Who are voting for I'm voting for trump

[1966septemberdawg]

It

Just keep in mind, if you don't give the other side anything they want... they won't give you anything you want. You're basically acting like the kid who wants to play kickball while others want to play basketball and instead of accepting that you can alternate between playing both you pop the ball and stomp off home.

Yeah... you stopped them from playing basketball... but you didn't get to play kickball either.

Your approach can never actually get anything done. You can stop things from getting done... but that's it. If you believe that's good... then congrats... you've "won". But you'll never actually get anything you want passed into law.

You just are not getting the point, the dems are the ones that have not compromised for years and threaten to shut the government down if they did not get their way. We should shut it down and save the taxpayers a good sum of money. Your are giving an example of how the dems do things, not the pubs. If anything the pubs have been way to lax in standing their ground to the dems.
75-80% of the American public did not want the obama healthcare plan, bit it was forced through on a weekend when congress was not in DC. Hows that for working with people? The dems are a bunch of knee jerk babies that scream bloody murder if they do not get their way, and as a citizen I am tired of getting screwed by both sides for not standing up for us.

 

[DawginSC]

Pal you need a serious reality check? How'd the DemocRATS compromise on Obamacare???

Now, its not about compromise. How do you compromise with Hitler? Let him kill half the Jews? Same with POSOTUS. The guy and his party are trying to transform the Greatest Country the world has ever known into some European socialist shithole. There is no compromise there. The Republicans have been feckless. They haven't stopped POSOTUS from doing anything he wants. If he can't get it done through the constitutional process....he'll simply break the law. He has been acting as a dictator.

The Democrat party is a far left marxist party. The republican is a moderate pussy party. The list you have above are fundemental constitutional positions that the Marxist DemocRAT party is trying to destroy. How do you compromise on Gun control? There is NO SUCH THING. Its a stupid argument. Gay rights? NO SUCH THING? Whats next Dawgy style rights? I could go on and on. But the left is made up of a bunch of freaks, nuts and deviants. A collation of leeches looking for other ppl to conform or else. I mean these nuts claim Climate change causes terrorism. They see rights where there are none and demand access to their neighbors labor. Its a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy . The need t be defeated not compromised with.

How'd the democrats compromise on obamacare?

Removal of public option? Taking out much of the tax burden of the plan, removing about 30 billion a year that would have been funded by taxes and been used to reduce premiums by a larger amount? Did you actually read Obama's plan and compare it to what got passed? It's loaded with compromises to get the votes it needed. Granted, that wouldn't have been near as much had the GOP had more members, but the compromises were made to get more conservative democrats.

And if you're comparing giving people healthcare to killing jews... well I'm not sure where to go with that aside from calling you nuts.

But again... if you don't compromise to get the votes you need... you can't do anything. The question simply becomes do you want to get some of what you want... or do you want nothing.

 

[DawginSC]

POSOTUS took that very approach from the start ( http://www.politico.com/story/2009/01/obama-to-gop-i-won-017862 ) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/11/10/obama039s_message_to_gop_i_won_get_over_it_295708.html


So how come it worked for him?

It didn't.

He had a supermajority for a total of about 6 months (from the time the recount in Minnesota was done to Scott Brown being elected to replace Ted Kennedy). He was able to get ONE major piece of legislation passed without getting any GOP buy in... Obamacare. Everything else that he's done has involved him giving something to the GOP in return for enough votes to pass things.

Heck, he actually tried with Obamacare to get Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe to buy in... and the two of them used that to include several conservative provisions in the law... before voting no on it.

 

[DawginSC]

It

You just are not getting the point, the dems are the ones that have not compromised for years and threaten to shut the government down if they did not get their way. We should shut it down and save the taxpayers a good sum of money. Your are giving an example of how the dems do things, not the pubs. If anything the pubs have been way to lax in standing their ground to the dems.
75-80% of the American public did not want the obama healthcare plan, bit it was forced through on a weekend when congress was not in DC. Hows that for working with people? The dems are a bunch of knee jerk babies that scream bloody murder if they do not get their way, and as a citizen I am tired of getting screwed by both sides for not standing up for us.

The democrats haven't threatened a shutdown.

In all cases, the democrats have been willing to keep things going at the status-quo until a long term agreement can be reached between the two parties. That willingness to extend the current agreement while negotiations occur is the OPPOSITE of threatening a shutdown. It's an explicit standing offer to remove the threat of shutdown from the process.

The GOP is the party that has refused to continue funding the government at the current levels while trying to come to an agreement. They use this as a tactic to put pressure on the democrats to agree to their demands without giving them anything in return. THAT is the only threat to shut down the government we've had in the last 30 years... the GOP threats.

I'm not sure if you're stupid or dishonest... but you're very, very incorrect in your statements.

Obamacare was not forced through when congress wasn't ins session. They voted on it.

But again... feel free to demand your politicians not give democrats anything. Just realize you won't get any changes you want either. To actually get something to change, you have to give enough others what they want to get enough votes to get it through the entire process (including either a presidential signature or having enough votes to override a veto).

 

[1966septemberdawg]

The democrats haven't threatened a shutdown.

In all cases, the democrats have been willing to keep things going at the status-quo until a long term agreement can be reached between the two parties. That willingness to extend the current agreement while negotiations occur is the OPPOSITE of threatening a shutdown. It's an explicit standing offer to remove the threat of shutdown from the process.

The GOP is the party that has refused to continue funding the government at the current levels while trying to come to an agreement. They use this as a tactic to put pressure on the democrats to agree to their demands without giving them anything in return. THAT is the only threat to shut down the government we've had in the last 30 years... the GOP threats.

I'm not sure if you're stupid or dishonest... but you're very, very incorrect in your statements.

Obamacare was not forced through when congress wasn't ins session. They voted on it.

But again... feel free to demand your politicians not give democrats anything. Just realize you won't get any changes you want either. To actually get something to change, you have to give enough others what they want to get enough votes to get it through the entire process (including either a presidential signature or having enough votes to override a veto).

You were not paying attention then. They threatened but the pubs wussed out and backed down so the dems never did shut it down, but they did threaten to do so. My point is the dems have gotten what they wanted, and they only have themselves to blame for the way our country has been crippled.

 

[DawginSC]

You were not paying attention then. They threatened but the pubs wussed out and backed down so the dems never did shut it down, but they did threaten to do so. My point is the dems have gotten what they wanted, and they only have themselves to blame for the way our country has been crippled.

When have the democrats threatened to not sign a continuing resolution (which keep things running at the status quo)?

That's what a shutdown threat is... a refusal to keep things going at the current levels if you can't get your way. The GOP has been the only ones to do that in the last 30 years.

I can't prove a negative (because it's not possible)... but you can show that I'm wrong by finding ONE example of the democrats refusing to support a continuing resolution. Just one.

Have at it.

ALL of the Shutdowns since 1990 have been caused/threatened by the GOP. Every single one.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

When have the democrats threatened to not sign a continuing resolution (which keep things running at the status quo)?

That's what a shutdown threat is... a refusal to keep things going at the current levels if you can't get your way. The GOP has been the only ones to do that in the last 30 years.

I can't prove a negative (because it's not possible)... but you can show that I'm wrong by finding ONE example of the democrats refusing to support a continuing resolution. Just one.

Have at it.

ALL of the Shutdowns since 1990 have been caused/threatened by the GOP. Every single one.

You have a reading comprehension problem, I said they threatened , I did not say they formally made the next step. The dems have taken obfuscation to an art form with their many deceitful tactics. The pubs did not sign off on the ACA because the house voted it in on a Sunday when the news was not covering it under the cover of darkness, just an example of the dems screwing of the US.

 

[DawginSC]

You have a reading comprehension problem, I said they threatened , I did not say they formally made the next step. The dems have taken obfuscation to an art form with their many deceitful tactics. The pubs did not sign off on the ACA because the house voted it in on a Sunday when the news was not covering it under the cover of darkness, just an example of the dems screwing of the US.

Give me one link to a threat.

One. In the last 35 years. All you have to do is find a single example.

But you won't... because the democrats have ALWAYS been okay with keeping the government running at the current funding levels when trying to negotiate the next.

As for Obamacare... I'm not sure why you think a weekend passage is a big deal. It's not like anyone missed the vote. Congress was in session and it wasn't lacking for media coverage.

Several of the 54 appeal attempts at Obamacare happened on Sundays as well. It's not abnormal for either party.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Give me one link to a threat.

One. In the last 35 years. All you have to do is find a single example.

But you won't... because the democrats have ALWAYS been okay with keeping the government running at the current funding levels when trying to negotiate the next.

As for Obamacare... I'm not sure why you think a weekend passage is a big deal. It's not like anyone missed the vote. Congress was in session and it wasn't lacking for media coverage.

Several of the 54 appeal attempts at Obamacare happened on Sundays as well. It's not abnormal for either party.

It was done as an attempt to get it by the american public and press that would have opposed it. and here is one link for you
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419578/top-senate-dem-threatens-shut-
down-government-joel-gehrke

As far as I can determine 2015 is less than 35 years ago.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

How'd the democrats compromise on obamacare?

Removal of public option? Taking out much of the tax burden of the plan, removing about 30 billion a year that would have been funded by taxes and been used to reduce premiums by a larger amount? Did you actually read Obama's plan and compare it to what got passed? It's loaded with compromises to get the votes it needed. Granted, that wouldn't have been near as much had the GOP had more members, but the compromises were made to get more conservative democrats.

And if you're comparing giving people healthcare to killing jews... well I'm not sure where to go with that aside from calling you nuts.

But again... if you don't compromise to get the votes you need... you can't do anything. The question simply becomes do you want to get some of what you want... or do you want nothing.

Oh really, who'd they make those compromises with? Wasn't the Republicans was it? Compromise my ass. HE ONLY GOT DEMOCRAT VOTES..........DAMN!!! Ignorance is a waste of a good brain

 

[Rolodawg2011]

It didn't.

He had a supermajority for a total of about 6 months (from the time the recount in Minnesota was done to Scott Brown being elected to replace Ted Kennedy). He was able to get ONE major piece of legislation passed without getting any GOP buy in... Obamacare. Everything else that he's done has involved him giving something to the GOP in return for enough votes to pass things.

Heck, he actually tried with Obamacare to get Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe to buy in... and the two of them used that to include several conservative provisions in the law... before voting no on it.

You're seriously not planted in reality. He has got everything he wants. And when he can't. He breaks the law and wipes his skinny ass on the Constitution. Collins and Snowe are liberals, should switch parties....but he couldn't even get them. Cause it was his way or the highway.

 

[Trim-man]

While I truly do understand your point. What could be more toxic than a vote buying feminist dem who has done nothing and has no platform other than to talk about others lot in life. What could be more toxic than a pure socialist who will tax us into submission for the sake of power?

Looking past the bravado, Trump has been very successful in business. He will know how to handle himself or hire those that can.

Why are we so afraid of a successful businessman? Why do we feel we need professional politicians?

Today, I would vote for Trump. I will never, under any circumstances vote for Hillary or Sanders.

If you call 4 business bankruptcies successful then I guess so.

 

[DawginSC]

It was done as an attempt to get it by the american public and press that would have opposed it. and here is one link for you
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419578/top-senate-dem-threatens-shut-
down-government-joel-gehrke

As far as I can determine 2015 is less than 35 years ago.

Well... you found a headline but not an actual threat.

Here's the quote:

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Noting that the GOP's actions are leading to a shutdown is not threatening to cause one.

The point here is that the GOP was trying to push through budget CHANGES. The democrats were prepared to filibuster and veto those changes. But the point is the side trying to push through CHANGES to the budget (without giving anything in return) was the GOP.

The GOP tries to use this technique often. They say "we are trying to pass a budget but they're blocking it... they're causing a shutdown.". Then the democrats say "We'll gladly sign a continuing resolution until a final budget can be passed."... and POOF... they are no longer causing the shutdown.

For some reason the GOP doesn't get why they then get the blame when a shutdown happens. Democrats of course refuse to pass the GOP agenda... but that's not threatening a shutdown. That's simply refusing to give the GOP what they wants without compromise.


Nice attempt though. "A" for effort.

 

[DawginSC]

You're seriously not planted in reality. He has got everything he wants. And when he can't. He breaks the law and wipes his skinny ass on the Constitution. Collins and Snowe are liberals, should switch parties....but he couldn't even get them. Cause it was his way or the highway.

I like listening to you talk about reality. It's amusing. Please, continue railing me with your view of the real world.

 

[Hoffman_rg]

Well... you found a headline but not an actual threat.

Here's the quote:

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Noting that the GOP's actions are leading to a shutdown is not threatening to cause one.

The point here is that the GOP was trying to push through budget CHANGES. The democrats were prepared to filibuster and veto those changes. But the point is the side trying to push through CHANGES to the budget (without giving anything in return) was the GOP.

The GOP tries to use this technique often. They say "we are trying to pass a budget but they're blocking it... they're causing a shutdown.". Then the democrats say "We'll gladly sign a continuing resolution until a final budget can be passed."... and POOF... they are no longer causing the shutdown.

For some reason the GOP doesn't get why they then get the blame when a shutdown happens. Democrats of course refuse to pass the GOP agenda... but that's not threatening a shutdown. That's simply refusing to give the GOP what they wants without compromise.


Nice attempt though. "A" for effort.

Obama has missed an in-law budget deadline.at least 18 times. He is not serious about reducing the national debt that is going on $20T. Obama has never submitted a plan to control Medicare spending following a Medicare funding warning, though the law states that “if there is a Medicare funding warning … made in a year, the president shall submit to Congress, within the 15-day period beginning on the date of the budget submission to Congress, proposed legislation to respond to such warning.”Such warnings have were issued and ignored in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Obama's team has not submitted a final sequestration transparency report, which was due Jan. 21 of this year.

There are no deficit hawks on the dem side so when a budget is submitted that eliminates even 1 of the 80 plus welfare programs or cuts welfare in any way, they will filibuster or veto it. They are amenable to cuts in the military but that is about it.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

I like listening to you talk about reality. It's amusing. Please, continue railing me with your view of the real world.

Well... you found a headline but not an actual threat.

Here's the quote:

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Noting that the GOP's actions are leading to a shutdown is not threatening to cause one.

The point here is that the GOP was trying to push through budget CHANGES. The democrats were prepared to filibuster and veto those changes. But the point is the side trying to push through CHANGES to the budget (without giving anything in return) was the GOP.

The GOP tries to use this technique often. They say "we are trying to pass a budget but they're blocking it... they're causing a shutdown.". Then the democrats say "We'll gladly sign a continuing resolution until a final budget can be passed."... and POOF... they are no longer causing the shutdown.

For some reason the GOP doesn't get why they then get the blame when a shutdown happens. Democrats of course refuse to pass the GOP agenda... but that's not threatening a shutdown. That's simply refusing to give the GOP what they wants without compromise.


Nice attempt though. "A" for effort.

Really, then read your two postings and try and find any reality I either. I particularly like how it's the GOP that has to compromise....if not, POSOTUS WILL JUST SKIRT THE LAW? Hmmm I've read this somewhere . LOL LIBERALS

 

[1966septemberdawg]

Well... you found a headline but not an actual threat.

Here's the quote:

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Noting that the GOP's actions are leading to a shutdown is not threatening to cause one.

The point here is that the GOP was trying to push through budget CHANGES. The democrats were prepared to filibuster and veto those changes. But the point is the side trying to push through CHANGES to the budget (without giving anything in return) was the GOP.

The GOP tries to use this technique often. They say "we are trying to pass a budget but they're blocking it... they're causing a shutdown.". Then the democrats say "We'll gladly sign a continuing resolution until a final budget can be passed."... and POOF... they are no longer causing the shutdown.

For some reason the GOP doesn't get why they then get the blame when a shutdown happens. Democrats of course refuse to pass the GOP agenda... but that's not threatening a shutdown. That's simply refusing to give the GOP what they wants without compromise.


Nice attempt though. "A" for effort.

You really need to work on your comprehension, It was a threat that was covered in a news article. Your response is like saying Oswald just grazed Kennedy that day in Dallas. Face it the dems are the most vile and evil intentioned scum of the earth and the pubs are not far behind. Our constitution is toilet paper to these scourge of society we call politicians. You fall in line finding many ways to divert the facts and cover for these lowlifes. You are enabling them dawg in SC. They appreciate your vote.

 

[DawginSC]

Really, then read your two postings and try and find any reality I either. I particularly like how it's the GOP that has to compromise....if not, POSOTUS WILL JUST SKIRT THE LAW? Hmmm I've read this somewhere . LOL LIBERALS

By definition, compromise involves both sides giving up something. The problem is you look at things like the various budget shutdowns and see them as the GOP "caving" to the democrats... when in fact the actual result was no change in the way spending is allocated.

There actually was compromise with the latest budget kerfuffle (a great word by the way).

The GOP was trying to raise spending on the military using back door methods without raising spending on domestic programs. The agreement to tie the two together is what allowed us to get past the last budget crisis before that one. The democrats said... "no dice". Either raise the domestic programs an equal amount or keep the funding the both as is. The end result was a much smaller increase in military spending matched by domestic program spending.

Both sides got something of what they wanted.

Now you can say the GOP shouldn't have WANTED increased military spending. But the fact is the democrats didn't want it... but gave it to the GOP in exchange for something they did want.

That's what compromise is. You may view that as the democrats getting all that they wanted... but that's not reality. Reality is the democrats gave up a military spending increase in exchange for a domestic spending increase.

As for Obama's executive actions.... all are within powers granted by laws passed by congress in the past. The only one that was halted was not based on the order not being allowed by statute... but rather that the procedure that he followed wasn't allowed. Obama claimed the time his previous executive order was in the general register and available for public comment satisfied procedural requirements while the courts said it should have been submitted for comment as a distinct entity. It's an administrative problem... not a "the executive branch doesn't have the power" problem.

It might be fair to argue that congress shouldn't have granted the president the powers they have. But the fact is those laws giving the president that power are on the books until congress removes them.

 

[DawginSC]

You really need to work on your comprehension, It was a threat that was covered in a news article. Your response is like saying Oswald just grazed Kennedy that day in Dallas. Face it the dems are the most vile and evil intentioned scum of the earth and the pubs are not far behind. Our constitution is toilet paper to these scourge of society we call politicians. You fall in line finding many ways to divert the facts and cover for these lowlifes. You are enabling them dawg in SC. They appreciate your vote.

I'll post the text FROM THE ARTICLE that they claim is a threat... again.

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Your assumption is that they are threatening to cause the shutdown. That's not the case. Even at that point they were perfectly willing to keep appropriations at prior levels. What they were NOT okay with was the GOP proposal to increase military spending while keeping domestic spending flat... which was NOT a continuing resolution but rather an attempt to get what they wanted without giving the democrats anything.

If one party is willing to keep things running at the current levels while a new plan is agreed upon (through compromise) or just keep the existing levels of spending if no agreement can be reached... they aren't threatening a shutdown. The democrats have ALWAYS been willing to accept the status-quo as a last resort rather than having a shutdown as the last resort.

Pointing out the GOP is still unwilling to do that and that if they don't a shutdown will occur is not a threat. It's simply stating what the result will be of their actions.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

By definition, compromise involves both sides giving up something. The problem is you look at things like the various budget shutdowns and see them as the GOP "caving" to the democrats... when in fact the actual result was no change in the way spending is allocated.

There actually was compromise with the latest budget kerfuffle (a great word by the way).

The GOP was trying to raise spending on the military using back door methods without raising spending on domestic programs. The agreement to tie the two together is what allowed us to get past the last budget crisis before that one. The democrats said... "no dice". Either raise the domestic programs an equal amount or keep the funding the both as is. The end result was a much smaller increase in military spending matched by domestic program spending.

Both sides got something of what they wanted.

Now you can say the GOP shouldn't have WANTED increased military spending. But the fact is the democrats didn't want it... but gave it to the GOP in exchange for something they did want.

That's what compromise is. You may view that as the democrats getting all that they wanted... but that's not reality. Reality is the democrats gave up a military spending increase in exchange for a domestic spending increase.

As for Obama's executive actions.... all are within powers granted by laws passed by congress in the past. The only one that was halted was not based on the order not being allowed by statute... but rather that the procedure that he followed wasn't allowed. Obama claimed the time his previous executive order was in the general register and available for public comment satisfied procedural requirements while the courts said it should have been submitted for comment as a distinct entity. It's an administrative problem... not a "the executive branch doesn't have the power" problem.

It might be fair to argue that congress shouldn't have granted the president the powers they have. But the fact is those laws giving the president that power are on the books until congress removes them.

We are not talking what the definition of compromise is...were talking about how POSOTUS doesn't do it. " I WON!"
And no, his EXE orders are NOT ALLOWED hence the courts stopping him.

 

[dirty lowcountry dawg]

While I truly do understand your point. What could be more toxic than a vote buying feminist dem who has done nothing and has no platform other than to talk about others lot in life. What could be more toxic than a pure socialist who will tax us into submission for the sake of power?

Looking past the bravado, Trump has been very successful in business. He will know how to handle himself or hire those that can.

Why are we so afraid of a successful businessman? Why do we feel we need professional politicians?

Today, I would vote for Trump. I will never, under any circumstances vote for Hillary or Sanders.

I have to agree with you 100% im tired of professional politicians,this aint the family business.Wish the former govonor of La Bobby Jindle? could have stayed in,he was for term limits,not life time terms.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

I'll post the text FROM THE ARTICLE that they claim is a threat... again.

“They can either work with us early on a bipartisan budget deal that will set the topline budget levels and allow the Appropriations Committee to work on bills that can be signed into law. Or, they can wait until we reach a crisis, until we approach or hit another completely unnecessary government shutdown — and work with us then.”

Your assumption is that they are threatening to cause the shutdown. That's not the case. Even at that point they were perfectly willing to keep appropriations at prior levels. What they were NOT okay with was the GOP proposal to increase military spending while keeping domestic spending flat... which was NOT a continuing resolution but rather an attempt to get what they wanted without giving the democrats anything.

If one party is willing to keep things running at the current levels while a new plan is agreed upon (through compromise) or just keep the existing levels of spending if no agreement can be reached... they aren't threatening a shutdown. The democrats have ALWAYS been willing to accept the status-quo as a last resort rather than having a shutdown as the last resort.

Pointing out the GOP is still unwilling to do that and that if they don't a shutdown will occur is not a threat. It's simply stating what the result will be of their actions.

Hey you call it like you think you see it. The dems are never wrong in your world and the US has never been in better shape than it is now, thanks to king obama and the rest of the merry pranksters in lala land. I apologize for not realizing earlier I am posting with one not quite in the real world. You have a great day and I hope your check comes on time so you can continue to get your free goodies.

 

[DawginSC]

Hey you call it like you think you see it. The dems are never wrong in your world and the US has never been in better shape than it is now, thanks to king obama and the rest of the merry pranksters in lala land. I apologize for not realizing earlier I am posting with one not quite in the real world. You have a great day and I hope your check comes on time so you can continue to get your free goodies.

And you continue being confused on why everyone blames the GOP for shutdowns when you believe it's the democrats fault for simply not accepting what the GOP puts forward as a budget proposal.

I've tried to explain that the one refusing to accept the status-quo as the alternative to a shutdown is responsible for the shutdown (and responsible for threatening to have one as well)... but you'd rather be confused when reality conflicts with how you think it SHOULD work.

What's amusing is we've reached the point where conservatives feel like anyone who'd like to have a government that tries to find common ground and actually get things accomplished is a liberal who's "getting free goodies".

That viewpoint used to be considered the one held by all reasonable people in this country.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

I never said they shut dowm the g

And you continue being confused on why everyone blames the GOP for shutdowns when you believe it's the democrats fault for simply not accepting what the GOP puts forward as a budget proposal.

I've tried to explain that the one refusing to accept the status-quo as the alternative to a shutdown is responsible for the shutdown (and responsible for threatening to have one as well)... but you'd rather be confused when reality conflicts with how you think it SHOULD work.

What's amusing is we've reached the point where conservatives feel like anyone who'd like to have a government that tries to find common ground and actually get things accomplished is a liberal who's "getting free goodies".

That viewpoint used to be considered the one held by all reasonable people in this country.

government you F'n

And you continue being confused on why everyone blames the GOP for shutdowns when you believe it's the democrats fault for simply not accepting what the GOP puts forward as a budget proposal.

I've tried to explain that the one refusing to accept the status-quo as the alternative to a shutdown is responsible for the shutdown (and responsible for threatening to have one as well)... but you'd rather be confused when reality conflicts with how you think it SHOULD work.

What's amusing is we've reached the point where conservatives feel like anyone who'd like to have a government that tries to find common ground and actually get things accomplished is a liberal who's "getting free goodies".

That viewpoint used to be considered the one held by all reasonable people in this country.

I never said the dems shut down the government but threatened to do so, You asked me to provide 1 just ONE link which I did. You then tried to twist the facts to suit your story. I have shown how the left will NOT compromise as you have stated. I can not give it to you any plainer than that. I'm sorry if you can not understand the issue or responses. Once again just ignore the facts and change the narrative for your argument. I hope you have a great day and your check soon arrives, as we are paying out at record amounts these days to to the non-producers.

 

[DawginSC]

I never said they shut dowm the g

government you F'n

I never said the dems shut down the government but threatened to do so, You asked me to provide 1 just ONE link which I did. You then tried to twist the facts to suit your story. I have shown how the left will NOT compromise as you have stated. I can not give it to you any plainer than that. I'm sorry if you can not understand the issue or responses. Once again just ignore the facts and change the narrative for your argument. I hope you have a great day and your check soon arrives, as we are paying out at record amounts these days to to the non-producers.

But the link didn't. The headline did. The text (which I quoted twice) did not.

I can't give it to you plainer than that.

YOu can keep trying to make it personal if you want... I'm not really bothered by it. My wife and I both work and make comfortable salaries. You' keep jumping to the conclusion that because I want the GOP to be willing to find common ground with the democrats I'm liberal. And that's part of the reason the GOP has problems with moderate voters.

I'm a moderate on fiscal issues, but I'm liberal on social issues and conservative on foreign policy (Reagan conservative, not current day stupid tea-party conservative). I'm a voter that would consider voting for a Republican like Kasich. But in your eyes... I'm ultra left.

That's not a me problem... that's a problem with the modern GOP.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

But the link didn't. The headline did. The text (which I quoted twice) did not.

I can't give it to you plainer than that.

YOu can keep trying to make it personal if you want... I'm not really bothered by it. My wife and I both work and make comfortable salaries. You' keep jumping to the conclusion that because I want the GOP to be willing to find common ground with the democrats I'm liberal. And that's part of the reason the GOP has problems with moderate voters.

I'm a moderate on fiscal issues, but I'm liberal on social issues and conservative on foreign policy (Reagan conservative, not current day stupid tea-party conservative). I'm a voter that would consider voting for a Republican like Kasich. But in your eyes... I'm ultra left.

That's not a me problem... that's a problem with the modern GOP.

You asked that I link ONE and I did I did not make the story up.
Here is another for you to inspect and dissect from 2011, which still less than 35 years ago. I understand they did not follow through because the spineless pubs caved as usual, so they did not have to shut it down. It is not personal with me, but I present the facts and you refuse to accept them. If you make a good salary you should be outraged at big brother taking your earnings to feed,house and clothe those unwilling to work for a living. I am a Fiscal conservative and a little more liberal on the social issues as long as they do not require me to accept something I do not believe in. National security at this time is a joke, the rest of the world laughs at us now.
http://www.speaker.gov/general/demo...own-ignore-americans-who-prefer-spending-cuts

 

[Dawgman94]

But the link didn't. The headline did. The text (which I quoted twice) did not.

I can't give it to you plainer than that.

YOu can keep trying to make it personal if you want... I'm not really bothered by it. My wife and I both work and make comfortable salaries. You' keep jumping to the conclusion that because I want the GOP to be willing to find common ground with the democrats I'm liberal. And that's part of the reason the GOP has problems with moderate voters.

I'm a moderate on fiscal issues, but I'm liberal on social issues and conservative on foreign policy (Reagan conservative, not current day stupid tea-party conservative). I'm a voter that would consider voting for a Republican like Kasich. But in your eyes... I'm ultra left.

That's not a me problem... that's a problem with the modern GOP.

What gop its bean bop one of regans errors was picking bush. Believe it the the gop establishment started this crap and now there shiting there grownup diapers.

 

[DawginSC]

You asked that I link ONE and I did I did not make the story up.
Here is another for you to inspect and dissect from 2011, which still less than 35 years ago. I understand they did not follow through because the spineless pubs caved as usual, so they did not have to shut it down. It is not personal with me, but I present the facts and you refuse to accept them. If you make a good salary you should be outraged at big brother taking your earnings to feed,house and clothe those unwilling to work for a living. I am a Fiscal conservative and a little more liberal on the social issues as long as they do not require me to accept something I do not believe in. National security at this time is a joke, the rest of the world laughs at us now.
http://www.speaker.gov/general/demo...own-ignore-americans-who-prefer-spending-cuts

I don't know what to tell you if your comprehension is that bad.

First line in the story:

Associated Press reports that House Speaker John Boehner “will not agree to a short-term government spending bill without budget cuts.”

So... the Democrats want to keep things as they are... the GOP wants cuts... and the article is trying to claim the democrats are threatening a shutdown?

Sorry... I don't think you're intelligent enough to discuss the topic if you view that threat as coming from the democrats rather than the GOP. You just read a headline from a conservative outlet and believe it to be factual even though the actual text of the article disproves the headline.

I'll repeat it one more time.

If one side wants changes and refuses to allow a continuation of existing appropriations until an agreement can be reached... THEY ARE THE ONES THREATENING A SHUTDOWN.

Just like the Boehner did with his statement quoted in the article blaming the democrats.

 

[1966septemberdawg]

I don't know what to tell you if your comprehension is that bad.

First line in the story:

Associated Press reports that House Speaker John Boehner “will not agree to a short-term government spending bill without budget cuts.”

So... the Democrats want to keep things as they are... the GOP wants cuts... and the article is trying to claim the democrats are threatening a shutdown?

Sorry... I don't think you're intelligent enough to discuss the topic if you view that threat as coming from the democrats rather than the GOP. You just read a headline from a conservative outlet and believe it to be factual even though the actual text of the article disproves the headline.

I'll repeat it one more time.

If one side wants changes and refuses to allow a continuation of existing appropriations until an agreement can be reached... THEY ARE THE ONES THREATENING A SHUTDOWN.

Just like the Boehner did with his statement quoted in the article blaming the democrats.

I

I don't know what to tell you if your comprehension is that bad.

First line in the story:

Associated Press reports that House Speaker John Boehner “will not agree to a short-term government spending bill without budget cuts.”

So... the Democrats want to keep things as they are... the GOP wants cuts... and the article is trying to claim the democrats are threatening a shutdown?

Sorry... I don't think you're intelligent enough to discuss the topic if you view that threat as coming from the democrats rather than the GOP. You just read a headline from a conservative outlet and believe it to be factual even though the actual text of the article disproves the headline.

I'll repeat it one more time.

If one side wants changes and refuses to allow a continuation of existing appropriations until an agreement can be reached... THEY ARE THE ONES THREATENING A SHUTDOWN.

Just like the Boehner did with his statement quoted in the article blaming the democrats.

That is the whole point of our debate, The dems will not compromise they want to keep spending while the revenue is decreasing they are not willing to look at he cause and effect and see they are killing our economy. THey stubbornly hold onto their we will not budge attitude and you say the pubs are the ones who are the blame. I agree that both sides have gotten stiff on compromise, but the dems have taken us so far to the left a moderate or right leaning stance seems like light years off now. The pendulum must swing back towards the center to right center if we expect to save this republic.