How many are able to work in your shop this month?

skou · Post by **skou** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:22 am

You could be right. (I wasn't alive back then, so I'm not sure.)

I think Teddy greased the skids for Woody to do his evil. After all, BOTH of them were Progressives. (And, I'm NOT talking about who they bought their auto insurance from! Although, THAT guy is also a scumbucket!)

steve

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:30 am

davebodner wrote:... I'm detecting a pattern.
...
As for my own behavior, I know I'm not de-escalating the situation. Would my silence imply that I agree with the general tenor of what's being said? That's my main problem. I want to register my disagreement in an agreeable way.

What's agreeable to some aint so to others.
"I see the right-wing anger-fest has resurrected itself"

That's what escalates. Throw in the gratuitous name calling and cowardly personal insults from the cheap seats and things are bound to heat up.

Some things never change. I've never understood people who ask themselves questions in order to answer them. "Would my silence..."? What da hay?

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:45 am

skou wrote:You could be right. (I wasn't alive back then, so I'm not sure.)

I think Teddy greased the skids for Woody to do his evil. After all, BOTH of them were Progressives. (And, I'm NOT talking about who they bought their auto insurance from! Although, THAT guy is also a scumbucket!)

steve

Good points. And you could be right too. Time for me to do a review on Teddy the greaser.

Reminds me of something Reagan said: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government "for, by and of the people".
Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Kinda goes with "don't be judgmental (I'll do it for you)".

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:58 am

keakap wrote:Good points. And you could be right too. Time for me to do a review on Teddy the greaser.

Reminds me of something Reagan said: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government "for, by and of the people".
Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Kinda goes with "don't be judgmental (I'll do it for you)".

Orrrr who among us is capable of determining who the administrators are by voting? Overstating the obvious ridiculous(included for any real dunces:D).

That be satire!!!!!;)(ditto)

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 am

In view of the thread hi-jacking comments, I cannot help but observe that this thread was initiated by one who has repeatedly lamented his distaste for 'political' discussions and refuses to engage in them.

Oh the irony of it!

frank81 · Post by **frank81** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:59 pm

I plan on working in my shop tomorrow night.

keakap · Post by **keakap** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:10 pm

JPG40504 wrote:...

Oh the irony of it!

The irony of this thread for me is that I've been encouraged to spend more time in the saun-- uh, that is, the shop. During the day here the 'shop' is usually in the high eighties, down a couply hours after sunset to a near-Arctic 83. After hearing about the 90's and plus that others have been essperiencing I guess I'm lucky. Plus I notice I can lose 2 or 3 pounds (from perspiration) in just an hour or so. That's always nice. Heck, that calls for a beer!

Ed in Tampa · Post by **Ed in Tampa** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:57 am

Once again to high jack this thread I came across this and it may add some depth of flavor to the discussion on the Government shut down.
OCTOBER 4, 2013

Who Shut Down the Government?
Thomas Sowell
10/4/2013 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

joshh · Post by **joshh** » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:35 pm

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll do it here also:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Withholding any funding from ANY law is unconstitutional per the 14th amendment. Or another way to say it: They are required by our constitution to fund all laws passed. Defaulting is also directly forbidden. If they want to withhold funding...they have to change the law.

There is absolutely NO argument they can make that trumps our constitution. Sorry you don't like it...but the LAW passed through all 3 branches of government.