They are tired of having their patriotism questioned.

Well, they've got to fund the welfare checks (I'm sorry, "tax rebates for people who don't have any tax liability") somehow.

I_C_Weener: Read my lips...I said 95% of Americans will pay less, not more in ta...is this thing on? Are they really believing this?

Obama is not now, nor has he ever been a part of the House of Representatives.

How about this. Let's make it illegal to introduce legislation or to vote on legislation that reduces taxes without identifying in that legislation where spending would be cut to make up for the reduction in revenue.

Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

No need to pay the bills!

Stuff costs money. Film at 11.

And people are surprised by this?

AspectRatio: Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

These rule changes that you're cheering now are going to make you cry once the republicans take the majority.

wage0048: How about this. Let's make it illegal to introduce legislation or to vote on legislation that reduces taxes without identifying in that legislation where spending would be cut to make up for the reduction in revenue.

That was already the rule, and they just revoked it.

But still, why all the WAAAAAAH about raising taxes? Does the record deficit scare no one but me?

She wants more, man! She's got to feed the monkey! I mean uh... hasn't that ever occurred to you, man? Sir?

This thread would have been better seated next to the thread where Obama was accused of cutting taxes and raising the debt.

That would make the reactionaries heads spin.

HotWingConspiracy: Stuff costs money. Film at 11.

Yeah, and the LAST thing we need is less government spending!

Gamer Grrrl: Does the record deficit scare no one but me?

No, but people who see only one course of action to combat deficits scare me.

1derful: AspectRatio: Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

These rule changes that you're cheering now are going to make you cry once the republicans take the majority.

Nonsense. The republicans would never raise taxes.

GoldSpider: No, but people who see only one course of action to combat deficits scare me.

Amended: they both concern me.

/Do I sound... concerned?

That is not a news story, it's a random collection of biased opinions.

HotWingConspiracy: 1derful: AspectRatio: Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

These rule changes that you're cheering now are going to make you cry once the republicans take the majority.

Nonsense. The republicans would never raise taxes.

Read the article, it's messing with the minorities ability to stifle nonsense getting into a bill. So yes, as soon as a Republican takes office, you'll immediately regret the changes because of party politics.

GoldSpider: HotWingConspiracy: Stuff costs money. Film at 11.

Yeah, and the LAST thing we need is less government spending!

We could end ALL spending today and still be in a mountain of debt.

Stuff costs money.

HotWingConspiracy: We could end ALL spending today and still be in a mountain of debt.

Certainly, but we aren't going to dig ourselves out by spending more and taxing EVEN more.

Car_Ramrod
the dude

That's going to be me in about 5 hours. Fark this working my ass off shiat.

DeathByGeekSquad: HotWingConspiracy: 1derful: AspectRatio: Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

These rule changes that you're cheering now are going to make you cry once the republicans take the majority.

Nonsense. The republicans would never raise taxes.

Read the article, it's messing with the minorities ability to stifle nonsense getting into a bill. So yes, as soon as a Republican takes office, you'll immediately regret the changes because of party politics.

Eh. We've got at least a solid decade before that's a concern.

"In 2006, just before becoming speaker, Mrs. Pelosi reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."

Yeah, how's that going again?

DeathByGeekSquad:
Read the article, it's messing with the minorities ability to stifle nonsense getting into a bill. So yes, as soon as a Republican takes office, you'll immediately regret the changes because of party politics.

The rules are revised every two years. But maybe in 20 years when the Republican Party decides to advance itself beyond a 4th grader level of political discourse and ideology, then people can start to worry.

HotWingConspiracy: Eh. We've got at least a solid decade before that's a concern.

So it was OK when Republicans did it?

GoldSpider: "In 2006, just before becoming speaker, Mrs. Pelosi reiterated her plans to promote "bipartisanship" and "to ensure the rights of the minority."

Yeah, how's that going again?

The minority turned out to be batshiat insane.

Doc Lee: But maybe in 20 years when the Republican Party decides to advance itself beyond a 4th grader level of political discourse...

You mean like petty insults and name-calling?

Doc Lee: The minority turned out to be batshiat insane.

Ahh, I see. It's OK to trample on the rights of anyone with whom you disagree. Duly noted.

1derful: AspectRatio: Sorry, cons. Gotta pay for that $10B/month War Based On Lies somehow.

These rule changes that you're cheering now are going to make you cry once the republicans take the majority.

What makes you think that the republicans will ever retake the majority? There is no guarantee that the Republican Party will even exist in 10 years.

MFL: Car_Ramrod
the dude

That's going to be me in about 5 hours. Fark this working my ass off shiat.

*cheers to that*

GoldSpider: Doc Lee: The minority turned out to be batshiat insane.

Ahh, I see. It's OK to trample on the rights of anyone with whom you disagree. Duly noted.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you understand what a "right" is. What "rights" are being trampled on?

wage0048: How about this. Let's make it illegal to introduce legislation or to vote on legislation that reduces taxes without identifying in that legislation where spending would be cut to make up for the reduction in revenue.

Sure, if we can also make it impossible to increase spending without identifying what taxes must be raised and putting the tax increase to a popular vote. Also, all tax increases should automatically expire and require another bill and popular vote.

We need to make it harder for them to keep pissing away our money.

GoldSpider: HotWingConspiracy: Eh. We've got at least a solid decade before that's a concern.

So it was OK when Republicans did it?

Yeah. I wanted them to use the nuclear option. I knew they couldn't hold on to power.

GoldSpider: Doc Lee: But maybe in 20 years when the Republican Party decides to advance itself beyond a 4th grader level of political discourse...

You mean like petty insults and name-calling?

Reality is now a petty insult to you regressives? I suppose that does make sense.

Doc Lee: GoldSpider: Doc Lee: But maybe in 20 years when the Republican Party decides to advance itself beyond a 4th grader level of political discourse...

You mean like petty insults and name-calling?

Reality is now a petty insult to you regressives? I suppose that does make sense.

So then you literally think the Republican Party is comprised of 4th graders?

GoldSpider: Doc Lee: GoldSpider: Doc Lee: But maybe in 20 years when the Republican Party decides to advance itself beyond a 4th grader level of political discourse...

You mean like petty insults and name-calling?

Reality is now a petty insult to you regressives? I suppose that does make sense.

So then you literally think the Republican Party is comprised of 4th graders?



Comprehension, man...comprehension.

GoldSpider: So then you literally think the Republican Party is comprised of 4th graders?

That is not what he said. Want to try again?

Soup4Bonnie: That is not what he said. Want to try again?

I would prefer an explanation how comparing the Republican ideology to that of a 4th grader constitutes frank and respectful discourse.

cchurch: We need to make it harder for them to keep pissing away our money.

Just an FYI, it was stupidity like the idea you just suggested that put California in the budgetary bind that it is currently in.

Murkanen: Just an FYI, it was stupidity like the idea you just suggested that put California in the budgetary bind that it is currently in.

What? Did California suddenly stop pissing peoples' money away?

rmz: Well, they've got to fund the welfare checks (I'm sorry, "tax rebates for people who don't have any tax liability") somehow.

Well, they've got to fund phony wars (I'm sorry, "eliminate the imminent danger of massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction") somehow.

GoldSpider: would prefer an explanation how comparing the Republican ideology to that of a 4th grader constitutes frank and respectful discourse.

If I were a Republican, I would take it as a compliment.

See: Bush, George W. and Palin, Sarah

Der Vassermeister: Well, they've got to fund phony wars (I'm sorry, "eliminate the imminent danger of massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction") somehow.

Fine, let's eliminate both expenditures. What's wrong with that?

Murkanen: cchurch: We need to make it harder for them to keep pissing away our money.

Just an FYI, it was stupidity like the idea you just suggested that put California in the budgetary bind that it is currently in.

They made it harder to raise taxes, but kept increasing spending anyway. They could have avoided it by not spending the money to begin with.

If the government says "we will not be able to continue x and y programs as is without increasing taxes" and the people say "well, you don't get the money", then the government should be required to cut or eliminate x and y.

Will this cause programs you or I like to get hurt? Yes. Is it better than the current system of immortal and bloated government programs? I think so.

GoldSpider: Soup4Bonnie: That is not what he said. Want to try again?

I would prefer an explanation how comparing the Republican ideology to that of a 4th grader constitutes frank and respectful discourse.

Reality is what it is. The Republican ideology is to cater to the lowest common denominator of intelligent thought. They attempt to sway the opinion of the gullible and irrational by fear, dogma, and doubt while proposing no logical solutions to the problems the nation faces. It's 4th grader playground antics.

Doc Lee: GoldSpider: Soup4Bonnie: That is not what he said. Want to try again?

I would prefer an explanation how comparing the Republican ideology to that of a 4th grader constitutes frank and respectful discourse.

Reality is what it is. The Republican ideology is to cater to the lowest common denominator of intelligent thought. They attempt to sway the opinion of the gullible and irrational by fear, dogma, and doubt while proposing no logical solutions to the problems the nation faces. It's 4th grader playground antics.

Both parties cater to idiots. The political pendulum alternates which group of idiots are afraid and which have "hope for change".

GoldSpider: Murkanen: Just an FYI, it was stupidity like the idea you just suggested that put California in the budgetary bind that it is currently in.

What? Did California suddenly stop pissing peoples' money away?

Don't you mean red state welfare queens pissing away California's money? You do realize that if California received as much money as they paid in federal income taxes, they wouldn't have issues with their budget now, right? But no, they have to be the major provider for red state America which is unable to adequately provide for themselves.