Republicans Drowning the Baby called Government as per Norquist.

[kaz]

Eyah.

Pull up those Non-Sequiturs, dude.

It's oh so droll.

Dude, it was your quote and your link. Seriously, you didn't get it?

 

[kaz]

The "solution" is pretty clear.

The conservatives follow precedent and hand the President of the United States a clean bill.

If they don't do that..the shutdown will continue.

The congress which was elected to create the 2013 budget doesn't have the votes to fund obamacare. Ergo, the blackmail is coming from those who are blocking funding for agreed upon programs to fund programs that the votes aren't there. You can slice and dice all you want, but you can't turn a lie into truth.

 

[Eaglewings]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, no it doesn't. Because all it does is keep people fighting instead of working towards a solution.

The "solution" is pretty clear.

The conservatives follow precedent and hand the President of the United States a clean bill.

If they don't do that..the shutdown will continue.

The solution, is that the ACA has problems that should be addressed. But the republicans are too busy trying to scrap the whole thing, while the democrats are too proud to change anything.

Actually they just asked for ONE YEAR to delay implementation
so that issues could be addressed. I ran into this "all or nothing" issue also, where hard-core objectionists don't see that more time is going to fix things because the DEMS will
waste it being obstructionist also, who are equally hard-core and won't budge.

What I learned from the Green/Occupy "consensus" process is that
objectionists/obstructionists should be allowed to give input 100% until satisfied but should
not be able to block a vote WITHOUT OFFERING A SOLUTION to allow a consensus.

There need to be MODERATORS in charge to take the input and compel solutions or the NO VOTES shouldn't count. Someone else can offer a solution but SOMEONE HAS TO, and these solutions cannot be rejected either WITHOUT ACCEPTING A CORRECTION to them.

You just can't count yes and no votes when it's so close at 50/50
That means the conflicts should be resolved and not rely on majority rule to decide.

And if the Parties can't agree, then separate the funding and policies
and let Party organizations implement their own solutions privately.
Just like churches or denominations having separate congregations.

We separate religious beliefs from govt policy, why not political beliefs,
especially where people disagree religiously and should not impose on each other!
Just have separate programs, and go fund your own for members who want that choice!

 

[kaz]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

When the choice is to stand up to the Democrats or become Democrats, the answer is clear

 

[Sallow]

RE: Republicans Drowning the Baby called Government as per Norquist.

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Maybe they are rebaptizing the baby?
After Democrats aborted the Constitution passing ACA,
and Judge Roberts gave it last rites?

Which Constitution?

The Conservative Constitution, handed down by Jeebus?

That died in the Civil War.

 

[Sallow]

The "solution" is pretty clear.

The conservatives follow precedent and hand the President of the United States a clean bill.

If they don't do that..the shutdown will continue.

The solution, is that the ACA has problems that should be addressed. But the republicans are too busy trying to scrap the whole thing, while the democrats are too proud to change anything.

Actually they just asked for ONE YEAR to delay implementation
so that issues could be addressed. I ran into this "all or nothing" issue also, where hard-core objectionists don't see that more time is going to fix things because the DEMS will
waste it being obstructionist also, who are equally hard-core and won't budge.

What I learned from the Green/Occupy "consensus" process is that
objectionists/obstructionists should be allowed to give input 100% until satisfied but should
not be able to block a vote WITHOUT OFFERING A SOLUTION to allow a consensus.

There need to be MODERATORS in charge to take the input and compel solutions or the NO VOTES shouldn't count. Someone else can offer a solution but SOMEONE HAS TO, and these solutions cannot be rejected either WITHOUT ACCEPTING A CORRECTION to them.

You just can't count yes and no votes when it's so close at 50/50
That means the conflicts should be resolved and not rely on majority rule to decide.

And if the Parties can't agree, then separate the funding and policies
and let Party organizations implement their own solutions privately.
Just like churches or denominations having separate congregations.

We separate religious beliefs from govt policy, why not political beliefs,
especially where people disagree religiously and should not impose on each other!
Just have separate programs, and go fund your own for members who want that choice!

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

 

[emilynghiem]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

When the choice is to stand up to the Democrats or become Democrats, the answer is clear

What politicians in both parties are missing is to stand up for Constitutional solutions first,
and quit worrying who looks like a Democrat or Republican. It won't matter.
The Constitution comes first, before party. If Congress can't follow the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for that, those members shouldn't be serving in federal govt:
ethics-commission.net

 

[eagle7_31]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Reid and the senate demrats won't budge on anything, but the GOP is to blame? You are full of it.

 

[Sallow]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

The Tea Party should run on their own ideas supported by their own funding.

 

[kwc57]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Actually, Harry Reid is holding the baby's head under water and Obama is holding the towel.

 

[kaz]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

The Tea Party should run on their own ideas supported by their own funding.

Agreed, as long as we apply your standard equally to liberals...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Actually, Harry Reid is holding the baby's head under water and Obama is holding the towel.

They're waterboarding the baby.

 

[emilynghiem]

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

Why not allow implementation by choice not by force?
Paul and many citizens have called for the people voting for it to be under it.
So why not implement it to the same degree that the supporters support it?
And if they choose to opt out and exempt themselves,
then allow the same freedom for all citizens to choose to participate or
to change it where they would choose later? If the President and others have this choice?
Why not?

 

[Sallow]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Reid and the senate demrats won't budge on anything, but the GOP is to blame? You are full of it.

The Law was passed.

You don't get a "do over" because you don't like the results. "Budging" would mean setting a new precedent on the legislative process.

That would be a huge break to the government. One that may not be repairable.

 

[kaz]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

When the choice is to stand up to the Democrats or become Democrats, the answer is clear

What politicians in both parties are missing is to stand up for Constitutional solutions first,
and quit worrying who looks like a Democrat or Republican. It won't matter.
The Constitution comes first, before party. If Congress can't follow the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for that, those members shouldn't be serving in federal govt:
ethics-commission.net

I agree, and that would mean we'd spend far less than the Republicans want. I'll start by spending less than the Democrats want though...

 

[kaz]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Reid and the senate demrats won't budge on anything, but the GOP is to blame? You are full of it.

The Law was passed.

You don't get a "do over" because you don't like the results. "Budging" would mean setting a new precedent on the legislative process.

That would be a huge break to the government. One that may not be repairable.

The "law" was passed, but we're discussing budgets and prior congresses do not get to vote on the 2013 budget

 

[Sallow]

They are asking for a year, not to be reasonable, but to kill it.

Reasonable would be to allow implementation, look for defects and make corrections.

That's how these things work.

Why not allow implementation by choice not by force?
Paul and many citizens have called for the people voting for it to be under it.
So why not implement it to the same degree that the supporters support it?
And if they choose to opt out and exempt themselves,
then allow the same freedom for all citizens to choose to participate or
to change it where they would choose later? If the President and others have this choice?
Why not?

What force?

They can "opt out" and pay a nominal tax.

One that isn't even enforced.

 

[Amelia]

Well they said they wanted to do this..

And it's done.

Grover Norquist Quotes - BrainyQuote

Obama and Reid wanted the shutdown because they think it will hurt Republicans in the polls.

They wants the Republicans to lose the House in 2014 so that Obama can go back to having a Congress which does what he wants just because of who he is, since he can't get it to happen based on leadership skills. Meanwhile he'll continue the Imperial President shtick, doing things like selectively exempting whoever he feels like from O-care based on whatever he thinks will best serve his political needs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Many of the Republicans wanted to work something out last night, but not enough votes. I do believe we are seeing a new party form within the party.

The
Tea-publicans~

The Tea Party should run on their own ideas supported by their own funding.

Agreed, as long as we apply your standard equally to liberals...

YES YES and YES
Dear Kaz and Sallow:
Yes, I believe this is the solution.
Hold both parties to pay for their partisan programs.
And only where all reps agree is Constitutional and/or in the nation's best interests
becomes federal law and is under the tax paid budget.
All other conflicting or experimental proposals not proven to the point of agreement across the board would remain the baby under the care of the parental authority in charge.

Thanks! AGREED!
And yes, I am an active member of the Democrats
and do wish to bring this proposal to party and member leaders of
the Greens, Libertarians, Democrats and Republicans, etc.
I believe we can achieve more by working in teams on viable solutions, and not
competing by majority rule to dominate or discredit for power or offices.