Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2013, 05:50 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,374,105 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrench409 View Post
What party is the party of 'no'?
Who is saying that there will be no discussions and no compromise on the debt limit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2013, 05:52 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,074 posts, read 10,738,782 times
Reputation: 8808
America doesn't negotiate with "terrorists".

And if you don't think that holding raising the debt ceiling - paying the nation's bills - hostage to defunding ACA, something that the GOP has triedand failed to repeal about 40 times already, isn't the domestic political analog to terrorism, then you're lying to yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 05:53 AM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,778,061 times
Reputation: 2639
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrench409 View Post
What party is the party of 'no'?
the opposite of party of 'waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 05:54 AM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,778,061 times
Reputation: 2639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
America doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
you're right. we elect them to public office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 06:11 AM
 
4,749 posts, read 4,336,226 times
Reputation: 4970
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
I'm baffled that anyone would allow someone of such low character anywhere near their computer.

By low character, I'm speaking to the fact that you purposely looked through someone's personal financials just because "they left them up".

Character is what you do when no ones looking.
Whoopty-f*cking-do! So what if I looked at someone's finances? I was asked me to fix the computer, and their finances were the first thing on the screen. It's kind of hard to misread the millions that they have saved and in investments.


Without looking through their finances, I already knew that they were doing well for themselves. They paid for all 4 of their children's education (undergrad and grad).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 06:14 AM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,569,217 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkmani View Post
I think it was in the spring of 2012 (don't quote me on dates) when President Obama presented a bill for jobs similar to the one FDR (my favorite president, but not a fan of his domestic policies) used during the Great Depression. Congress wouldn't even vote on it. Forget whether or not it was good, why wouldn't they VOTE on it? Isn't that a part of their job?
Gee, maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Obummer has been ruling by executive order since 2010, when an R was elected to stop Obamacare and O used a procedural tactic to avoid having the bill stopped.

Guess they didn't teach that, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 06:38 AM
 
24,464 posts, read 23,168,316 times
Reputation: 15070
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Rest assured when both sides agree on something, you're going to get shafted.
Or let me put it another way. You wake up one night to hear noise downstairs. Going down to investigate, you find two burglars fighting over a pile of your belongings. Do you say to them " Guys, if you work together you can steal even more of my stuff.", or do you try to chase them out of your house?
BTW, Isn't Diane Feinstein being charged with corruption over giving her husband's company exclusive rights to buy and sell closed US post offices?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 07:04 AM
 
59,458 posts, read 27,613,707 times
Reputation: 14393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkmani View Post
I think it was in the spring of 2012 (don't quote me on dates) when President Obama presented a bill for jobs similar to the one FDR (my favorite president, but not a fan of his domestic policies) used during the Great Depression. Congress wouldn't even vote on it. Forget whether or not it was good, why wouldn't they VOTE on it? Isn't that a part of their job?



Why are our congressmen and congresswomen so uncooperative? I thought that when they disagree on something that they were supposed to find a happy-medium. It makes me (a young college student) feel as if they enjoy watching our nation get worse and worse each day.
Why does Obama go on national television and say if so and so is passed by Congress, I will not sign it?

He hadn't read the bill yet.

Don't forget in the very first meeting after Obama was elected he had the Congressional leaders in for a chat. When a republican voiced his opinion, which was different from Obama's, Obama said, " We won, you lost, get used to it".

Does that sound like Obama was open to discussion from all sides? He set the tone. He has had to live with it.

Secondly, you have to give us the details on the so-called stimulus bill you are talking about.

I'd bet there was a whole lot more in the bill then just "jobs" money just like the first one that nothing to stimulate the economy as Obama PROMISED.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 07:09 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,374,105 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkmani View Post
I think it was in the spring of 2012 (don't quote me on dates) when President Obama presented a bill for jobs similar to the one FDR (my favorite president, but not a fan of his domestic policies) used during the Great Depression. Congress wouldn't even vote on it. Forget whether or not it was good, why wouldn't they VOTE on it? Isn't that a part of their job?
The reason it is not voted on is the same reason Congress didn't want to vote on the presidents budget proposals and when forced the Senate voted it down without a single vote in support.

Neither party wants to answer for it in the future. One has to ask themselves how bad a proposal is when neither party wants to support it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2013, 07:14 AM
 
59,458 posts, read 27,613,707 times
Reputation: 14393
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
What you're expecting is the way our nation previously operated, the manner by which is became a great nation: People maturely acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with them and thereby recognizing that they need to give up the idea of getting their own way and instead accept that life will be series of compromises.

Republicans are no longer acting like mature, responsible, conscientious representatives of the people's trust. They're acting like spoiled brats. For example: They've tried to reverse the compromise reached on ACA about forty times. They're like the petulant child who insist on replaying the last roll of the dice for a board game, because it keeps on coming up with them not winning. They keep on lying about what ACA involves and doesn't involve. They keep on lying about what the left-wingers actually wanted (free, universal health care) and therefore keep lying about the fact that ACA is already a great compromise. And they keep lying about what they would do with regard to healthcare for those most vulnerable in society without ACA. It's a literal deceitfest with the GOP. And that's just one example.

They've elevated selfishness to an ethic and discarded protection for those most vulnerable in society, a complete reversal of the progression of ethics of our great nation over two centuries. They place the comfort and luxury of some over basic human decency. And more importantly, they've adopted obstructionism as their tool of choice. That's the big change you're noting. By abrogating honorable trusteeship, they can get much of what they want (which, in general, is the failure of government, itself) by obstruction and other scurrilous tactics where they abuse the power they have to cause damage instead of to promote the best interests of the nation.

This may sound like a one-sided view, but I've already indicated how you can tell it is not. ACA is a perfect example. The left-wingers wanted something. They did not get their way... not even close. ACA is so far from what the left-wingers wanted that it shouldn't be surprising to learn that ACA is very much a right-wing proposal. The ACA reflects a model for healthcare originally put forward in the early 1990s by The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think-tank. It is patterned after the system we have here in Massachusetts, introduced by our past Republican governor, former GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Now the right-wingers refuse to admit, perhaps even to themselves, that ACA was a grand compromise where the left-wing agreed to take the right-wing's approach to the issue. It wasn't even a compromise - it was the left-wing essentially letting the right-wing say how things were going to be, as long as the right-wing took some action to resolve the problems outlined. And yet they have tried about forty times to repeal it.

Spoiled children - that's precisely how right-wingers are acting. And that's why our Members of Congress are so "uncooperative" with each other - because half of them have publicly forsworn compromise.

And I'm sure you'll see very clear demonstration of right-wing refusal to act honorably in pursue of the common good in the messages that follow this one. I can already see that some of the usual suspects have weighed in.
"Republicans are no longer acting like mature, responsible, conscientious representatives of the people's trust." For God's sake, get off you high horse.

You act as if the dems haven't been doing the EXACT same thing over the years.

Please enlighten us why the DEM controlled Senate REFUSED to pass a budget for many years.

Why does Ole' harry reid throw the bills the House passes into the trash instead of giving them to the respective Senate committees for discussion.

We have all read your very biased posts yet you still think the dem leaders act like adults.

Last edited by Quick Enough; 09-21-2013 at 07:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top