Jump to content
Airbrush

The Border Wall or Fence

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not.

But I want to know why you think it's unacceptable to pay people their paychecks before the government reopens.

 

When did I say I thought that was unacceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The GOP knew their proposal was unacceptable. Yet they proposed it anyway. How is that different than what the Democrats did?

The GOP proposal was to pay workers their paychecks.

You said they knew it was unacceptable.

I want to know why it was unacceptable.

 

If that's not what you meant, just say so.

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The GOP proposal was to pay workers their paychecks.

You said they knew it was unacceptable.

I want to know why it was unacceptable.

 

If that's not what you meant, just say so.

What I meant was that it was unacceptable to the Democrats, not to me. I wasn't voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zapatos said:

What I meant was that it was unacceptable to the Democrats, not to me. I wasn't voting.

Alright, I get that now.

Why do you think it was unacceptable to the Democrats?(This isn't questioning whether or not it was unacceptable to the democrats, I'm asking why. The question can be taken two ways so I figured I'd ask.)

It didn't give Trump his wall/fence. But it would reduce his ability to use federal workers as a bargaining chip. I feel like it should have been acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not.

But I want to know why you think it's unacceptable to pay people their paychecks before the government reopens.

I think we'd both agree that the government should reopen. But if that's not going to happen any time soon, surely we can agree to pay them their paychecks?

You have yet to explain how it's compromising on public health and security.

Again, how is it sacrificing public health and safety if we pay the workers their paychecks? 

If anything, it'd increase public health and safety, as workers like TSA agents would be able to do their job properly. 

There go again putting words in my mouth,  that I think it's unacceptable pay people their paychecks before the government opens.

Cut with that shit.

Open the government.

And like, do I need to explain importance of public health and safety to you? Mr FKIA?

How about we start here.

 

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

When did I say I thought that was unacceptable?

You didn't, but that's the straw many he's built for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

There go again putting words in my mouth,  that I think it's unacceptable pay people their paychecks before the government opens.

Again man, it wasn't directed at you. Calm down.

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

And like, do I need to explain importance of public health and safety to you? Mr FKIA?

You don't. But what does public health and safety have to do with paying federal employees their paycheck?

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You didn't, but that's the straw many he's built for us.

@zapatos We can both agree I didn't strawman you correct? Simple misunderstanding? You did, in fact, say "unacceptable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Again man, it wasn't directed at you. Calm down. 

It was directed at me .... I quoted it, you ninja edited yours. Now you deny having said it AND demonize me as hysterical?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alright, I get that now.

Why do you think it was unacceptable to the Democrats?(This isn't questioning whether or not it was unacceptable to the democrats, I'm asking why. The question can be taken two ways so I figured I'd ask.)

It didn't give Trump his wall/fence. But it would reduce his ability to use federal workers as a bargaining chip. I feel like it should have been acceptable.

I believe they felt it was an attempt to relieve the pressure on Trump without actually moving the needle toward opening government. So from their perspective, the two main issues of opening government and border security, were completely ignored. Paying the workers, which is good for the workers of course, does nothing to get food inspectors, etc. back to work. All it would do is prolong the government shutdown by making things easier for Trump. So the Republicans are saying "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid" and the Democrats are responding with "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid AND reopen government". Voting 'yes' on the Republican bill will only delay reopening government. 

From my perspective, that was a smart move by Republicans. They knew it wouldn't get passed but they figured it would make them look good and make the Democrats look bad. And on the off-chance that it passed, it would give Trump greater ability to fight for his wall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, I just realized how off topic I took this thread. For some reason, it felt as though the discussion was about the government shutdown more than the border wall. Anyways, I'm gonna stop before I get some of you guys in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I believe they felt it was an attempt to relieve the pressure on Trump without actually moving the needle toward opening government. So from their perspective, the two main issues of opening government and border security, were completely ignored. Paying the workers, which is good for the workers of course, does nothing to get food inspectors, etc. back to work. All it would do is prolong the government shutdown by making things easier for Trump. So the Republicans are saying "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid" and the Democrats are responding with "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid AND reopen government". Voting 'yes' on the Republican bill will only delay reopening government. 

From my perspective, that was a smart move by Republicans. They knew it wouldn't get passed but they figured it would make them look good and make the Democrats look bad. And on the off-chance that it passed, it would give Trump greater ability to fight for his wall.

Nice post and well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

 

@zapatos We can both agree I didn't strawman you correct? Simple misunderstanding? You did, in fact, say "unacceptable."

No straw man. I can see why you thought I meant "unacceptable to me". We're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zapatos said:

No straw man. I can see why you thought I meant "unacceptable to me". We're good.

Sweet. +1 to your other post by the way, it was reasonable and logical, and definitely makes sense. I didn't look at it like that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your explanation was that it was rewarding bad behavior. I asked how. You didn't respond.

So I'll ask again. How is it rewarding bad behavior?

Anything other than a clean bill fully founding the govt only prolongs this. Getting people paid is just part of the equation.

Please stop DEMANDING answers to every little thing you think up. No one here owes you anything. We disagree. I don't have to explain my  views to you in a manner you prefer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the same people who rail against String Junky's insistence on 'principles and honor' in the 'You think you got problems, America' thread ( no matter how many people suffer in the UK due to BREXIT with no deal ) are perfectly willing to stand on 'principles and precedents' when it comes to their own government.
Polarization at its best.
( fu*k the people who have to suffer, my ideals/principles are intact )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

How is passing a bill to pay federal workers without opening up the government rewarding bad behavior?

When thinking of how best to answer this, you reminded me of a quote from a former NY governor. He shared it after the financial crisis a decade ago. Ignoring the problem he had with hookers, he’s right in this regard and it applies equally here:

 

dont-reward-bad-behavior-it-is-one-of-th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Funny how the same people who rail against String Junky's insistence on 'principles and honor' in the 'You think you got problems, America' thread ( no matter how many people suffer in the UK due to BREXIT with no deal ) are perfectly willing to stand on 'principles and precedents' when it comes to their own government.
Polarization at its best.
( fu*k the people who have to suffer, my ideals/principles are intact )

May I ask who is doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Rangerx, one more quip about Raiders age, like " grow the fu*k up" and I'm reporting you.
This is a discussion forum. Present your opinions without the condescending attitude.
I still remember the big flap you made when I unknowingly commented on your age.
( and we're probably very close in age )

The people doing that know who they are, Zapatos.
( read that thread and you'll know also )

Really INow ?
We're now quoting fine upstanding citizens like E Spitzer ?
He would know about 'moral hazards' and bad behavior, wouldn't he ?

 

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really INow ?
We're now quoting fine upstanding citizens like E Spitzer ?

Yes, really. His quote is accurate and easily answers Raiders question. His misdeeds are unrelated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MigL said:

By the way Rangerx, one more quip about Raiders age, like " grow the fu*k up" and I'm reporting you.
This is a discussion forum. Present your opinions without the condescending attitude.
I still remember the big flap you made when I unknowingly commented on your age.
( and we're probably very close in age )

As is your right. So keen for a gotcha, you just had to announce it for all?

Gonna cite this reprehensible transgression every time I post now?

Just so you know, I've reported raider twice once for personal attacks, which he edited and said what he didn't claim to say. It's preserved in my quote. Please read it on the last page and tell me if you thought that was an appropriate way to respond to my comment.
 

It's gotten to the point that I can't even make a moderate comment without his finger wagging foot stomping projection and demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Rangerx.
This discussion has become 'personal' to some.
Surely we're ALL mature ( not a quip about your age ) enough to keep it civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rangerx said:

As is your right. So keen for a gotcha, you just had to announce it for all?

Gonna cite this reprehensible transgression every time I post now?

Just so you know, I've reported raider twice once for personal attacks, which he edited and said what he didn't claim to say. It's preserved in my quote. Please read it on the last page and tell me if you thought that was an appropriate way to respond to my comment.
 

It's gotten to the point that I can't even make a moderate comment without his finger wagging foot stomping projection and demands.

I'm not sure which post you are talking about.

Is it the one you quoted him on that had 4 lines, 2 of which were a reply to I think Ten oz and the second 2 a separate reply to you...but as quoted it looked like it was all directed at one person?

Are you sure you didn't click to reply, then read the part directed at Ten oz as directed at you?

I actually wondered that at the time, and questioned you on your reply 

It was edited but not since you quoted it...it's identical.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s something a little different. Stories from people affected by the shutdown. Specifically, voicemails from them.  

It takes us a bit down from our rarified rhetoric and reminds us what this means in reality. From macro to micro, as it were.

Feel free to listen to the whole thing, or just skip ahead to what I’m referencing at time point 1:12:35

https://crooked.com/podcast/the-state-of-our-union-is-a-clusterfck/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not sure which post you are talking about.

Is it the one you quoted him on that had 4 lines, 2 of which were a reply to I think Ten oz and the second 2 a separate reply to you...but as quoted it looked like it was all directed at one person?

Yes, if you scroll down to my comment you will see what he edited out.

In his reply, opened with a snarky remark, then a personal attack. Then stated an bogus answer,  then asked the question as though the previously stated answer was true, which it was not.

What's wierd, said the same thing to Zap, then denied saying it to me on the very next page.

WTF is with that?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Yes, if you scroll down to my comment you will see what he edited out.

In his reply, opened with a snarky remark, then a personal attack. Then stated an bogus answer,  then asked the question as though the previously stated answer was true, which it was not.

What's wierd, said the same thing to Zap, then denied saying it to me on the very next page.

WTF is with that?
 

The first two lines weren't directed at you. You thought they were?

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

So I take it you won't be addressing my argument nor answer my questions.

Instead, you'll just complain about Trump some more instead of talking to me.

So that means we shouldn't vote to give hundreds of thousands of workers the money they've worked for until we're able to open the entire government why?

This doesn't answer the question. 

 

It's also still there, I just clicked it.

I think the second time might be the from the exact same misunderstanding. You click to reply to what was directed to you, but then reread what is in front of you. It then reads like it is all addressed to you...but it is not.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The first two lines weren't directed at you. You thought they were?

 

It's also still there, I just clicked it.

Ok, I see what happened here. The quote feature lumped two quotes together as one, hence I'll concede the snark and attack part was directed at TenOz, not me.

For that I'll offer my apology to everyone for missing a point.

However, The projection part stands because it was clearly directed at me too. Even the remotest premise that any of us think employees should not be paid in any scenario is just plain wrong.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.