Jump to content

nkreed

Community Member
  • Posts

    836
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nkreed

  1. Just now, DC Tom said:

     

    If Pelosi had ANY history of negotiating in good faith, I'd agree.  Instead, she has a history of using delay as denial.  There is no negotiating with her.

     

    There's also no negotiating with Trump, because he's a child.  Which is my point: BOTH SIDES are firmly entrenched in their uncompromising attitudes.  If you're pointing at either side and screaming "it's your fault for not caving in!" you're missing the very obvious fact that that equally applies to the other side.

    I get it Tom. I was going after the principle there. However context does matter, as you have clearly demonstrated.  This shutdown has a good shot of lasting a long time.

     

     

  2. 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

     

    Then they should pay for the wall.

     

    The finger-pointing is ridiculous.  Each side is uncompromisingly childish and arrogant on this topic.

    I think that's the exact wrong way to prevent using government employees as leverage. Fund the government then have your wall discussions.  

     

    Before you go and tell me that I'm an idiot (where is your bot anyway?) tell me how paying for the wall is he only answer? That's an impractical stance when speaking of employees used as leverage. In fact it only STRENGHTENS the idea of using then again 

  3. 4 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

     

    Democrats: "Hi we passed a bill to fund the government, which included border security. We can debate and negotiate the other thing you want once that is done."

     

    Trump: "No. Give me it now. I will be responsible for shutting the government down."

     

    Democrats: "...ok."

     

    Trump: "...are you ready to give me what I want yet?"

     

    Democrats: "...No. We said we can discuss it after the government is open."

     

    Trump: "Why did you shut the government down then?!!!"

     

    Yeah...both sides. Kind of like how it's both sides when someone commits vehicular manslaughter and the others shouted. 

    The both sides comment was specific to the usage of childhood insults. It truly shows how immature or government really is. 

  4. Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

     

    The veto threatened to shutdown the government if any spending bill is passed without "DA WALL!!!!!!!!! NANCY AND CHUCK WON'T GIVE ME MY WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAL"

     

    The spending Bills passed the House. They are the same bills that the Senate unanimously passed back in December, 100-0.

     

    It's just lil' Baby Donny having his temper tantrum that is holding things up.

    The Senate vote was just posturing for the senators to remove blame for the shutdown. That said McConnell has doubled down now on his stance, taking heat off of his party for future elections. Solely McConnell can be currently blamed for holding up the vote. 

     

    And for all the use of "temper tantrum" it's unbecoming of any adult to speak like this. Both sides need to grow the f up.

    • Like (+1) 1
  5. I don't think it was a good look for either side. I will agree with one point that was made by the Dems. Using government employees as leverage sucks.

    I'm not posting to say that both sides haven't used that leverage. I'm just saying that this sucks for the average American too.

     

    TSA agents are being FORCED to work without pay (for now).  How is that helping airport security? Border patrol agents unfunded, how does that help the argument?  This sh*t show from both sides sickens me.

  6. 3 hours ago, Pete said:

    When the ABC TV Network cancelled the series after 6 episodes, ABC entertainment president Tony Thomopoulos claimed it was because "the viewer had to watch it in order to appreciate it." TV Guide magazine would condemn that statement as "The most stupid reason a network ever gave for ending a series.

     

     

    My God was that awesome. My kind of humor there. So difficult to follow, yet so funny.

  7. 1 hour ago, row_33 said:

     

    does it happen constantly in a given NFL week?

     

    is this something Bills fans only cared to notice just because it happened last week?

     

    Exceptions to rules happen infrequently. That's why they are exceptions.  It is rather normal for a rulebook to have these kinds of things written in to prevent circumvention of a standard rule (in this case going through an opposing players back).

  8. 20 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

     

    I'm aware of the rule and the intention of that rule. It was NOT intended to allow a defender to hit a person in the back.  This is the ONLY instance in the rulebook that allows for a player to legally contact the back of a player.

     

    I am fine with the rule, but there needs to be an exception for contact through the players back.  This exception brings the rule back into conformity with the rest of the rulebook.

×
×
  • Create New...