Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
And trying to get the Resident to compromise has gotten us nothing other than the man-child holding his breath, stomping his feet, and trying to stick it to the average citizen. He is an embarrasment.

It must irritate you so much to know that the President was not only elected once, but twice by the people of the United States. Whether you like the man or not, the least you could do is respect the office.

Both sides have negotiated numerous times before the shutdown and both sides have non-negotiable items, but now the GOP has blamed the Democrats for not negotiating? Here is a list of 19 times the Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Senate Republicans by introducing their budget to a bicameral conference committee:
1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

Neither the GOP nor the Democrats have clean hands in this, despite what you have been told. The Democrats of things to offer the GOP in exchange for keeping the ACA off the table and they need to do it. The bottom line is the ACA is law that passed through the House and Senate, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. In other words, that is exactly how it is supposed to work. A handful of congressmen that personally have nothing to lose don't want to continue to fund an already funded law and in the process, will make things miserable for a lot of people all for what? The polls show that the American people think the the GOP is largely responsible for the shutdown and they will continue to think that. It will be the same thing that happened in the 90s. they main gain a couple seats here and lose a couple there and be proud about it, but in the end it will be a Pyrrhic victory because the public on the whole won't support them.

Relapse wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?

Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.

Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.

I mean, unless veterans are above the law...

Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/news/la-pn-obama-occupy-wall-street-20111006

http://www.startribune.com/134027643.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/portland-needs-70-dump-trucks-to-clean-up-filth-after-occupy-squatters-removed-from-park/


http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/money/consumer/occupy-movement-costing-cities-millions-in-overtime-and-clean-up-costs

Double standard if ever I saw one.

Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?

Poor analytical skill if I ever saw it.

Relapse wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm always for civil disobedience in the face of illegal, stupid or immoral laws. The idea of arresting vets for protesting is sickening. Since when is America about blind obedience?

Nobody is suggesting that vets should be arrested purely for protesting.

Protesting by breaking the law, however, can lead to being arrested, and it seems problematic to hold Veterans as being above the law. Rather, I'd think that people who have served their country in such a capacity would recognize the need to follow the law and to either promote change through the proper methods of doing so, use legal methods of protest, or use methods that could risk them getting arrested and recognize they're doing so.

I mean, unless veterans are above the law...

Wasn't Obama praising the OCP movement as they clogged streets and hindered business, crapped in the same streets, threw garbage all over the place as well and generally doing a lot worse than the vets?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/news/la-pn-obama-occupy-wall-street-20111006

http://www.startribune.com/134027643.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/portland-needs-70-dump-trucks-to-clean-up-filth-after-occupy-squatters-removed-from-park/


http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/money/consumer/occupy-movement-costing-cities-millions-in-overtime-and-clean-up-costs

Double standard if ever I saw one.

Based on the links you provided, making the observation "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel..." somehow translates to heaping overwhelming on it?

Poor analytical skill if I ever saw it.

Not really. Where do you get overwhelming from, by the way? I could easily provide other links where he played to the occupiers if you want, but it isn't that far in the past that people don't have a lot of trouble remembering Obama basically tallking up the protesters.

You don't need to provide links, I know what he said and when he said it. I'm pointing out that you made a weak argument that has no bearing on the topic at hand. The President hasn't said anything about the "vets" march, good or bad, so how does the fact that he made positive remarks about the OWS protesters fit in this narrative?

Relapse wrote:
Just noting the fact he was cheering the occupiers on as the were trashing the cities, obstructing business and in general being donkey-caves, and how he is giving the vets the silent treatment as they are being arrested. No comments about them expressing frustration and all that.

You're bridging on red herring territory here though. The fact that the President had positive things to say about a different group of people protesting a different thing in a different way a couple years ago has nothing to do with what is happening now. By the way, the related protest of truck drivers trying to clog one of the most heavily traveled roads around the District is obstructing business and interfering with the lives of residents of the area (like myself). They are being arrested for breaking the law, just like the OWS idiots were. Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101. They are being used as photo-op pawns by the same people that worked tirelessly to shut them out of the memorial the are so valiantly defending. Where were these Congresspeople the last 59 years before they built the memorial? Oh that's right, ignoring the legislation in the House proposed by a Democrat to get the memorial built.