President stompy foot is at it again

[code1211]

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Blindest denial evar!

You asked for proof. I put a republican letter with 80 GOP sigs on it in your lap.
You asked for constitutionality. I put the exact part of the constitution in your lap.

And you still deny. I guess your heavily shielded circular logic is complete.

Is the Twilight Zone theme playing on a calliope in your head at all times?

You're like the Monte Python Black Knight defeated at the bridge proclaiming you've won.

You don't have the law, the documentation or the logic on your side.

By Progressive Liberal Standards, you're right where you should be. Unjustified, unresponsive and unknowing. Perfect in all Liberal Progressive ways.

 

[code1211]

Wow, I didn't know there were 80 Republican Senators. The senate is held by the democrats and there are only 100 senators total, so the math doesn't work here.

Thanks. There was so much incongruity in what he said, that got past me.

 

[code1211]

No content. Just ad hom attack. Predictable response when one is shown up.



And you spent part of your first paragraph attacking my grammar?



The senate proposed a bill to the house. Boehner can take that proposition or refuse it. It's all under his control. I'm glad to see that you finally agree that Boehner is responsible for the shutdown being that it is all in his control... constitutionally speaking.



This coming from someone who apparently didn't even know that Article I Section 7 of the constitution existed until I brought it to him on a silver platter. I'm glad I could enlighten you on the law that is the constitution which you claim to regard so highly. :lol:

By the way, what I said was not an ad hom attack. It should have been obvious, even to you, that I was attacking your education. If there was anything ad hom about the attack it was aimed at your instructors who left you unarmed for this battle.

 

[Threegoofs]

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

Blindest denial evar!

You asked for proof. I put a republican letter with 80 GOP sigs on it in

Well, rob, you have to understand. The letter that said the GOP would shut down the government didn't specify the US government. It was probably talking about Croatia. Or maybe Macon County government. They'll come up with any rationale for denial of the obvious....

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Well it's rather obvious that you are convinced of a conspiracy even though there is no evidence because you don't like the information. If you truly were curious of the letter's integrity, you'd just do some googling rather than dismissing it because you don't like it. I'm thinking you believe it to be true which is why you don't do any work to disprove it other than putting on a tin-foil hat.

Huh? Has nothing to do with liking it or not liking it.

Why is it that if you refuse to believe something until you can prove it to be true somehow make it a conspiracy theory?

Sorry there is questions I have about the PDF linked, until I can take the time to research it, I am not taking it as real. If and when I do, I will.

 

[code1211]

Well, rob, you have to understand. The letter that said the GOP would shut down the government didn't specify the US government. It was probably talking about Croatia. Or maybe Macon County government. They'll come up with any rationale for denial of the obvious....

I see your inability to read and comprehend extends to all topics.

 

[Deuce]

Again, you are delusional. There is nothing in that letter that says shut down the government. There is nothing in the approach of the House that says no negotiation.

This is 100% on the Democrats and 100% up to them to correct.

Um, failure to continue appropriations results in a government shutdown. So, I guess you're technically right. The GOP didn't say they wanted to shut down the government. They said they wanted to not keep the government running.

 

[code1211]

Um, failure to continue appropriations results in a government shutdown. So, I guess you're technically right. The GOP didn't say they wanted to shut down the government. They said they wanted to not keep the government running.

The letter says they want to negotiate because there are serious issues at play.

It is the result of the failure of the Democrats to engage in any negotiation to date on anything.

You may recall that they won the election and don't need to talk to Republicans as a result of that. It was in all the papers.

 

[Threegoofs]

The letter says they want to negotiate because there are serious issues at play.

It is the result of the failure of the Democrats to engage in any negotiation to date on anything.

You may recall that they won the election and don't need to talk to Republicans as a result of that. It was in all the papers.

Of course, in reality the Democrats continually have wanted to negotiate. The GOP just kept refusing until they could get the gun out and pointed sat the nation's head.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...ate-with-republicans-20131007?mrefid=mostread

But I think we all know the contempt in which you hold facts, so no apology necessary.

 

[code1211]

Of course, in reality the Democrats continually have wanted to negotiate. The GOP just kept refusing until they could get the gun out and pointed sat the nation's head.

19 Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate With Republicans - NationalJournal.com

But I think we all know the contempt in which you hold facts, so no apology necessary.

All 19 are requests for Unanimous consent. There is no record of the prancing Clown, harry Reid, ever having named the conferees to the Committee as he should have done prior to conducting a vote.

Why not just ask for a vote? The reason is obvious: The process for going to conference had never been employed by the Prancing Clown, Harry Reid.

He, like you, is deceiving by omission. You can see in this snippet from the Senate.gov web site that "Unanimous Consent" is nowhere mentioned as a part of the process.

U.S. Senate: Committees Home > Frequently Asked Questions about Committees
<snip>
What are the steps for sending a bill to a conference committee?
There are four steps for sending a bill to a conference committee, three of the steps are required, the fourth is not. Both houses must complete the first three steps.
Stage of disagreement. This is where the Senate and House agree that they disagree. As stated in the CRS report, "Going to Conference in the Senate", this agreement may be accomplished by one of the following:
The Senate insisting on its own amendment(s) to a House-passed bill or amendment.
The Senate disagreeing to the House’s amendment(s) to a Senate-passed bill or amendment.
Once the House and Senate agree to disagree, they must agree that they want to create a conference committee to resolve the legislative disagreement they acknowledged in step one. This step is accomplished by either requesting a conference with the House and the House agreeing to the offer, or by accepting the House’s request for conference.
Step three is where each house appoints its conference members. The Speaker appoints the House’s conferees. The Senate elects its conferees, or the Senate can authorize, by formal floor action, for the presiding officer to appoint the conferees.
The final step in the processes is an optional step. During this step each house may provide a motion to instruct. These are instructions on the positions that the conferees should take during the conference, but the instructions are not binding.
<snip>

 

[Threegoofs]

All 19 are requests for Unanimous consent. There is no record of the prancing Clown, harry Reid, ever having named the conferees to the Committee as he should have done prior to conducting a vote.

Why not just ask for a vote? The reason is obvious: The process for going to conference had never been employed by the Prancing Clown, Harry Reid.

He, like you, is deceiving by omission. You can see in this snippet from the Senate.gov web site that "Unanimous Consent" is nowhere mentioned as a part of the process.

U.S. Senate: Committees Home > Frequently Asked Questions about Committees
<snip>
What are the steps for sending a bill to a conference committee?
There are four steps for sending a bill to a conference committee, three of the steps are required, the fourth is not. Both houses must complete the first three steps.
Stage of disagreement. This is where the Senate and House agree that they disagree. As stated in the CRS report, "Going to Conference in the Senate", this agreement may be accomplished by one of the following:
The Senate insisting on its own amendment(s) to a House-passed bill or amendment.
The Senate disagreeing to the House’s amendment(s) to a Senate-passed bill or amendment.
Once the House and Senate agree to disagree, they must agree that they want to create a conference committee to resolve the legislative disagreement they acknowledged in step one. This step is accomplished by either requesting a conference with the House and the House agreeing to the offer, or by accepting the House’s request for conference.
Step three is where each house appoints its conference members. The Speaker appoints the House’s conferees. The Senate elects its conferees, or the Senate can authorize, by formal floor action, for the presiding officer to appoint the conferees.
The final step in the processes is an optional step. During this step each house may provide a motion to instruct. These are instructions on the positions that the conferees should take during the conference, but the instructions are not binding.
<snip>

So what you're trying to say is....what? That Reid didn't bring this to a vote the way they wanted him to?

That he really didn't call for a conference, and that the GOP senators blocked it by mistake?

 

[code1211]

So what you're trying to say is....what? That Reid didn't bring this to a vote the way they wanted him to?

That he really didn't call for a conference, and that the GOP senators blocked it by mistake?

I am only saying what I said.

There is a particular process in place to appoint conferees to participate in a conference to resolve differences in the bills passed by the two bodies.

Reid departed from this process. His true motivation is known only to him.

Judging only by his antics in the past and his words and his actions and his tactics, it seems reasonable to assume that he had a particular goal in mind that had nothing to do with arriving at a compromise.

You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel good, but it doesn't help anything or bring you any closer to the real world to which you seem to maintain only a distant relationship.

 

[Threegoofs]

I am only saying what I said.

There is a particular process in place to appoint conferees to participate in a conference to resolve differences in the bills passed by the two bodies.

Reid departed from this process. His true motivation is known only to him.

Judging only by his antics in the past and his words and his actions and his tactics, it seems reasonable to assume that he had a particular goal in mind that had nothing to do with arriving at a compromise.

You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel good, but it doesn't help anything or bring you any closer to the real world to which you seem to maintain only a distant relationship.

So he departed from the process (supposedly), and the GOP blocked this 'departure' twenty times because it may have led to something they might not like. Some dark, sinister thing.

Like negotiations, I presume.

I don't know if you are aware, but going into negotiations (which is what the motion proposed) does not require you to actually negotiate.

 

[code1211]

So he departed from the process (supposedly), and the GOP blocked this 'departure' twenty times because it may have led to something they might not like. Some dark, sinister thing.

Like negotiations, I presume.

I don't know if you are aware, but going into negotiations (which is what the motion proposed) does not require you to actually negotiate.

Avoiding the beginning of negotiations and rigging the process so it contains a poison pill both are sure fire ways to not negotiate.

The last two weeks of evidence provided by the Democrats is ample to prove exactly what you say.

 

[Threegoofs]

[/COLOR]



Avoiding the beginning of negotiations and rigging the process so it contains a poison pill both are sure fire ways to not negotiate.

The last two weeks of evidence provided by the Democrats is ample to prove exactly what you say.

So some pretend poison pill is the reason. That evidence is...where?

The last two weeks have been the GOP making demands with hostages. That's what they want as leverage. That's the evidence from the last two weeks.

 

[code1211]

So some pretend poison pill is the reason. That evidence is...where?

The last two weeks have been the GOP making demands with hostages. That's what they want as leverage. That's the evidence from the last two weeks.

The Republicans have been reduced to negotiating with themselves trying to find something to which the intransigent Dems will respond.

The only response from the Dems is that they will not negotiate with Republicans.

 

[Threegoofs]

The Republicans have been reduced to negotiating with themselves trying to find something to which the intransigent Dems will respond.

The only response from the Dems is that they will not negotiate with Republicans.

Except for the nineteen times before the shutdown, as I'll point out again.

Why didnt we hear this whining about how the Senate wouldnt negotiate with the House until AFTER the shutdown? Why has Obama stated (ad nauseum) that he will be happy to negotiate with House Republicans any time?

As has been pointed out before, the Republican strategy has been to not negotiate until they got the gun. They planned this shutdown for months, and announced this earlier this year. But somehow, you want to pretend they didnt. More sad self delusion...

 

[code1211]

Except for the nineteen times before the shutdown, as I'll point out again.

Why didnt we hear this whining about how the Senate wouldnt negotiate with the House until AFTER the shutdown? Why has Obama stated (ad nauseum) that he will be happy to negotiate with House Republicans any time?

As has been pointed out before, the Republican strategy has been to not negotiate until they got the gun. They planned this shutdown for months, and announced this earlier this year. But somehow, you want to pretend they didnt. More sad self delusion...

Please link to the formal proposal that you say the democrats have offered to negotiate prior to the shut down.

 

[Threegoofs]

Please link to the formal proposal that you say the democrats have offered to negotiate prior to the shut down.

Now you're twisting.

They attempted to form talks for negotiating the budget. GOP senators shut that idea down 19 times this year alone.

 

[clownboy]

Now you're twisting.

They attempted to form talks for negotiating the budget. GOP senators shut that idea down 19 times this year alone.

Source please. You know the dems have majority in the senate, right?

 

[clownboy]

Except for the nineteen times before the shutdown, as I'll point out again.

Proof?

Why didnt we hear this whining about how the Senate wouldnt negotiate with the House until AFTER the shutdown? Why has Obama stated (ad nauseum) that he will be happy to negotiate with House Republicans any time?

Because he didn't ever state that. What he did state was that he promised to negoitiate the "improvement" of Obamacare AFTER the house gives up and does it his way.

As has been pointed out before, the Republican strategy has been to not negotiate until they got the gun. They planned this shutdown for months, and announced this earlier this year. But somehow, you want to pretend they didnt. More sad self delusion...

And just how do you negotiate, from a position of no power? They warned of what could happen, it didn't need to. The dems could have proposed a compromise this whole time before the shutdown. They did not.

 

[Threegoofs]

Source please. You know the dems have majority in the senate, right?

Look about six posts back.

You know one Senator can basically shut anything down, irregardless of the majority, right?

 

[Threegoofs]

And just how do you negotiate, from a position of no power? They warned of what could happen, it didn't need to. The dems could have proposed a compromise this whole time before the shutdown. They did not.

Right.
They have little power because of the 2012 election. That's how things work.

Putting a bomb vest on and demanding negotiations is not the good kind of power.

The GOP know they can't negotiate without hostages, and they now know the US people sees the ruse and hates it. They are desperate to get out of the trap they built for themselves.