Government Shut Down

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

In the short run, they (Obama and the media) can pin this on the conservatives, but those lousy historians will keep it tied right in with Obama's term.

And that's what this is all about for ADAK & Co, do everything possible to make that uppity Muslim Kenyan look bad, regardless of the damage to the country and the people.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

And that's what this is all about for ADAK & Co, do everything possible to make that uppity Muslim Kenyan look bad, regardless of the damage to the country and the people.

I don't care if the President is purple - if he has good policies that succeed in running the country, and abides by the Constitution and our laws - then I'm for him/her/whatever.

Let's remember, just for a moment, what party was formed, to fight the slavery issue.

What party was that?

What party did Abraham Lincoln belong to?

What party did Martin Luther King Jr. belong to?

When Little Rock revolted against racial integration, and the President had to order in the 101st Airborne Regiment, to restore order, what party did that President belong to?

For ALL the above, that would be the Republican Party!


What party did all the Southern Jim Crow lawmakers belong to, for decades?

What party did the governors who rallied the townspeople against racial integration in the schools, causing riots, belong to?

In Arkansas, where the 101st Airborne Regiment was brought in to restore civil order and enforce integration, what party did that governor belong to?

And in Alabama, when the governor not only rallied his city against racial integration, but himself tried to physically block it, what party did he belong to?

All the KKK lynchers were all card carrying members of what party?
(can't prove this, but everyone knew)


For all the second part, the answer would be the Democratic Party.

In truth both parties have their racists, but historically, the Democrats have FAR outweighed the Republicans in racists.

That's true in Federal, as well as state governments. So your racist slur is a bit off the mark, Bruce.

And living in the rural South, I have a long memory of the separate drinking fountains, separate entrances, separate businesses, etc. If you want to get a feel for what it was like, read the book "Black Like Me". It's not a horrific account of an adventure being a black man, but you get an accurate depiction of it, imo.

It was a movie as well.

Side Note: The guy who dyed his skin black (with the help of a doctor), did eventually die of cancer caused by the treatments to make his skin black, iirc.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

In truth both parties have their racists, but historically, the Democrats have FAR outweighed the Republicans in racists.

I've always found this to be curious. Why did the racists jump from the embrace of the Democrats to the Republicans over the course of 50 years?

Of course, the racism of today isn't usually as blatant as it was 50 years ago. Much more subtle.

[Lamplighter]

Pres Johnson predicted the jump when he signed the Civil Rights Bill

It's now the difference is between racism de jure vs de facto, particularly
in those areas of the country affected by the Civil Rights Law.

[Adak]

After Kennedy was assassinated, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and sense of loss. President Johnson used that (he was a power broker politician, I can tell you!), to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Truly landmark law, that Kennedy wanted, but couldn't get enough support for. President Johnson did, and no one wanted to be on record voting against it - except the racists, of course.

Other civil rights legislation followed, with Democrats in charge. Racists bailed. Some old and politically strong Republicans were racists, and they coddled them for further support.

Democrats were sick of them, by then anyway.

[Griff]

Read up on Nixon's Southern Strategy as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

For ALL the above, that would be the Republican Party!
For all the second part, the answer would be the Democratic Party.

It's not the party, the party is what the party does, and that changes regularly. The hard core conservative racists migrate occasionally, the last time to the tea party hoping the tea party would save America, but ended up getting owned and becoming shills for the fat cats.

And living in the rural South, I have a long memory of the separate drinking fountains, separate entrances, separate businesses, etc.

I spent enough time in the south during the 50's to know Jim Crow.

That's true in Federal, as well as state governments. So your racist slur is a bit off the mark, Bruce.

Unfortunately it's dead on when mimicking the conservative wing that's taken over talk radio and a huge chunk of the internet, spewing hate and lies with great abandon.

I get emails forwarded to me that are making their way through the conservative network. Mostly outrageous claims and twisted truths, but the email will contain links proving they're telling the truth. But if you go to the links they say the exact opposite, which means these morons in the header history, read it, believed it, forwarded it, but never checked it.

Originally Posted by Adak

After Kennedy was assassinated, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and sense of loss. President Johnson used that (he was a power broker politician, I can tell you!), to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yes, JFK's murder brought the country together, and Johnson used it to do good.
9-11 brought the country together and we know what Bush did with it.

[Griff]

According to the National Journal (whoever the hell they are) Senate Democrats attempted to start negotiations 19 times only to be blocked by teabags.



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.

[Adak]

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war with Al-Qaeda and their supporters, the Taliban, in Afghanistan. That was mandated by the oath of his office.

Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.

Too bad that it took the military years to figure out how to win the Iraqi people, over to our side.

Bush wasn't a conservative, especially in his fiscal policies, but at times he was close to it, in social policies.

I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages you receive. Because I've never received one, but messages that are blatantly wrong, sound more like disinformation messages. Sent out by radical liberals, the source could hide under the guise of Conservatism, to discredit the right. I don't know if that's the case, but it sounds suspiciously like it.

I used to believe "that would never happen", but now I absolutely know differently. The radicals are out there, and wow! are they radical!

I don't listen to enough talk radio to have caught any racist baloney, but I'm sure it's out there, just as it is in every walk of life, if you look closely enough, long enough. The people I listen to are pragmatic, and color is not an issue. If you can do the job well, you're hired. If you can't do the job, then you're not hired. Simple as that. If you have a problem working with a person of color, you need to get over it, because that is your problem.

@Griff:
Yes, the Democrats are anxious to negotiate. The only pre-condition to the negotiation, is that the Republicans give them EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT, FIRST.

*A large increase in the debt ceiling - because the Dem's don't want to have this debate again in just 3 months.

*No changes for introducing Obamacare.

Does that sound, even faintly, like negotiations? Oh Hell No! Harry Reid has already stated that no House Bill amending the shut down, or causing any delay to Obamacare, will even be voted on, by the Senate. A few he did let through, because they were politically, too hot to turn down, but the rest - absolutely not!

This is Harry Reid we're talking about here.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, we all agree that Bush had to go to war ...
Iraq was a poor decision...
Bush wasn't a conservative, especially ...
I wonder just WHO is the source of these "Conservative" messages ...
I don't listen to enough talk radio ...
<snip>

There's that mouse again...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Iraq was a poor decision, but I have little doubt that we'd have been at war with them, before long. Saddam was someone looking to start a war.

That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.

Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.

Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.

[glatt]

You know, there ARE problems with Obamacare. Primarily all the exemptions. If the Republicans fixed Obamacare to get rid of those exemptions the Democrats would have no choice but to go along.

But delaying or scrapping it won't ever get through. Fixing it will.

[orthodoc]

Agreed. It's a very imperfect start, but a start. Far better than anything conservatives have come up with. It can be modified, adjusted, refined ... but not in the context of holding the country hostage. Pass the bloody budget and then get down to tinkering.

At this point I say, make it a single-payer public system. Leave private insurance intact alongside. That's what has worked in Europe.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Agreed. It's a very imperfect start, but a start. Far better than anything conservatives have come up with. It can be modified, adjusted, refined ... but not in the context of holding the country hostage. Pass the bloody budget and then get down to tinkering.

At this point I say, make it a single-payer public system. Leave private insurance intact alongside. That's what has worked in Europe.

So you're really saying, since both Reid and the President have already stated that they will NOT negotiate, that first, the Republicans should give the Democrats everything they want.

THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION THEY WILL LISTEN TO, THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED, both in public, and in private.

And THEN, the Democrats will negotiate. Is that R-E-A-L-L-Y your plan?

You don't think that's just a bit naive and well - S-T-U-P-I-D - do you?

Because it sure sounds like it is. WHY would the Democrats negotiate with you AFTER they have everything they want?

WHY?

@Lamplighter:
So you have an increasing obsession with toys for cats?

Failing to accept reality will cause inner conflicts in one's psyche. The immediate problem is believing what your own eyes see, or believing the lies of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et. al.

Is there ANYONE in the US, who believes that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are willing to ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, with the Republicans, to end the shutdown?

Anyone?

I'd be surprised if there was.

@Bruce:

Found out today that the WWII Memorial was paid for by private funds, AND is maintained by private funds, as well. There is NO expense to the Feds.

The reason it was barricaded off, was because the politicians all know that WWII vets are brought in on "Honor Flights"; free of charge, from all over the country, to see it the memorial one time, before they die.

So Obama knew he could hurt them quite badly, when it was barricaded off. End of story.

I'm sure some people are still thrilled with Obama. I'm appalled with his actions, here. (It has since been opened up after all the bad press for the Democrats).

[orthodoc]

I was referring to the ACA, not the current standoff. Are you a little bit S-T-U-P-I-D, or are you just incapable of following arguments?

I'm saying that, since the Republicans have lost the Congressional vote, the Supreme Court decision (2012), and the electoral vote/mandate (2012), they should stop holding the country hostage as a means to their ends in the 2014 elections and address their differences within the context of a functioning Congress.

I truly wish the US had a Queen (like the Queen of Canada) who could fire all the self-serving assholes currently in Congress and give the populace a real-time chance to choose again. Your Repubtards wouldn't do well in a snap election. I say this as a former Republican-turned-Independent.