(December 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Exactly. How can we know the reasons? I assume Republicans ideologically disagree with Obama and that was their motive. I could be wrong but to ascribe positive motives to your side and negative to the other seems politically naive.

This is how:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd0fVf5CsCc

I have never opposed the obstruction in congress of one party by another. That is what is supposed to occur by design. I would prefer if more parties had enough power to obstruct the major two. At least 4-5 parties with influence. That would be a healthy government.

If US democrats want to obstruct US republicans, it seems only fair to point out that if you punch someone in the face, don't be surprised if they decide to punch back.

Boru

just ask Harry

(December 7, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Aegon Wrote: It's one thing to stop the opposition's agenda because they disagree. It's another to stop the opposition's agenda purely because it's the opposition's, and then blame the opposition for it. If the Dems do the latter I will be just as upset.

(December 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If US democrats want to obstruct US republicans, it seems only fair to point out that if you punch someone in the face, don't be surprised if they decide to punch back.

Boru

These pretty much sum up my feelings on this. The only thing I'd add is that I hope nobody ends up shutting down the government over anything again no matter what party they belong to. To most people that didn't mean much, but it happened several times while I was in the military. To me, that meant I didn't get paid that month. Soldiers have to pay rent and bills, too. Sometimes congress just takes things too far.

(December 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm)Cato Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 7:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 48% of whom did not even bother to fucking vote.

That's part of the uniting, give them a reason to go to the polls more than just 'not the other guy/gal'.

I wish you luck.

(December 7, 2016 at 8:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If US democrats want to obstruct US republicans, it seems only fair to point out that if you punch someone in the face, don't be surprised if they decide to punch back.

Boru

Oh bullshit blame McConnell and the GOP the day after Obama's  first election. And again Dems are NOT the ones who want to turn back the clock on minority and gay and women's rights nor did we start the age of deregulation 

DAMNED right we will get in their way

(December 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Cato Wrote: How can we make the distinction? The obstructing body will claim the former, the party being obstructed will claim the latter. The denizens will align themselves accordingly without much consideration. Nothing will change until someone unites the middle 60% of the electorate. It's the only conceivable way out of the partisan morass.

Exactly. How can we know the reasons? I assume Republicans ideologically disagree with Obama and that was their motive. I could be wrong but to ascribe positive motives to your side and negative to the other seems politically naive.

When a party claims to support our veterans and improve their treatment by the government, yet votes against a Dem-sponsored bill that would have provided jobs for 20,000 vets purely because it would have been seen as a victory of the Democrats. Mitch even admitted back in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That's how you know.

(December 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Exactly. How can we know the reasons? I assume Republicans ideologically disagree with Obama and that was their motive. I could be wrong but to ascribe positive motives to your side and negative to the other seems politically naive.

When a party claims to support our veterans and improve their treatment by the government, yet votes against a Dem-sponsored bill that would have provided jobs for 20,000 vets purely because it would have been seen as a victory of the Democrats. Mitch even admitted back in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That's how you know.

Now watch as CaptianClueless here ignores even that.

(December 7, 2016 at 11:44 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm)Aegon Wrote: When a party claims to support our veterans and improve their treatment by the government, yet votes against a Dem-sponsored bill that would have provided jobs for 20,000 vets purely because it would have been seen as a victory of the Democrats. Mitch even admitted back in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That's how you know.

Now watch as CaptianClueless here ignores even that.

Ooh, wow...

You called him CaptainClueless instead of CapnAwesome?

You really showed him, Brian!