Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

here are all the times since this spring Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Republicans by sending their budget to a bicameral conference committee. Every time, Republicans blocked the move:

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.

SuperHornet wrote:And GOP leaders have been available to negotiate since the shutdown started, and Obama's been off playing golf.

Yadda, yadda, yadda....

JohnStOnge wrote:The problem here is that the information comes from a Senate Democratic aide. I'm not saying it's not true per se. The 19 instances probably did occur. But, when the information comes from a Democratic aide, you have to ask yourself if anything is missing from the story.

To see that the Democrats won't negotiate now one doesn't have to take the story from the Republicans. The Democrats are out and out saying they won't negotiate. If you don't want to be perceived as refusing to negotiate don't say "I won't negotiate."

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW that's not the Republicans as a Party refusing to negotiate with the Democrats. It's blocking a conference between the House and the Senate within the Senate. To show a refusal to negotiate between the political parties in that instance, you would have to show that the Republicans within the Senate refused to negotiate with Democrats within the Senate.

I'm sure what happened in the 19 instances is that the Republicans involved did not agree with the budget the Senate passed so they blocked it going forward. That does not mean they refused to negotiate.

Nice spin, apologist.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

here are all the times since this spring Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Republicans by sending their budget to a bicameral conference committee. Every time, Republicans blocked the move:

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.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress ... s-20131007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:

Nice spin, apologist.

It's not spin. It's the truth. What's going on now is that the President and the Democratic Senate Leadership are refusing to negotiate with Republican House Leadership. And they're being very up front about it.

The 19 instances listed are not refusals by the House Leadership to negotiate with the Senate Leadership and/or the President. It's something going on within the Senate.

The author's argument is a total "fail." The House leadership is complaining that the Senate Leadership and the President will not negotiate. And there's nothing in the article to suggest that the House Leadership ever itself refused to negotiate with those other entities. There is no "hypocrisy" here.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's not spin. It's the truth. What's going on now is that the President and the Democratic Senate Leadership are refusing to negotiate with Republican House Leadership. And they're being very up front about it.

The 19 instances listed are not refusals by the House Leadership to negotiate with the Senate Leadership and/or the President. It's something going on within the Senate.

The author's argument is a total "fail." The House leadership is complaining that the Senate Leadership and the President will not negotiate. And there's nothing in the article to suggest that the House Leadership ever itself refused to negotiate with those other entities. There is no "hypocrisy" here.

"I'd like to repeal very word of the law. But my position in this fight has been to defund it"

"We've been offering compromise after compromise. We even offered a one year delay"

Yeah...why won't Obama negotiate?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... nniversary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GannonFan wrote:The more Obama tries to distance himself from the "politics" the less effective he becomes. He's a politician, I never understood his weird desire to seem above and apart from it all. Sure, he and his party "win", for whatever that means, by helping to portray Republicans as out of their mind whackos (and really, there are a disturbing number of Republicans who truly are whackos), but in the end it doesn't help the country to follow this path. The GOP will continue to hold onto the House, the Senate will continue to be nip and tuck but likely majority Democratic, and the White House will continue to be won by whichever party puts up the best candidate (and if Christie does run in 2016 it will make a toss up of a Christie/Clinton race). In the end, there isn't any long term "win" to come out of this for Obama to continue the path he's on.

I voted for him because I wanted to believe that he would be transformational and that we could start moving in a new direction. Unfortunately, he continues to double down on "winning" small political games and continues to aim to be a much lesser President than he should be. The GOP is nothing to be happy about in their current state of affairs, but Obama had a chance to be a much better President than what he's been and he just doesn't seem to be up to it. Pity.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The more Obama tries to distance himself from the "politics" the less effective he becomes. He's a politician, I never understood his weird desire to seem above and apart from it all. Sure, he and his party "win", for whatever that means, by helping to portray Republicans as out of their mind whackos (and really, there are a disturbing number of Republicans who truly are whackos), but in the end it doesn't help the country to follow this path. The GOP will continue to hold onto the House, the Senate will continue to be nip and tuck but likely majority Democratic, and the White House will continue to be won by whichever party puts up the best candidate (and if Christie does run in 2016 it will make a toss up of a Christie/Clinton race). In the end, there isn't any long term "win" to come out of this for Obama to continue the path he's on.

I voted for him because I wanted to believe that he would be transformational and that we could start moving in a new direction. Unfortunately, he continues to double down on "winning" small political games and continues to aim to be a much lesser President than he should be. The GOP is nothing to be happy about in their current state of affairs, but Obama had a chance to be a much better President than what he's been and he just doesn't seem to be up to it. Pity.

Why does it make one "wacko" for running on a platform of financial common sense and a smaller government, go into D.C. and actually DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, and be in a select group of a few individuals who actually understand a) the horrible negative impact Obamacare is going to have on this country and it's financial condition and b) the need to CUT---NOW, the budget and expenditures. And I'm not talking cutting $85 billion from a $2.6 trillion budget.

People in D.C. who actually understand and want to act on the problem and they're painted as terrorists, wackos, etc., etc. Truly **** unbelievable.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:The more Obama tries to distance himself from the "politics" the less effective he becomes. He's a politician, I never understood his weird desire to seem above and apart from it all. Sure, he and his party "win", for whatever that means, by helping to portray Republicans as out of their mind whackos (and really, there are a disturbing number of Republicans who truly are whackos), but in the end it doesn't help the country to follow this path. The GOP will continue to hold onto the House, the Senate will continue to be nip and tuck but likely majority Democratic, and the White House will continue to be won by whichever party puts up the best candidate (and if Christie does run in 2016 it will make a toss up of a Christie/Clinton race). In the end, there isn't any long term "win" to come out of this for Obama to continue the path he's on.

I voted for him because I wanted to believe that he would be transformational and that we could start moving in a new direction. Unfortunately, he continues to double down on "winning" small political games and continues to aim to be a much lesser President than he should be. The GOP is nothing to be happy about in their current state of affairs, but Obama had a chance to be a much better President than what he's been and he just doesn't seem to be up to it. Pity.

Why does it make one "wacko" for running on a platform of financial common sense and a smaller government, go into D.C. and actually DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, and be in a select group of a few individuals who actually understand a) the horrible negative impact Obamacare is going to have on this country and it's financial condition and b) the need to CUT---NOW, the budget and expenditures. And I'm not talking cutting $85 billion from a $2.6 trillion budget.

People in D.C. who actually understand and want to act on the problem and they're painted as terrorists, wackos, etc., etc. Truly fucking unbelievable.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Why does it make one "wacko" for running on a platform of financial common sense and a smaller government, go into D.C. and actually DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, and be in a select group of a few individuals who actually understand a) the horrible negative impact Obamacare is going to have on this country and it's financial condition and b) the need to CUT---NOW, the budget and expenditures. And I'm not talking cutting $85 billion from a $2.6 trillion budget.

People in D.C. who actually understand and want to act on the problem and they're painted as terrorists, wackos, etc., etc. Truly **** unbelievable.

Ultimately because of how they're doing it. I was fine with the sequester, but when you go the shutdown route it hurts too many people. I'm not saying their ideas are crazy - we certainly need fiscal sanity - but we're going to have to wean ourselves off of the spending excess and this is more a cold turkey approach that ends up being more about the tactics than about the ideas.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Why does it make one "wacko" for running on a platform of financial common sense and a smaller government, go into D.C. and actually DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, and be in a select group of a few individuals who actually understand a) the horrible negative impact Obamacare is going to have on this country and it's financial condition and b) the need to CUT---NOW, the budget and expenditures. And I'm not talking cutting $85 billion from a $2.6 trillion budget.

People in D.C. who actually understand and want to act on the problem and they're painted as terrorists, wackos, etc., etc. Truly **** unbelievable.

I think it goes in line more with their execution strategy, i.e. the 42 votes to repeal Obamacare and harping on how bad Obamacare is but offering no alternative. They might have a good idea, fiscally, but they have a bad way of expressing and executing that idea.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I think it goes in line more with their execution strategy, i.e. the 42 votes to repeal Obamacare and harping on how bad Obamacare is but offering no alternative. They might have a good idea, fiscally, but they have a bad way of expressing and executing that idea.

Agreed. There's too much about Obamacare that is good to just get rid of it. But there's also a lot that's is just bad about it too that leaving it intact the way it is is a bad idea. But none of that gets fixed by letting the media focus on the dumb votes to just repeal it. Fix it, and make the Dems go along with it - that's called legislating, and neither party seems capable of doing that anymore.

CAA Flagship wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Agreed. There's too much about Obamacare that is good to just get rid of it. But there's also a lot that's is just bad about it too that leaving it intact the way it is is a bad idea. But none of that gets fixed by letting the media focus on the dumb votes to just repeal it. Fix it, and make the Dems go along with it - that's called legislating, and neither party seems capable of doing that anymore.

We are not in the proper economic climate to absorb this radical change. This will set the economic recovery back for a long time. Donks don't care though because the lazy are being taken care of, and for that, they get their votes. The donks are buying votes from the stupid and lazy. Our culture has deteriorated from a hard working industrialized nation of the 1940's to a Reality Show watching, handout society today. This is the perfect storm for the donks. They have the formula and they have the attention of the majority. This is the end of a great run for this nation. The empire is crumbling.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: We are not in the proper economic climate to absorb this radical change. This will set the economic recovery back for a long time. Donks don't care though because the lazy are being taken care of, and for that, they get their votes. The donks are buying votes from the stupid and lazy. Our culture has deteriorated from a hard working industrialized nation of the 1940's to a Reality Show watching, handout society today. This is the perfect storm for the donks. They have the formula and they have the attention of the majority. This is the end of a great run for this nation. The empire is crumbling.

Do you have anything concrete to back up that statement, or is it just more your usual conk bloviating?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Do you have anything concrete to back up that statement, or is it just more your usual conk bloviating?

Jobs. Focus on jobs.
Please provide a serious answer to this: Will Obamacare help, hurt, or have no effect on job growth?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Do you have anything concrete to back up that statement, or is it just more your usual conk bloviating?

Jobs. Focus on jobs.
Please provide a serious answer to this: Will Obamacare help, hurt, or have no effect on job growth?

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Jobs. Focus on jobs.
Please provide a serious answer to this: Will Obamacare help, hurt, or have no effect on job growth?

So you just pulled it out of your ass.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
So you just pulled it out of your ass.

I don't need to jump in the lake below to determine if the water is warm or cold.



Duh!!!!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=748L5f1o7NA[/youtube]