Poll: Americans Want Obama to Negotiate

[JoeB131]

“Then there’s the furloughed military chaplains. The military chaplains are not allowed to work for free. They have all said, ‘We will celebrate mass. We will do our services. We will do baptisms for free.’ They have been told they will be punished if they do it,” Glenn explained. “So you have a baby to be baptized; the military priest cannot baptize your child or he’ll go to jail. He can’t celebrate mass anywhere for free or he will go to jail. Does this sound reasonable to you at all?”

And this is a bad thing, why?

Frankly, Organized religion is a fraud, these guys need to be arrested for fraud.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We can all thank god Ronald Reagan was good man who accomplished things unlike the rapist Bill Clinton who did nothing but took credit fod what republicans did..... well Bill did commit a crime while in office but that just turns liberals on knowing they are not the only scumbags.

And the biggest threats to any person in his or her life are threats to their health,

therefore Reagan's statement is a rationale for the government being an integral part of the effort to provide people heathcare.

I don't understand where you get your twisted mindset but that's not what Reagan believed of government.

"the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.( such as the health care individual mandate ) They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. ( God, now isn't THAT the truth. However, the left hasn't learned their lesson yet )

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? ( Good luck in finding some liberal democrat willing to provide that information. )

We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
( Here's a mandate for you. If you REALLY want to help the poor, cut off that heroine drug after 2 years and allow them to work for themselves. If the left wants Republicans to raise taxes on the "rich", that there is what it will cost them to get it. Now will the liberal Democrats give in to THOSE terms? )

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?"

-- Ronald Wilson Reagan
A TIME FOR CHOOSING – October 27, 1964

Liberals simply can't grasp the concept about "government".

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

“Then there’s the furloughed military chaplains. The military chaplains are not allowed to work for free. They have all said, ‘We will celebrate mass. We will do our services. We will do baptisms for free.’ They have been told they will be punished if they do it,” Glenn explained. “So you have a baby to be baptized; the military priest cannot baptize your child or he’ll go to jail. He can’t celebrate mass anywhere for free or he will go to jail. Does this sound reasonable to you at all?”

And this is a bad thing, why?

Frankly, Organized religion is a fraud, these guys need to be arrested for fraud.

To bad the Founding Fathers allowed and ordained prayer before the opening of each Congress session. Looks like someone fell short in their interpretation skills of the First Amendment. We have more politicians that are in need to be arrested for fraud than looking to a hand full of clergy.

 

[JoeB131]

“Then there’s the furloughed military chaplains. The military chaplains are not allowed to work for free. They have all said, ‘We will celebrate mass. We will do our services. We will do baptisms for free.’ They have been told they will be punished if they do it,” Glenn explained. “So you have a baby to be baptized; the military priest cannot baptize your child or he’ll go to jail. He can’t celebrate mass anywhere for free or he will go to jail. Does this sound reasonable to you at all?”

And this is a bad thing, why?

Frankly, Organized religion is a fraud, these guys need to be arrested for fraud.

To bad the Founding Fathers allowed and ordained prayer before the opening of each Congress session. Looks like someone fell short in their interpretation skills of the First Amendment. We have more politicians that are in need to be arrested for fraud than looking to a hand full of clergy.

The Founding Fathers also thought Slavery was not in the least bit in conflict with "All Men are Created Equal" and thought that Bleeding a man was a perfectly acceptable treatment for Strep Throat.

When I was in, the most useless guy in the battalion was the Chaplain. And he was getting officer pay.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And this is a bad thing, why?

Frankly, Organized religion is a fraud, these guys need to be arrested for fraud.

To bad the Founding Fathers allowed and ordained prayer before the opening of each Congress session. Looks like someone fell short in their interpretation skills of the First Amendment. We have more politicians that are in need to be arrested for fraud than looking to a hand full of clergy.

The Founding Fathers also thought Slavery was not in the least bit in conflict with "All Men are Created Equal" and thought that Bleeding a man was a perfectly acceptable treatment for Strep Throat.

When I was in, the most useless guy in the battalion was the Chaplain. And he was getting officer pay.

Can you show me this medical treatment for strep throat, or are you simply going off making things up from the top of your head again?

I can understand if you feel chaplains are a useless position that we should be paying for, hell I feel the same way about Carol Browner and all that money we wasted funding that position in government..... talk about bleeding a man.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Can you show me this medical treatment for strep throat, or are you simply going off making things up from the top of your head again?

I can understand if you feel chaplains are a useless position that we should be paying for, hell I feel the same way about Carol Browner and all that money we wasted funding that position in government..... talk about bleeding a man.

Since I never heard of Carol Browner, I have to assume it isn't that important.

But the bleeding thing...

Papers of George Washington

On the next day, Saturday the 14th, at three o'clock in the morning, he told Mrs. Washington that he was very unwell and that he had an "ague" (paroxysmal chills). It was observed that he could hardly speak and that he breathed with difficulty. At daybreak on the 14th, Colonel Tobias Lear came in and found the General breathing with difficulty and hardly able to utter a word intelligently. A mixture of molasses, vinegar, and butter was given but he (GW) could not swallow a drop and when attempted, he appeared to be distressed, convulsive, and almost suffocated. Later he tried to use a gargle of vinegar and sage tea but in attempting to gargle, he almost suffocated and when the gargle came back from the throat some phlegm followed. At eleven a.m., his swallowing had not improved. After the last bleeding it was noted that the blood came "slow and thick" but there was no fainting (his physicians had ordered that he be bled a number of times in the course of his illness and an incredible amount about eighty two ounces or about five pints or units of blood were removed from him).

So, yeah, somehow, I won't look to these guys as a guide as to how to manage the country.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

Can you show me this medical treatment for strep throat, or are you simply going off making things up from the top of your head again?

I can understand if you feel chaplains are a useless position that we should be paying for, hell I feel the same way about Carol Browner and all that money we wasted funding that position in government..... talk about bleeding a man.

Since I never heard of Carol Browner, I have to assume it isn't that important.

But the bleeding thing...

Papers of George Washington

On the next day, Saturday the 14th, at three o'clock in the morning, he told Mrs. Washington that he was very unwell and that he had an "ague" (paroxysmal chills). It was observed that he could hardly speak and that he breathed with difficulty. At daybreak on the 14th, Colonel Tobias Lear came in and found the General breathing with difficulty and hardly able to utter a word intelligently. A mixture of molasses, vinegar, and butter was given but he (GW) could not swallow a drop and when attempted, he appeared to be distressed, convulsive, and almost suffocated. Later he tried to use a gargle of vinegar and sage tea but in attempting to gargle, he almost suffocated and when the gargle came back from the throat some phlegm followed. At eleven a.m., his swallowing had not improved. After the last bleeding it was noted that the blood came "slow and thick" but there was no fainting (his physicians had ordered that he be bled a number of times in the course of his illness and an incredible amount about eighty two ounces or about five pints or units of blood were removed from him).

So, yeah, somehow, I won't look to these guys as a guide as to how to manage the country.

Well they did establish the foundation for the proper role of government. You know, setting the framework of actually regulating government through the power of the people, instead of the other way around (now there's a concept). It's a document I like to call "the Constitution". So, I'd say they are a lot smarter than those we have running it now.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Well they did establish the foundation for the proper role of government. You know, setting the framework of actually regulating government through the power of the people, instead of the other way around (now there's a concept). It's a document I like to call "the Constitution". So, I'd say they are a lot smarter than those we have running it now.

A constitution so bad that the guys who lost the presidential election became president four times, made a civil war inevitable, and generally allows for the kind of asshattery we are seeing now.

Most countries have the good sense to NOT use the same constitution they were using 200 years ago. They write new ones every few decades that reflect the current situation.

What a concept!!!

 

[Toro]

The CR (Continuing Resolution) represents Republican spending levels. The Democrats have negotiated themselves into a hole where they are now begging for Republican spending levels just so they can save an established law.

Debt Ceiling increases without any attempts by the Democrats to take hostages

Reagan: 18
Bush 41: 9
Bush 43 7

Obama has already agreed to Continuing Resolution bill that reflects their spending levels. It represents more than a compromise by Obama because he didn't get his spending levels. But the GOP doesn't care about compromise. They're not looking to negotiate. They want to destroy ObamaCare, and they are willing to blow up the economy over it.

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

 

[Toro]

[

Well they did establish the foundation for the proper role of government. You know, setting the framework of actually regulating government through the power of the people, instead of the other way around (now there's a concept). It's a document I like to call "the Constitution". So, I'd say they are a lot smarter than those we have running it now.

A constitution so bad that the guys who lost the presidential election became president four times, made a civil war inevitable, and generally allows for the kind of asshattery we are seeing now.

Most countries have the good sense to NOT use the same constitution they were using 200 years ago. They write new ones every few decades that reflect the current situation.

What a concept!!!

Most countries do not write new constitutions every few decades.

You're making things up again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The CR (Continuing Resolution) represents Republican spending levels. The Democrats have negotiated themselves into a hole where they are now begging for Republican spending levels just so they can save an established law.

Debt Ceiling increases without any attempts by the Democrats to take hostages

Reagan: 18
Bush 41: 9
Bush 43 7

Obama has already agreed to Continuing Resolution bill that reflects their spending levels. It represents more than a compromise by Obama because he didn't get his spending levels. But the GOP doesn't care about compromise. They're not looking to negotiate. They want to destroy ObamaCare, and they are willing to blow up the economy over it.

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The CR (Continuing Resolution) represents Republican spending levels. The Democrats have negotiated themselves into a hole where they are now begging for Republican spending levels just so they can save an established law.

Debt Ceiling increases without any attempts by the Democrats to take hostages

Reagan: 18
Bush 41: 9
Bush 43 7

Obama has already agreed to Continuing Resolution bill that reflects their spending levels. It represents more than a compromise by Obama because he didn't get his spending levels. But the GOP doesn't care about compromise. They're not looking to negotiate. They want to destroy ObamaCare, and they are willing to blow up the economy over it.

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

If you were a person capable of reason, you would realize that the casting of meaningless votes against the inevitable passage of a raising of the debt ceiling is a far cry from casting votes that in fact cause the failure of a raising of the debt ceiling.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

Well they did establish the foundation for the proper role of government. You know, setting the framework of actually regulating government through the power of the people, instead of the other way around (now there's a concept). It's a document I like to call "the Constitution". So, I'd say they are a lot smarter than those we have running it now.

A constitution so bad that the guys who lost the presidential election became president four times, made a civil war inevitable, and generally allows for the kind of asshattery we are seeing now.

Most countries have the good sense to NOT use the same constitution they were using 200 years ago. They write new ones every few decades that reflect the current situation.

What a concept!!!

Well that's what happens when we no longer have a United States Supreme Court that keeps a government in check with an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, but ALLOWS government to pursue after it's own interests of what they feel government "ought" to do. They stretch the interpretation to fit THEIR view of what it means and not our Founders. Had we done it right, we wouldn't have an IRS and a Federal Income tax, as it was deemed unConstitutional. The result of which would make government Health Care unconstitutional. There would not be government entitlements like social security, or government funded welfare, nor czars. We would not be having Supreme Court justices looking at other nations on how to best run this country, we would be looking to uphold the interpretation that our Founders set out to establish for their nation. This is what happens when we have a government that is run by ideology, and quite honestly has no real respect for the Constitution. If you don't like the rules of the game our Founding Fathers had established for us, get the hell out and start your own country and govern it to your hearts content !!!!



Oh, and the civil war was about Federal Government power over individual state rights having a fair representation in Congress, as well as the belief in the states having the power to govern themselves.

 

[Seawytch]

The CR (Continuing Resolution) represents Republican spending levels. The Democrats have negotiated themselves into a hole where they are now begging for Republican spending levels just so they can save an established law.

Debt Ceiling increases without any attempts by the Democrats to take hostages

Reagan: 18
Bush 41: 9
Bush 43 7

Obama has already agreed to Continuing Resolution bill that reflects their spending levels. It represents more than a compromise by Obama because he didn't get his spending levels. But the GOP doesn't care about compromise. They're not looking to negotiate. They want to destroy ObamaCare, and they are willing to blow up the economy over it.

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

 

[jon_berzerk]

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

--LOL

i almost gave you a pos rep for humor

 

[Seawytch]

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

--LOL

i almost gave you a pos rep for humor

What would have been funny is if the Democrats had pulled the bullshit stunt that the GOP are pulling. Watching the Faux talking heads explode over it would have been hysterical.

Do you truly support the minority party trying to force through threats of shutdown and default what they cannot pass legislatively?

 

[zeke]

In 2006, every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Obama.

So? How many Republicans voted for it?

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

These ignorant Rethugs on here do not have the capacity to understand nuance. Combine lack of intelligence with blind party loyalty and they won't even READ what you presented.
Well, they might read it. But what they will take away from that is; OBAMA VOTED AGAINST RAISING THE DEBT CEILING.

That is all they will read. And they will not believe the Dems didn't intend to shut down the government.

When you are as destructive as todays republicans are, you have to believe lies in order to justify your actions. Rethugs are pitiful, spiteful people.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

--LOL

i almost gave you a pos rep for humor

What would have been funny is if the Democrats had pulled the bullshit stunt that the GOP are pulling. Watching the Faux talking heads explode over it would have been hysterical.

Do you truly support the minority party trying to force through threats of shutdown and default what they cannot pass legislatively?

it is against the law for the government to default on the debt

if there is a default that would be the presidents fault

there are funds coming in to pay it

 

[zeke]

Here Are Three Debt-Ceiling Lies You’ll Hear From the GOP This Week

2. Obama is a big hypocrite because he voted against a debt-limit increase while Bush was president.

Yes, he did cast such a vote, but no, he’s not a hypocrite, not even a small one. The reason is simple. Democrats made no threats when they cast their votes. They knew they were going to lose and had no real intention of winning.

It was March 16, 2006, when Obama cast the fateful vote. But the Democrats’ votes, Obama’s included, were purely symbolic. The Republicans controlled the Senate at the time, 55-45. The increase in the debt limit, the fourth in George W. Bush’s tenure, passed, 52-48, with three Republicans voting with all the Democrats.

But the Democrats knew they were going to lose. They were in the minority; duh. They did not choose to filibuster, which they could have done and which would have meant the Republicans needed 60 votes. If they’d done so, that would have been hardball, and in that case, Obama would have been a participant in a real threat against American creditworthiness. Even then it wouldn’t have been the same as what the GOP is doing now, unless those 45 Democrats had demanded, oh, that Bush rescind his tax cuts or his Medicare Part D bill or some other signal legislative achievement.

But the Democrats did no such thing. They cast symbolic votes to force Republicans to vote to increase the debt limit. So Obama’s 2006 vote means nothing and bears no resemblance to what’s going on today.​

--LOL

i almost gave you a pos rep for humor

What would have been funny is if the Democrats had pulled the bullshit stunt that the GOP are pulling. Watching the Faux talking heads explode over it would have been hysterical.

Do you truly support the minority party trying to force through threats of shutdown and default what they cannot pass legislatively?

I asked that exact same question REPEATEDLY yesterday, and not a single fuking right wing wack job would TOUCH that question. And they still won't cause they know they would be going bat shit crazy if Pelosi was doing the exact same thing as Bohoner.

Hypocrites, every single one of them.

But I think gun control might be a good reason for the Dems to shut er down. Maybe tax increases on the ultra wealthy. I am sure the Dems can find a handful of reasons to shut er down in future negotiations with Rethugs.

Won't that be great Repubs?

 

[zeke]

--LOL

i almost gave you a pos rep for humor

What would have been funny is if the Democrats had pulled the bullshit stunt that the GOP are pulling. Watching the Faux talking heads explode over it would have been hysterical.

Do you truly support the minority party trying to force through threats of shutdown and default what they cannot pass legislatively?

it is against the law for the government to default on the debt

if there is a default that would be the presidents fault

there are funds coming in to pay it

You are full of shit dude. Post up the document, maybe the COTUS, where it says EXACTLY WHAT YOU PROPOSE.

You can't because it doesn't exist. And IF Obama did take the action you seem to think he could, the asshole Rethugs would bring impeachment charges against him for doing something the President CAN'T do.