The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Rhetorical Question

  1. #11
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    805

    Default

    It did originate in the house the senate sent it back clean for the house to vote on. They have been sitting on it and not allowing a vote. Some republicans have said they felt it would pass clean if brought up for a vote.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  2. #12
    Senior Member Brad Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Tome View Post
    Just saw an interesting report on how Isreal's legislature works. They MUST pass a budget by Dec. 31. If they don't, the country operates on a monthly budget of 1/12th the previous year for 6 months. If a budget is not passed by then.... there is an election!!!! What a concept!!!!
    This would be a worthwhile piece of legislation to pass in this country.
    Mioaks Southbound Sammy JH
    Leatherwood's Here's Your One Chance Fancy

    "Luck is the residue of design"- Branch Rickey

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oakdale,ct.
    Posts
    2,723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Bora View Post
    ah but that is the crux of it. will the elected person follow the will of the people in the state that put them in office?
    the people who, as the president claims are holding everything up for his grand plan are actualy doing what they told the voters they would do. Fighting the fight they promised to fight. the senate should watch. yes they are in for 6 but sooner or later they will have to face the folks at home. and yes they can pick and choose as they can choose what they are buying with our money. and they have the power to choose not to buy. Remember when the 1st one did not want to buy boots for the vally forge fellers? The have always been able to choose what to and not to buy. Nothing new, historic it is.
    And all this time I thought that Representatives and Senators were supposed to do WHAT THE VOTERS TOLD THEM TO DO......who knew?

    What about the things they have already bought? Are you saying they don't have to pay the bills they have already incurred?

    It would be very interesting to have a referendum vote to approve or disapprove of the way the House and Senate are comporting themselves. In my opinion they are acting like spoiled brats, fighting over whose turn it is to do the dishes, when they should both be doing the dishes.-Paul
    there's no good reason to fatten up a retriever.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    It did originate in the house the senate sent it back clean for the house to vote on. They have been sitting on it and not allowing a vote. Some republicans have said they felt it would pass clean if brought up for a vote.
    Harry has certainly never done anything like that in the Senate, has he? The budgets submitted to the Senate by the House each year come to mind.

    Was just thinking that shutdown will be saving some money. Even if the wages of workers will later be paid, there is a lot of electricty not being used; lots of vehicles not being driven; etc.

    We also forget that some things that were funded have not taken place ... so those funds have not actually been spent. It is altogether possible that not all of that money needs to be spent. So, not all of the funding that they're voting on has actually already become a debt.

    And, there are ample daily revenue receipts to cover the debt and several other aspects of govt expenditures.

    Recently (yesterday or today), a Dem Congressman from MA stepped in on behalf of one of his constituents awaiting cancer treatment. He got the NIH to re-classify some # of NIH personnel "essential", brought them back to work, so that those workers could process the constituent's paper to get the cancer treatment. So, perhaps, some of these agencies have not exactly been careful in how they have chosen their essential personnel? In the case of the NIH, life and death outcomes could depend on how that personnel was chosen.

    We also know that the WW II monument has more security during this shutdown than they had before the shutdown. As an open-air monument it did not have 24/7 security. It would seem that the argument of vandalism is not a good one here, since there was no need to barricade the monument previously. Why would there be some reason to barricade against "vandalism" now?

    Bottom line, if the administration is making the shutdown more painful than it actually needs to be, then it is using extortion and intimidation to further a political agenda ... it is bad enough for the workers who will miss paychecks, but is there some reason to make other innocent bystanders suffer when there is no reason, except petulance, to do so? This was the same with the sequester ... threatening (intimidation and extortion) to make the cutbacks as painful as possible.

    It would appear ... only my observation ... when the Senate passed and Obama signed the "mini bill" to fund the military (which would have been funded anyhow, BTW, since it was an "essential" service), they set a precedent for the House being able to do such piece-by-piece funding. Essentially, they would look pretty bad if they refused to fund the military. I think they then realized the error in setting that precedent, and changed their tactics because they realized they were painting themselves into a corner.

    When we look at the budget history of the past 5 years, the POTUS couldn't even get his budgets approved by "his" Senate (100% refusal by the Senate). The Senate didn't even present a budget for 4 of those years. They didn't even pass a budget when they controlled the House and the Senate. Yet, somehow, this crisis is all the fault of the House?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    805

    Default

    Harry has certainly never done anything like that in the Senate, has he? The budgets submitted to the Senate by the House each year come to mind.

    Sure, but he never shut the government down to do it. This is a new escalation in political warfare, don't be surprised when it starts to be used all the time. Unless of course the it blows up bad enough in the Republican faces.

    Was just thinking that shutdown will be saving some money. Even if the wages of workers will later be paid, there is a lot of electricty not being used; lots of vehicles not being driven; etc.

    I got a lot of respect for you Gerry, but this is pretty dumb thing to say. How happy will you be about the money we saved if this leads to the intelligence gap that causes the next 9/11? The shutdown is all bad, there is no upside or silver lining. The money for the workers also is not a guaranteed thing, it has to be included in whatever they eventually pass. I think they will get paid, but the taxpayer will be out of the work that they were supposed to be providing. They may not get screwed long-term but we will be. The residual damage from the impact for businesses that are not directly related the government is very real also, they will not be compensated. The ripple effect gets bigger with each day that passes. I have a lot of respect for the work that is done on our behalf. I am grateful for it.

    We also forget that some things that were funded have not taken place ... so those funds have not actually been spent. It is altogether possible that not all of that money needs to be spent. So, not all of the funding that they're voting on has actually already become a debt.

    And, there are ample daily revenue receipts to cover the debt and several other aspects of govt expenditures.

    I think you are grossly overestimating how we can use our incoming revenue. I do not expect the outcome that you are predicting. If we could afford to go paycheck to paycheck we would have.

    Recently (yesterday or today), a Dem Congressman from MA stepped in on behalf of one of his constituents awaiting cancer treatment. He got the NIH to re-classify some # of NIH personnel "essential", brought them back to work, so that those workers could process the constituent's paper to get the cancer treatment. So, perhaps, some of these agencies have not exactly been careful in how they have chosen their essential personnel? In the case of the NIH, life and death outcomes could depend on how that personnel was chosen.

    Good, The Oakland Press featured a story on a Michigan man in the same predicament. Hopefully they are the only two, I would hate to think of people dying over this. Exceptions for life and death circumstances are allowed to be made though and that is good.

    We also know that the WW II monument has more security during this shutdown than they had before the shutdown. As an open-air monument it did not have 24/7 security. It would seem that the argument of vandalism is not a good one here, since there was no need to barricade the monument previously. Why would there be some reason to barricade against "vandalism" now?

    Bottom line, if the administration is making the shutdown more painful than it actually needs to be, then it is using extortion and intimidation to further a political agenda ... it is bad enough for the workers who will miss paychecks, but is there some reason to make other innocent bystanders suffer when there is no reason, except petulance, to do so? This was the same with the sequester ... threatening (intimidation and extortion) to make the cutbacks as painful as possible.

    The shutdown was supposed to be painful. Do you think the Republicans would have used this tactic if they thought no one would notice? We knew Parks would be shut down. Why are you surprised that they were shut down? I try not to engage is conspiracy theories, but it is sort of funny that republican reps were there right off bat with Camera crews? I am sure this was not really a staged photo op.

    It would appear ... only my observation ... when the Senate passed and Obama signed the "mini bill" to fund the military (which would have been funded anyhow, BTW, since it was an "essential" service), they set a precedent for the House being able to do such piece-by-piece funding. Essentially, they would look pretty bad if they refused to fund the military. I think they then realized the error in setting that precedent, and changed their tactics because they realized they were painting themselves into a corner.

    The only reason the R's offered "mini bills is so they wouldn't look so bad as they did when this started. They didn't offer them until they got pushback.

    When we look at the budget history of the past 5 years, the POTUS couldn't even get his budgets approved by "his" Senate (100% refusal by the Senate). The Senate didn't even present a budget for 4 of those years. They didn't even pass a budget when they controlled the House and the Senate. Yet, somehow, this crisis is all the fault of the House?

    The senate passed the budget. We are waiting for the house to vote on it. Put it up for a vote and lets see if this all clears up. I think Boehner knows what would happen and he can not allow that.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  6. #16
    Senior Member Brad Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Henlee don't buy the garbage the msm is selling. You sound like your reading staight from Harry Reids script. These shutdowns have happened several times before and the world didn't end. In fact, it led to Bill Clinton actually compromising on issues in the 90's. Everyone talks about all the prosperity during Clinton's administration, but you rarely hear anyone mention the fact that Newt forced compromise through a shutdown.

    I don't like the fact that our politicians can't reach an agreement, but I would rather this happen than the left ramming their liberal agenda down my throat.

    The sky is not falling...
    Mioaks Southbound Sammy JH
    Leatherwood's Here's Your One Chance Fancy

    "Luck is the residue of design"- Branch Rickey

  7. #17
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    805

    Default

    I don't watch MSM, but it sounds like you should turn off Fox also. It is plain simple thinking to think that there is no repercussions from these actions. the whole reason that the R's are doing this is to force a situation where the repercussions are worse than a compromise.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  8. #18
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    805

    Default

    That would be why it is called leverage.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  9. #19
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    Harry has certainly never done anything like that in the Senate, has he? The budgets submitted to the Senate by the House each year come to mind.

    Sure, but he never shut the government down to do it. This is a new escalation in political warfare, don't be surprised when it starts to be used all the time. Unless of course the it blows up bad enough in the Republican faces.

    If the Senate had done budgets, there would have been no need for CRs. Why weren't budgets passed when the Dems had control of both Senate and House? This is the first year the Senate did their job. Truthfully, I can't recall who gummed up the works at this point ... but I think that someone prevented the two houses from going to conference on the bills?

    Was just thinking that shutdown will be saving some money. Even if the wages of workers will later be paid, there is a lot of electricty not being used; lots of vehicles not being driven; etc.

    I got a lot of respect for you Gerry, but this is pretty dumb thing to say. How happy will you be about the money we saved if this leads to the intelligence gap that causes the next 9/11?

    The administration would consider those employees "non-essential"? Maybe they would ... since they didn't value the info they got from them about the Benghazi attack.

    I don't think I said that I was "happy"?


    The shutdown is all bad, there is no upside or silver lining. The money for the workers also is not a guaranteed thing, it has to be included in whatever they eventually pass.

    This is the 18th govt shut-down ... and they have always been paid before.

    I think they will get paid, but the taxpayer will be out of the work that they were supposed to be providing.

    Since we seem to have an unending supply of instances of waste and fraud among Fed employees ... not all of them are spending 100% of their time providing services.

    They may not get screwed long-term but we will be.

    I think taxpayers are already in that condition in many instances.

    The residual damage from the impact for businesses that are not directly related the government is very real also, they will not be compensated. The ripple effect gets bigger with each day that passes. I have a lot of respect for the work that is done on our behalf. I am grateful for it.


    I am grateful to our military and law enforcement ... for Common Core school standards and the IRS intimidation not so much.

    You know that they also shut down a park in VA which gets no Fed funds and no Fed employees ... the only connection with the Fed govt is that the land is rented from the govt. The administration was not thinking of any ripple effects when they do stuff like that.


    We also forget that some things that were funded have not taken place ... so those funds have not actually been spent. It is altogether possible that not all of that money needs to be spent. So, not all of the funding that they're voting on has actually already become a debt.

    And, there are ample daily revenue receipts to cover the debt and several other aspects of govt expenditures.

    I think you are grossly overestimating how we can use our incoming revenue. I do not expect the outcome that you are predicting. If we could afford to go paycheck to paycheck we would have.

    I am not an expert ... but David Stockman has some credentials to address that. And I have heard this cited elsewhere as well. I already posted Stockman's article.

    I would start by not worrying about NJ's blueberries and the Christmas tree growers.


    Recently (yesterday or today), a Dem Congressman from MA stepped in on behalf of one of his constituents awaiting cancer treatment. He got the NIH to re-classify some # of NIH personnel "essential", brought them back to work, so that those workers could process the constituent's paper to get the cancer treatment. So, perhaps, some of these agencies have not exactly been careful in how they have chosen their essential personnel? In the case of the NIH, life and death outcomes could depend on how that personnel was chosen.

    Good, The Oakland Press featured a story on a Michigan man in the same predicament. Hopefully they are the only two, I would hate to think of people dying over this. Exceptions for life and death circumstances are allowed to be made though and that is good.

    If the classifications of what is non-essential rest with the Fed employees (who work so very hard for us), then why would they not have been more careful in their choices? Or are they incompetent? or as corrupt as Lois Lerner?


    Bottom line, if the administration is making the shutdown more painful than it actually needs to be, then it is using extortion and intimidation to further a political agenda ... it is bad enough for the workers who will miss paychecks, but is there some reason to make other innocent bystanders suffer when there is no reason, except petulance, to do so? This was the same with the sequester ... threatening (intimidation and extortion) to make the cutbacks as painful as possible.

    The shutdown was supposed to be painful.

    But is there some reason to make it more painful ... and in some cases even when there was no reason to take certain actions?

    Do you think the Republicans would have used this tactic if they thought no one would notice?
    If the Rs did that, I would feel the same way. It would be wrong for either party to make a painful situation more painful just for spite.


    We knew Parks would be shut down. Why are you surprised that they were shut down?

    The WW II memorial may be under the park service, but there were never any barricades. It cost more $ to close the monument than it cost when it was open. That is simply vindictive. The Virginia park closing was more of that kind of vindictiveness.

    I try not to engage is conspiracy theories, but it is sort of funny that republican reps were there right off bat with Camera crews? I am sure this was not really a staged photo op.

    The request for the visit had been presented, and turned down. So, it was no surprise to the administration that the vets might show up. It is also very possible that the organization that arranges the Honor Flights approached others in Congress to see if they could do something about the denial of the request. If you were one of the people that organized the visit for these vets, would you not have felt moved to do whatever you could? I think I would have, and though you and I may disagree on several things, I believe you would have, too.


    It would appear ... only my observation ... when the Senate passed and Obama signed the "mini bill" to fund the military (which would have been funded anyhow, BTW, since it was an "essential" service), they set a precedent for the House being able to do such piece-by-piece funding. Essentially, they would look pretty bad if they refused to fund the military. I think they then realized the error in setting that precedent, and changed their tactics because they realized they were painting themselves into a corner.

    The only reason the R's offered "mini bills is so they wouldn't look so bad as they did when this started. They didn't offer them until they got pushback.

    Actually, I had read that it was a strategy to end up accomplishing what their original CR had hoped to accomplish. From the outset, they said their goal was to fund everything ... except O-care. I had read about the strategy before they presented the military funding mini-bill. So, I don't think it was just a "reaction" to pushback.


    When we look at the budget history of the past 5 years, the POTUS couldn't even get his budgets approved by "his" Senate (100% refusal by the Senate). The Senate didn't even present a budget for 4 of those years. They didn't even pass a budget when they controlled the House and the Senate. Yet, somehow, this crisis is all the fault of the House?

    The senate passed the budget. We are waiting for the house to vote on it.

    I believe it is a CR awaiting vote ... I'm honestly not sure what happened to the actual budget.

    Put it up for a vote and lets see if this all clears up. I think Boehner knows what would happen and he can not allow that.
    I can only say that if the House has a conviction as to what they believed they should do, to simply give the Senate and POTUS exactly what they wanted in the first place would show lack of conviction.

    OTOH, is it not equally as culpable for the Dems to refuse ANY kind of compromise with the "loyal opposition"? Is it not equally as culpable for POTUS to call all the Congressional leaders together just to tell them, once again, it's his way or the highway?

    This political "ballet" is exactly what Dems would do in the reverse situation. I doubt the Founding Fathers intended for govt to work this way ... and I doubt they would have intended for many other ways in which our govt behaves today.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Brad Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henlee View Post
    I don't watch MSM, but it sounds like you should turn off Fox also. It is plain simple thinking to think that there is no repercussions from these actions. the whole reason that the R's are doing this is to force a situation where the repercussions are worse than a compromise.
    I'm positive that if you searched my posts, you would see that I have quoted a variety of news sources.

    I agree with you that there are repercussions for these actions. I do not believe, however, that our country is going to implode because of a shutdown of non-essential services. I also feel that while the word "repercussions" has a negative connotation, the repercussions of this shutdown are not all bad.

    Tea Party Republicans ran on a platform of abolishing the ACA. Whether you or I agree with it or not, they are doing exactly what the were elected to do.
    Mioaks Southbound Sammy JH
    Leatherwood's Here's Your One Chance Fancy

    "Luck is the residue of design"- Branch Rickey

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •