favor two to one as a vehicle for restraining government.

Tactics are one thing, but substance is another. It’s the Democrats who have mocked the very notion of settled law.* It’s the Democrats who voted down the reopening of substantial parts of the government. It’s the Democrats who gave life to a spontaneous, authentic, small-government opposition – a.k.a the Tea Party — with their unilateral imposition of a transformational agenda during the brief interval when they held a monopoly of power.

That interval is over. The current unrest is the residue of that hubris.

Charles Krauthammer, NRO


*

President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is “settled” law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature, and passed muster with the Supreme Court.

Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument — except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.

Article 1 of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate — the individual mandate — this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Dr. Krauthammer continues:

"The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans, and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.

"The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Dr. Krauthammer continues:

"The mainstream media have been fairly unanimous in blaming the government shutdown on the GOP. Accordingly, House Republicans presented three bills to restore funding to national parks, veterans, and the District of Columbia government. Democrats voted down all three. (For procedural reasons, the measures required a two-thirds majority.)

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won’t even consider these refunding measures. And the White House has promised a presidential veto.

"The reason is obvious: to prolong the pain and thus add to the political advantage gained from a shutdown blamed on the GOP. They are confident the media will do a “GOP makes little Johnny weep at the closed gates of Yellowstone, film at 11” despite Republicans having just offered legislation to open them."

Krauthammer is a stooge.

The GOP's piecemeal attempts at cherry-picking and funding parts of the government they like is akin to releasing one hostage at a time in their attempt to do what they have failed to do over 40 times already, repeal or deny funding to the Affordable Care Act.

Why should economic terrorists be negotiated with? Put down the gun, release the hostages, and negotiate in good faith.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I like how Krauthammer disputes the fact that Obamacare is settled law.

It has passed every single consitutional check, and survived 40+ repeal attempts.

It's settled law, the bellowing from the rightwing echo chamber notwithstanding.

Social Security has been amended several times over the years, does that mean it's not "settled law".

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Democrats Chose the Shutdown
And Republicans are within their legal and constitutional rights to act as they have.
Thomas Sowell, NRO
OCTOBER 4, 2013

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for Obamacare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether Obamacare is good, bad, or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

Obamacare is indeed “the law of the land,” as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been furloughed are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer Obamacare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — “wants to shut down the government.” But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for Obamacare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for Obamacare. Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that he wants a “clean” bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word “clean” like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote for, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

Remember, they won an election too...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You're the stooge.

Nice rebuttal.