What? No government shutdown threads?

[xBiffx]

Yes, different circumstances require different actions. That's about the most uncontroversial statement ever.

Sure different actions. What we have here are no actions. Not even an attempt. See the difference?

Just because things are different doesn't mean doing nothing is the answer.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure different actions. What we have here are no actions. Not even an attempt. See the difference?

Just because things are different doesn't mean doing nothing is the answer.

Deliberately choosing not to negotiate is absolutely an action. Give me a break.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

/facepalm

The demands he is being faced with are unprecedented, therefore saying his response to them is unprecedented is meaningless. There's no way you don't understand this fact and there's no way you don't understand the implication inherent in what Wallace said.

As for the 'I assume you concede' silliness, can it.

The facts are the facts...no matter how inconvenient you believe them to be. 27 showdowns since 1978...and every president was willing to negotiate in some manner except for one...the only "adult" in the room.

 

[xBiffx]

Deliberately choosing not to negotiate is absolutely an action. Give me a break.

And the first time its ever happened. Hence, unprecedented. Now, perhaps you see what Wallace was talking about. I'm highly dubious, however.

 

[fskimospy]

The facts are the facts...no matter how inconvenient you believe them to be. 27 showdowns since 1978...and every president was willing to negotiate in some manner except for one...the only "adult" in the room.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and there's no way you don't know it. Obama is confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable demands. So far they include:

- unilaterally scrap your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally delay the centerpiece of your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally enact major cuts to federal programs in exchange for nothing.

Note that this is not a case where alternatives have not been offered, this is a case where Republicans have explicitly and categorically rejected compromise. (ie: no new taxes ever) They demand that Obama unilaterally accede to these demands upon threat of government shutdown/default. These are unprecedented demands, and the attempt by Wallace and now you to paint Obama's reaction as a novel one to regularly occurring circumstances is absurd on its face.

The only way to deal with such activity in an adult manner is to refuse to indulge it. That is the ONLY responsible course of action. Someone has to be a grownup here. It's a shame that you guys want to enable this kind of behavior.

 

[nixium]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and there's no way you don't know it. Obama is confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable demands. So far they include:

- unilaterally scrap your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally delay the centerpiece of your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally enact major cuts to federal programs in exchange for nothing.

Note that this is not a case where alternatives have not been offered, this is a case where Republicans have explicitly and categorically rejected compromise. (ie: no new taxes ever) They demand that Obama unilaterally accede to these demands upon threat of government shutdown/default. These are unprecedented demands, and the attempt by Wallace and now you to paint Obama's reaction as a novel one to regularly occurring circumstances is absurd on its face.


The only way to deal with such activity in an adult manner is to refuse to indulge it. That is the ONLY responsible course of action. Someone has to be a grownup here. It's a shame that you guys want to enable this kind of behavior.

No point saying this, these tea-hadist assholes are either too dumb or too stupid to realize what's going on.

If the government defaults, I hope it affects them personally - yet I doubt they'll stop their endless fapping over the tea party's behavior. That's how fucked up they are.

 

[xBiffx]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and there's no way you don't know it. Obama is confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable demands. So far they include:

- unilaterally scrap your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally delay the centerpiece of your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally enact major cuts to federal programs in exchange for nothing.

Note that this is not a case where alternatives have not been offered, this is a case where Republicans have explicitly and categorically rejected compromise. (ie: no new taxes ever) They demand that Obama unilaterally accede to these demands upon threat of government shutdown/default. These are unprecedented demands, and the attempt by Wallace and now you to paint Obama's reaction as a novel one to regularly occurring circumstances is absurd on its face.

The only way to deal with such activity in an adult manner is to refuse to indulge it. That is the ONLY responsible course of action. Someone has to be a grownup here. It's a shame that you guys want to enable this kind of behavior.

So I guess when Truman decided to drop the bomb, its meaningless to say it was unprecedented. He was just confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable and/or difficult decisions for ending the war quickly. He was just dealing with the different circumstances with appropriate different actions.

Got it.

/s

 

[fskimospy]

So I guess when Truman decided to drop the bomb, its meaningless to say it was unprecedented. He was just confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable and/or difficult decisions on ending the war quickly. He was just dealing with the different circumstances with appropriate different actions.

Got it.

/s

Mentioning the deployment of new weapons (whose use is inherently unprecedented) is a fairly meaningless statement.

That being said, the rest of your post is fairly meaningless as well. The general purpose of labeling something as unprecedented is to highlight that it deviates from governing norms. When such action is in response to the other side already departing from governing norms, it becomes a fairly meaningless assessment.

 

[xBiffx]

Mentioning the deployment of new weapons (whose use is inherently unprecedented) is a fairly meaningless statement.

That being said, the rest of your post is fairly meaningless as well. The general purpose of labeling something as unprecedented is to highlight that it deviates from governing norms. When such action is in response to the other side already departing from governing norms, it becomes a fairly meaningless assessment.

Only one side hasn't departed from any governing norm. Attempting to defund parts of government or government action isn't unprecedented.

Keep shoveling shit.

 

[Juddog]

No point saying this, these tea-hadist assholes are either too dumb or too stupid to realize what's going on.

If the government defaults, I hope it affects them personally - yet I doubt they'll stop their endless fapping over the tea party's behavior. That's how fucked up they are.

The sad part about these tea-hadists is that they use the public resources that they complain about as being part of the federal spending, but are too stupid to realize it. It's the equivalent of someone shooting themselves in the foot and then blaming someone else for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Only one side hasn't departed from any governing norm. Attempting to defund parts of government or government action isn't unprecedented.

Keep shoveling shit.

Attempting to extract unilateral policy concessions using the threat of national default to do it most certainly deviates from governing norms.

Keep swallowing shit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse and there's no way you don't know it. Obama is confronted with unprecedented and utterly unreasonable demands. So far they include:

- unilaterally scrap your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally delay the centerpiece of your signature legislative achievement in exchange for nothing.
- unilaterally enact major cuts to federal programs in exchange for nothing.

Note that this is not a case where alternatives have not been offered, this is a case where Republicans have explicitly and categorically rejected compromise. (ie: no new taxes ever) They demand that Obama unilaterally accede to these demands upon threat of government shutdown/default. These are unprecedented demands, and the attempt by Wallace and now you to paint Obama's reaction as a novel one to regularly occurring circumstances is absurd on its face.

The only way to deal with such activity in an adult manner is to refuse to indulge it. That is the ONLY responsible course of action. Someone has to be a grownup here. It's a shame that you guys want to enable this kind of behavior.

I personally don't see how his position is at all responsible. We need to avert this potential default as soon as possible and this will not happen unless he talks and makes an attempt to prevent it. You think he has the moral high ground...I get that. But this isn't about him, it's about our country. Right now I'm not sure who wants to see this country burn more if it means they have to give an inch...the Tea Party or Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

I personally don't see how his position is at all responsible. We need to avert this potential default as soon as possible and this will not happen unless he talks and makes an attempt to prevent it. You think he has the moral high ground...I get that. But this isn't about him, it's about our country. Right now I'm not sure who wants to see this country burn more...the Tea Party or Obama.

You are so right that it's about this country, which is why you should agree with me that negotiations are folly and should be avoided at all costs.

It's not about morality, it's about the function of government. We all agree that default is bad, right? If Obama gives in to their demands he makes future default basically certain. As soon as it becomes readily apparent that the way to pass laws that you can't pass normally is through debt ceiling brinksmanship, both parties will start using it with the expectation that the governing party will fold rather than risk default. Sooner or later someone will make a demand that is too great, and then we default.

If our options are 1.) risk default now or 2.) dismantle the policies most important to you and then default. Option 1 is the only sane answer. As I've said before, Obama's greatest error was negotiating in 2011, he opened this pandora's box then by making unilateral concessions. Now he needs to close it for the good of the nation.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

You are so right that it's about this country, which is why you should agree with me that negotiations are folly and should be avoided at all costs.

It's not about morality, it's about the function of government. We all agree that default is bad, right? If Obama gives in to their demands he makes future default basically certain. As soon as it becomes readily apparent that the way to pass laws that you can't pass normally is through debt ceiling brinksmanship, both parties will start using it with the expectation that the governing party will fold rather than risk default. Sooner or later someone will make a demand that is too great, and then we default.

If our options are 1.) risk default now or 2.) dismantle the policies most important to you and then default. Option 1 is the only sane answer. As I've said before, Obama's greatest error was negotiating in 2011, he opened this pandora's box then by making unilateral concessions. Now he needs to close it for the good of the nation.

x1000.

If Obama caves right now he's essentially opening Pandora's box. Republicans will use this tactic again and again to extract ransom. This is not what the founding fathers ever envisioned for this country and frankly it flies in the face of our democracy and wholly discredits it. The fact that people on this forum actually support such tactics shows to me how un-American they are. They are not in favor of democracy, they just want their party to win.

Our democracy is worth saving and if it takes us going into default to do it then so be it. Obama needs to hold fast. Am very glad he's showing no signs of caving to GOP pressure.

 

[ivwshane]

I personally don't see how his position is at all responsible. We need to avert this potential default as soon as possible and this will not happen unless he talks and makes an attempt to prevent it. You think he has the moral high ground...I get that. But this isn't about him, it's about our country. Right now I'm not sure who wants to see this country burn more if it means they have to give an inch...the Tea Party or Obama.

He has already negotiated, he said he would sign a clean CR bill (one that keeps sequester level cuts in place) and dems have said they would agree to $987 billion spending budget.
But I'm sure you already knew this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

x1000.

If Obama caves right now he's essentially opening Pandora's box. Republicans will use this tactic again and again to extract ransom. This is not what the founding fathers ever envisioned for this country and frankly it flies in the face of our democracy and wholly discredits it. The fact that people on this forum actually support such tactics shows to me how un-American they are. They are not in favor of democracy, they just want their party to win.

Our democracy is worth saving and if it takes us going into default to do it then so be it. Obama needs to hold fast. Am very glad he's showing no signs of caving to GOP pressure.

Democrats have used this tactic many times to extract ransom....don't kid yourself. Tell me something...was Obama un-American when he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator because he didn't like Bush's fiscal policies?

 

[Jeffg010]

Why is it that everyone keeps saying that it Obama's/republicans/obamacare fault?

Lets get something out of the way right now the debt ceiling is the problem. This has been a problem for very long time. The entire government is to blame for this mess. The government has never made any attempt to reduce the debt ever. Look at the debt it grew to almost 17 trillion. The government knew this was coming but there was no attempt to fix it. Only way this is getting fix is to do a massive cut on everything. You can't keep spending all this money we don't have. Those fucktards don't have the balls to reduce that debt there solution is to just raise the debt ceiling and keep spending like there is no tomorrow.

What happens when they do raise the debt ceiling and you know that is going to happen do we keep on spending like we do now? Fuck this is insane and you people who think it is Obama or the republicans fault are pretty clueless.

 

[Lash444]

Democrats have used this tactic many times to extract ransom....don't kid yourself. Tell me something...was Obama un-American when he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator because he didn't like Bush's fiscal policies?

So that makes it alright because the shoes on the other foot? Don't you see how that type of thinking is exactly the problem with our government? When does it stop? When one party basically uses it to shut down the government?

And then who do you blame for it?

 

[K1052]

What happens when they do raise the debt ceiling and you know that is going to happen do we keep on spending like we do now?

With government spending down and taxes up the deficit should shrink (it has) and the debt to GDP ratio move in a favorable direction.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Democrats have used this tactic many times to extract ransom....don't kid yourself. Tell me something...was Obama un-American when he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator because he didn't like Bush's fiscal policies?

You're frankly too stupid to understand what's at stake here.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So that makes it alright because the shoes on the other foot? Don't you see how that type of thinking is exactly the problem with our government? When does it stop? When one party basically uses it to shut down the government?

And then who do you blame for it?

I didn't say that makes it alright. I only mentioned it because he acted as if Democrats are fucking saints and would never do such a thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You're frankly too stupid to understand what's at stake here.

Apparently so...why don't you educate me.

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't say that makes it alright. I only mentioned it because he acted as if Democrats are fucking saints and would never do such a thing.

Actually my point is that Democrats have never done such a thing, which is true.

My additional (and far more important) point is that if Obama gives into this Democrats WILL do this in the future, which is a terrible thing.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Democrats have used this tactic many times to extract ransom....don't kid yourself. Tell me something...was Obama un-American when he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator because he didn't like Bush's fiscal policies?

This false equivalence has already been pointed out many times in this thread.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

This false equivalence has already been pointed out many times in this thread.

I mean seriously what kind of shitty parents raised you to think that just because someone else does something horrible it's an acceptable thing to do.....