• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Address the Nation on the government shutdown.

disneydude said:
Sorry Charlie....but America should not...and will never negotiate with people who engage in "terroristic-type" strategies. The American people are by overwhelming numbers aware of the gamesmanship and aren't buying into the ploys any more than I am.
Click to expand...

You really have a sickness, seek help. You have no idea of what is going on in govt. or what the GOP actually proposed or is doing. "Your" President is a fraud and you continue to buy the rhetoric. All this has to be for attention.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Umm...you have a warped definition of "terrorist" if you are equating the government shut down and tea baggers as being terroristic.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case I think the hyperbole is justified. There really is no difference between this and a hostage negotiation.

The Tea Party wants to get rid of the ACA even though they have no legislative means to do so. In a hostage situation the hostage takers want money even though they've done nothing to earn it.

In order to gain leverage the Tea Party is threatening a prolonged shutdown and possible default. The Tea Party don't gain anything from a government shutdown and will be hurt badly by a default. However, they are betting that the country will suffer from a prolonged shut-down or default enough that the Democrats would be unwilling to risk it. In a hostage situation, the hostage is the leverage. Killing the hostage does the hostage takers no good, and will likely result in their deaths. But, the hostage takers are betting that the pain of losing the hostages is enough to warrant giving into their demands.

Finally, just as in a hostage situation, one should never negotiate. Yes, this time the hostage takers may give the hostage back safely, but what about the next time? Or the time after that?

The Republicans aren't offering to give up something they want. They're offering to not do something that will harm them some, but will harm the country more. They're not negotiating, they're threatening because they can't achieve their goals through the legislative process. That's exactly what a terrorist does and why they do it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If you don't mean "terrorist" then don't use the word. Hyperbole only degrades your arguement. It does not add to it.

And yes, it did pass both houses of Congress and Senate. But then so did a lot of other F'd up laws through out history. It being passed by them is certainly not indictitive that it was a good law to pass. As far as SCOTUS goes, at best it was passed on a technicality of the mandate being linked to the IRS and therefore a "tax". Despite what Roberts (I believe it was him...correct me if I'm wrong) said in the mandate being a "tax" that was BS and everyone knows it. Even Obama stated that it was not a tax. But again, it wouldn't be the first time that SCOTUS also upheld some F'd up laws. Sure it won't be the last either.

Now, despite both houses and SCOTUS upholding it does not mean that the opposing side (in this case republicans) does not have the right to try and get it tossed in any way possible. Democrats have used the system in dispicable ways in order to not only get things passed but to stall things that they didn't want also. Indeed this tactic is hardly new and has been used multiple times on both sides of the fence. Yet if people are partisan enough they will always ignore that fact and only claim that only the "opposing side" does it...or at the very least they will just flat out ignore any statement showing that...and other times just deflect or claim "its apples and oranges!".
Click to expand...



You do so by acting professional and through the legislative process....not by throwing tantrums and holding the American people hostage. You are absolutely wrong about one thing. You don't accomplish it "by any means necessary". You do so by the standards of decorum and processes that our legislative government is established on. Gamesmanship and terroristic-type ploys to try to force negotiations are not the way to do it...and fortunately, the American people overwhelmingly knows who is engaging in childish behavior here.
 
Conservative said:
You really have a sickness, seek help. You have no idea of what is going on in govt. or what the GOP actually proposed or is doing. "Your" President is a fraud and you continue to buy the rhetoric. All this has to be for attention.
Click to expand...

LOL....says the man who actually believes that 911 occurred on Clinton's watch.....GWB captured and killed Bin Laden and then led America down the road to economic utopia. The fact that you still believe your own fictions show all too clear that it is You sir who hasn't a clue on the realities or the workings of Government. Turn off your right-wing radio.....and perhaps trying picking up a newspaper or doing a little research of your own some time.
 
disneydude said:
You do so by acting professional and through the legislative process....not by throwing tantrums and holding the American people hostage. You are absolutely wrong about one thing. You don't accomplish it "by any means necessary". You do so by the standards of decorum and processes that our legislative government is established on. Gamesmanship and terroristic-type ploys to try to force negotiations are not the way to do it...and fortunately, the American people overwhelmingly knows who is engaging in childish behavior here.
Click to expand...

I agree, it should be done with decorum and professionalism. But that is not the way reality is. As I said before, both democrats and republicans have used the same exact tactic lots of times and found it acceptable behavior. Yet this time its "wrong" its "terrorist type behavior"? It is either wrong all the time no matter the party or it is not wrong and acceptable no matter the party. You cannot have it both ways.
 
disneydude said:
LOL....says the man who actually believes that 911 occurred on Clinton's watch.....GWB captured and killed Bin Laden and then led America down the road to economic utopia. The fact that you still believe your own fictions show all too clear that it is You sir who hasn't a clue on the realities or the workings of Government. Turn off your right-wing radio.....and perhaps trying picking up a newspaper or doing a little research of your own some time.
Click to expand...

Wow, with people like you there is no wonder California is in such sad state. You deserve to live in the highest taxed state in the country with the most minimum wage workers and highest debt. You really need to grow up, maybe one of these days it will happen.

I know I am not nearly as educated as you so that is why I have asked Obama supporters to provide me with the credible sites that they use to verify the Obama rhetoric and that show what a great job he is doing as President. You see, results matter and I know that liberals like you have those results which cause you to sell your soul to the liberal party. It is just that I cannot find those positive results.

Now on the issue o ACA, in your world apparently it is ok for Obama to exempt certain groups, negotiate with the unions on their exemptions, but ignore the Republican Party which represents the majority in this country as evidenced by the number in the "People's House" or did you not know that Congressional elections show where the majority reside?

I know this is very hard for someone like you who works at Disneyland to understand but Bush has been out of office for 5 years and only in your Fantasyland are the economic results today still his responsibility.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree, it should be done with decorum and professionalism. But that is not the way reality is. As I said before, both democrats and republicans have used the same exact tactic lots of times and found it acceptable behavior. Yet this time its "wrong" its "terrorist type behavior"? It is either wrong all the time no matter the party or it is not wrong and acceptable no matter the party. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Sure he can because that is the way liberals operate, it never is a liberal's fault for failure or poor performance as they always blame someone else. when Clinton shutdown the govt. because the GOP Wouldn't give him what he wanted it was the GOP's fault, just like it is now when Obama won't negotiate with the Republicans, that is the GOP's fault
 
And you called how they rammed the passage of that law past congress "democracy." Really - you'd make fascist stalin proud.


iguanaman said:
The "alternative" they offered is to abandon our democracy and make terror the rule of law. Let's not mince words here.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree, it should be done with decorum and professionalism. But that is not the way reality is. As I said before, both democrats and republicans have used the same exact tactic lots of times and found it acceptable behavior. Yet this time its "wrong" its "terrorist type behavior"? It is either wrong all the time no matter the party or it is not wrong and acceptable no matter the party. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Government shutdown in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In every case, the Government shut down over pending legislation. This is the first time in US history that the government was shut down over legislation that was already passed and funded. The closest parallel is when the the Democrats shut down the government in 87 over funding for the Iran Contras and demands for the FCC to reenforce the "Fairness Doctrine". Eventually the Democrats abandoned efforts to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" in exchange for no longer providing lethal aid to the Contras.
 
Mithros said:
Actually in this case I think the hyperbole is justified. There really is no difference between this and a hostage negotiation.

The Tea Party wants to get rid of the ACA even though they have no legislative means to do so. In a hostage situation the hostage takers want money even though they've done nothing to earn it.

In order to gain leverage the Tea Party is threatening a prolonged shutdown and possible default. The Tea Party don't gain anything from a government shutdown and will be hurt badly by a default. However, they are betting that the country will suffer from a prolonged shut-down or default enough that the Democrats would be unwilling to risk it. In a hostage situation, the hostage is the leverage. Killing the hostage does the hostage takers no good, and will likely result in their deaths. But, the hostage takers are betting that the pain of losing the hostages is enough to warrant giving into their demands.

Finally, just as in a hostage situation, one should never negotiate. Yes, this time the hostage takers may give the hostage back safely, but what about the next time? Or the time after that?

The Republicans aren't offering to give up something they want. They're offering to not do something that will harm them some, but will harm the country more. They're not negotiating, they're threatening because they can't achieve their goals through the legislative process. That's exactly what a terrorist does and why they do it.
Click to expand...

No, hyperbole is never justified. Hyperbole just takes the meaning of a word and degrades it to the point where its original meaning is lost and doesn't apply/mean correctly to anything anymore. Or to say it another way, it de-sensitizes people to the words actual intentions.

As far as the republicans doing this...in reality both sides are to blame. Democrats could have caved in just as much as the republicans could have. At least they could have when the republicans gave up the defunding part of thier demands and ony asked for an extension for the average American just like the big corporations and those in both houses got. It takes two to agree or disagree in an argument. Not one.
 
Mithros said:
Government shutdown in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In every case, the Government shut down over pending legislation. This is the first time in US history that the government was shut down over legislation that was already passed and funded. The closest parallel is when the the Democrats shut down the government in 87 over funding for the Iran Contras and demands for the FCC to reenforce the "Fairness Doctrine". Eventually the Democrats abandoned efforts to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" in exchange for no longer providing lethal aid to the Contras.
Click to expand...

And how many times was the government "almost" shut down due to some sort of deman or other? And I'm not applying my arguement to just the shutting down of the government. I'm also applying it to every single time some good/useful bill/law or other was threatened because of some rider that was tacked on due to the agenda of one party or another.
 
I would say that this is just another case of the president leading from behind and voting present. There was plenty of time for the administration and congress to work this out before hand but the senate and the president are hard liners. The senate won't even take their differences with the house to conference committee. It's shameful really. I hope the government stays closed until all sides come to the table and negotiate.
 
sawdust said:
I would say that this is just another case of the president leading from behind and voting present. There was plenty of time for the administration and congress to work this out before hand but the senate and the president are hard liners. The senate won't even take their differences with the house to conference committee. It's shameful really. I hope the government stays closed until all sides come to the table and negotiate.
Click to expand...

irony irony irony.

Republicans Spent Year Blocking Budget Conference (VIDEO)

House Republicans decided Monday that government shutdown or not, it was more important for them to keep trying to strike a blow against Obamacare. Having failed to convince Senate Democrats to go along, the Republicans resorted to seeking a "conference committee" to resolve the differences.

For Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, the move is ironic. She has been trying for more than a half-year to go to a conference to work out dramatic differences between the Senate budget and the House version. Senate and House Republicans have objected, repeatedly.

But with the clock expiring at midnight Monday, and federal officials starting to shut down all non-essential government functions, the House resorted to seeking a conference committee to pass a spending bill, or "continuing resolution" that runs only through mid-November or mid-December.

Senate Democrats called that negotiating at gunpoint.

"We know going to a conference means that we have to compromise -- that's what a conference is," Murray said just before midnight. "But we're not going to do it with a gun to our head that says we're shutting government down and we're going to conference over a short little six-week C.R. We have to deal with the longer-term budget. We have asked many times to go to conference on that."

Indeed, Murray and her colleagues asked 18 times. They have been blocked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a group of tea party Republicans led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, hyperbole is never justified. Hyperbole just takes the meaning of a word and degrades it to the point where its original meaning is lost and doesn't apply/mean correctly to anything anymore. Or to say it another way, it de-sensitizes people to the words actual intentions.

As far as the republicans doing this...in reality both sides are to blame. Democrats could have caved in just as much as the republicans could have. At least they could have when the republicans gave up the defunding part of thier demands and ony asked for an extension for the average American just like the big corporations and those in both houses got. It takes two to agree or disagree in an argument. Not one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So I'd rephrase my statement as the "hyperbole" may not actually be hyperbole.

But what are the Republicans willing to give up? Like it or hate it, Obama care is law and is already funded. The GOP would need need control of the House, Presidency, and 60 votes in the Senate to make any substantial changes. In other words, there's no real chance of changing the ACA without bipartisan support.

That means that in order to repeal the ACA through negotiation, the GOP would have to offer the Democrats something they want more than the ACA. The only thing the GOP is offering is to not shut down the government. Since that's bad for everyone, it's not a compromise or a negotiation. It's a threat.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And how many times was the government "almost" shut down due to some sort of deman or other? And I'm not applying my arguement to just the shutting down of the government. I'm also applying it to every single time some good/useful bill/law or other was threatened because of some rider that was tacked on due to the agenda of one party or another.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I tried to look that up but couldn't find anything.

I'm not going to pretend that the Democrats have always been reasonable. Actually, as a former Republican it's pretty easy to find cases where the Democrats have also been guilty. The Debt Deiling is a great example. It's a cheap political ploy that the minority party uses to score political points against the majority. Obama was only in the Senate for a few years, yet he managed to vote against it. The minority party complains about all of the spending and makes a huge spectacle, because they know that the majority party will have to vote to raise it or the economy will collapse. Both sides are guilty of these kind of silly political games.

What's different now is that the Tea Partiers don't realize that it's always been a game. They're actually willing to pull the trigger on these things.
 
Mithros said:
Agreed. So I'd rephrase my statement as the "hyperbole" may not actually be hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Only it is hyperbole. It is applying a word with a specific meaning about something that is really bad to something that is not equal in proportion.

Mithros said:
But what are the Republicans willing to give up? Like it or hate it, Obama care is law and is already funded. The GOP would need need control of the House, Presidency, and 60 votes in the Senate to make any substantial changes. In other words, there's no real chance of changing the ACA without bipartisan support.

That means that in order to repeal the ACA through negotiation, the GOP would have to offer the Democrats something they want more than the ACA. The only thing the GOP is offering is to not shut down the government. Since that's bad for everyone, it's not a compromise or a negotiation. It's a threat.
Click to expand...

Why should the republicans HAVE to give something up? Do democrats have to give something up to enact the gun control that they want? To allow pro-choice in regards to abortion? Or for a more topical example...what did the democrats give up to get Obamacare enacted? I mean if we are really talking about a "give and take" bi-partisan system shouldn't the democrats have given something to the republicans in order to have a more bi-partisan Obamacare enacted?

In reality this bit of poopska has shown me that neither the democrats nor the republicans actually really and truely cared about preventing a government shut down and instead just used this as another opportunity for more finger pointing in order to try and garner more votes for "their" side in order to win elections so that they can stay in power and get more power and money.
 
Mithros said:
What's different now is that the Tea Partiers don't realize that it's always been a game. They're actually willing to pull the trigger on these things.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm pretty sure that they know the game. They are playing it to the hilt. Refer to my previous post.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Only it is hyperbole. It is applying a word with a specific meaning about something that is really bad to something that is not equal in proportion.



Why should the republicans HAVE to give something up? Do democrats have to give something up to enact the gun control that they want? To allow pro-choice in regards to abortion? Or for a more topical example...what did the democrats give up to get Obamacare enacted? I mean if we are really talking about a "give and take" bi-partisan system shouldn't the democrats have given something to the republicans in order to have a more bi-partisan Obamacare enacted?

In reality this bit of poopska has shown me that neither the democrats nor the republicans actually really and truely cared about preventing a government shut down and instead just used this as another opportunity for more finger pointing in order to try and garner more votes for "their" side in order to win elections so that they can stay in power and get more power and money.
Click to expand...

Because if you're not offering something in return then it's blackmail. Unless the GOP can get 60 votes in the Senate, control of the house, and control of the Presidency the ACA is going into effect. It's already law. And while one could argue that the Democrats compromised by giving up a single payer system, it's really irrelevant to the present debate. We are where we are.

But really, this is just a dress rehearsal for the debt ceiling. .
 
disneydude said:
Sorry Charlie....but America should not...and will never negotiate with people who engage in "terroristic-type" strategies. The American people are by overwhelming numbers aware of the gamesmanship and aren't buying into the ploys any more than I am.
Click to expand...

Your definition is screwed up if you think this is a terrorist strategy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
irony irony irony.

Republicans Spent Year Blocking Budget Conference (VIDEO)
Click to expand...


Civics 101. Fiscal bills are started in the house, they go to the senate where they are either ratified or modified. Then they go to conference committee where the house and the senate work out their differences. That's the way the constitution lays it out.

Here's Obamacare. Democrats rammed the bill through on a parliamentary maneuver with no republican support. Upon implementation, when the government needed yet another continuing resolution to keep the government running, republicans in the house authored a bill which de-funded Obamacare. It went to the senate and the senate just rejected it with no amendment and no call to conference. Then the house authored a second set of CR's which paid for the military and delayed the start of the bill for private individuals, just like they did for business. It also stripped away the special consideration that congress gets to pay for this mess. Again, Obama played golf over the weekend, Pelosi took the weekend off and Reid came to work late. Again, no conference.

It seems to me that republicans have shown at least a small bit of flexibility and democrats are not the least interested in listening to republicans or the American people.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I agree, it should be done with decorum and professionalism. But that is not the way reality is. As I said before, both democrats and republicans have used the same exact tactic lots of times and found it acceptable behavior. Yet this time its "wrong" its "terrorist type behavior"? It is either wrong all the time no matter the party or it is not wrong and acceptable no matter the party. You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

When have the Democrats shut down the government in order to force negotiations?
 
Conservative said:
Wow, with people like you there is no wonder California is in such sad state. You deserve to live in the highest taxed state in the country with the most minimum wage workers and highest debt. You really need to grow up, maybe one of these days it will happen.

I know I am not nearly as educated as you so that is why I have asked Obama supporters to provide me with the credible sites that they use to verify the Obama rhetoric and that show what a great job he is doing as President. You see, results matter and I know that liberals like you have those results which cause you to sell your soul to the liberal party. It is just that I cannot find those positive results.

Now on the issue o ACA, in your world apparently it is ok for Obama to exempt certain groups, negotiate with the unions on their exemptions, but ignore the Republican Party which represents the majority in this country as evidenced by the number in the "People's House" or did you not know that Congressional elections show where the majority reside?

I know this is very hard for someone like you who works at Disneyland to understand but Bush has been out of office for 5 years and only in your Fantasyland are the economic results today still his responsibility.
Click to expand...

Once again your facts are wrong. I guess it is easy to "support" your position when you make up your own statistics.

You should take a look at the facts....under a Democratic Governor, California now has a budget surplus after years of deficits under Republican control.
 
sawdust said:
Civics 101. Fiscal bills are started in the house, they go to the senate where they are either ratified or modified. Then they go to conference committee where the house and the senate work out their differences. That's the way the constitution lays it out.

Here's Obamacare. Democrats rammed the bill through on a parliamentary maneuver with no republican support. Upon implementation, when the government needed yet another continuing resolution to keep the government running, republicans in the house authored a bill which de-funded Obamacare. It went to the senate and the senate just rejected it with no amendment and no call to conference. Then the house authored a second set of CR's which paid for the military and delayed the start of the bill for private individuals, just like they did for business. It also stripped away the special consideration that congress gets to pay for this mess. Again, Obama played golf over the weekend, Pelosi took the weekend off and Reid came to work late. Again, no conference.

It seems to me that republicans have shown at least a small bit of flexibility and democrats are not the least interested in listening to republicans or the American people.
Click to expand...

if you care to look at the timeline it took a long time to pass.

Timeline of the health care law - CNN.com
 
Anthony60 said:
Your definition is screwed up if you think this is a terrorist strategy.
Click to expand...

Not screwed up at all. Terrorists often take hostages to try to negotiate things that they don't have a right to negotiate. This is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do here.
 
disneydude said:
When have the Democrats shut down the government in order to force negotiations?
Click to expand...

I believe Mithros already provided a link that answers your question. But also remember that actual shut downs are just half of the evidence. Threatening it and getting what they want and therefore letting a bill/law pass or letting the government continue without a shut down is the other half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom