Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Well, if anything should be attached to a flood insurance bill, it's a "fetal personhood" amendment   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 158
    More: Stupid, amendments, Hoda Kotb, college football playoff, False Claims, Arab Uprisings, floods  
•       •       •

7560 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2012 at 12:36 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 12:48:59 PM  

Slives: So what the heck happened to the line-item veto that was in place a few years ago? This seems a prime target. Pass the bill, have the President veto the line about the person-hood amendment and then let Congress try and gets it 2/3 majority to override the veto.


I really don't understand why senators are allowed to tack amendments onto bills into the first place. What's the advantage of letting people clump issues together like that? Why isn't there some sort of policy that says a bill can deal with one issue and one issue only?

I expect there is some reason my "solution" is impractical or simplistic. There's a lot about how government works that I can't understand. Just point me at a link that explains why the current system is necessary and disallowing amendments to bills would be bad.
 
2012-06-27 12:50:19 PM  
Flood insurance, eh?

Perhaps those people could, I don't know, not live in such a high risk area for floods?

/I'm not sayin'
//I'm just sayin'
 
2012-06-27 12:50:58 PM  

Sid_6.7: If there is a major flood disaster, people might not be able to collect their flood insurance thanks to this asshole.


like the one going on in florida right now?
 
2012-06-27 12:51:40 PM  
FFS.
 
2012-06-27 12:51:43 PM  
Well fine, but its stood OK go kill it.
 
2012-06-27 12:51:56 PM  

Trivia Jockey: I, for one, would like to see procedure changed so that any amendment to a bill would have to be relevant to that bill.

This is how honest online poker players got farked by the Bush administration, who tacked the online poker ban onto the Safe Harbor Act (a post 9/11 security law).


Difficulty: a law or constitutional amendment that prohibits lawmakers from adding non-sequitur amendments to bills would have to be approved by those same lawmakers before it can go into effect.
 
2012-06-27 12:52:02 PM  
Yes, this is stupid, but it's done all the time:

Hate crimes amendment
attached to defense bill

Veterans hiring requirements attached to tax bill

Student loans attached to health care bill

It's called politics and both parties do the same thing. You add these amendments and then you make people go on record as having voted for or against some popular and/or controversial issue.
 
2012-06-27 12:52:28 PM  

serial_crusher: You snark now, but just wait until your fetus dies in a flood.


LOL
 
2012-06-27 12:53:40 PM  
Nut job... Just like his dad.

Can't believe people fall that "Rugged libertarian, small government" bullshiat they spew.
 
2012-06-27 12:54:01 PM  

ciberido: Slives: So what the heck happened to the line-item veto that was in place a few years ago? This seems a prime target. Pass the bill, have the President veto the line about the person-hood amendment and then let Congress try and gets it 2/3 majority to override the veto.

I really don't understand why senators are allowed to tack amendments onto bills into the first place. What's the advantage of letting people clump issues together like that? Why isn't there some sort of policy that says a bill can deal with one issue and one issue only?

I expect there is some reason my "solution" is impractical or simplistic. There's a lot about how government works that I can't understand. Just point me at a link that explains why the current system is necessary and disallowing amendments to bills would be bad.


Not necessarily bad, but unlikely to ever happen. See my previous post as to why it's foolish to expect the people in power to deliberately curtail their own power.
 
2012-06-27 12:54:25 PM  
yet another shining example of our crappy politicians.
 
2012-06-27 12:54:55 PM  

ciberido: Slives: So what the heck happened to the line-item veto that was in place a few years ago? This seems a prime target. Pass the bill, have the President veto the line about the person-hood amendment and then let Congress try and gets it 2/3 majority to override the veto.

I really don't understand why senators are allowed to tack amendments onto bills into the first place. What's the advantage of letting people clump issues together like that? Why isn't there some sort of policy that says a bill can deal with one issue and one issue only?

I expect there is some reason my "solution" is impractical or simplistic. There's a lot about how government works that I can't understand. Just point me at a link that explains why the current system is necessary and disallowing amendments to bills would be bad.


Because that would essentially grant the Senate Majority Leader HUGE power in setting the schedule for bills being debated/voted on. This way, any Senator who feels his state's interests are not being addressed can add a vote for an amendment to a bill and at least have it noted by the chamber.

Of course, it opens the door for bullshiat like this. Like most of the other rules, it relies on people using the system honestly. When the rules get abused, they start looking silly.
 
2012-06-27 12:54:58 PM  

Ned Stark: Well fine, but its stood OK go kill it.


Ffs, still OK to kill it.
 
2012-06-27 12:55:42 PM  
Life does begin at fertilization, and it ends with abortion, and abortion is legal. Next caller.
 
2012-06-27 12:56:46 PM  

Patronick313: Flood insurance, eh?

Perhaps those people could, I don't know, not live in such a high risk area for floods?

/I'm not sayin'
//I'm just sayin'


learnsomethingnewtoday.us

Move to where the dry land is!!
 
2012-06-27 12:56:49 PM  
Most "Libertarians" are LINOs. It's just a deceptive title that really means "Republican" or "Tea Party" or "Christian nutjob." Or all three. In America, anyway.
 
2012-06-27 12:58:08 PM  

ciberido: Slives: So what the heck happened to the line-item veto that was in place a few years ago? This seems a prime target. Pass the bill, have the President veto the line about the person-hood amendment and then let Congress try and gets it 2/3 majority to override the veto.

I really don't understand why senators are allowed to tack amendments onto bills into the first place. What's the advantage of letting people clump issues together like that? Why isn't there some sort of policy that says a bill can deal with one issue and one issue only?

I expect there is some reason my "solution" is impractical or simplistic. There's a lot about how government works that I can't understand. Just point me at a link that explains why the current system is necessary and disallowing amendments to bills would be bad.


It's the primary way to pass pork

Nobody in their right mind would vote for a bill that authorized spending, say, more than $200 million to build a bridge to a barely inhabited island. But attach that as a rider to something that's guaranteed to pass like a military funding bill and you suddenly can't get anyone to vote against it since you open yourself up to "Representative Hero voted against funding the troops!"

Thus, Paul's tactic here- take a bill everyone wants to pass and rivet on the political equivalent of an A-bomb.
 
2012-06-27 12:58:09 PM  

meat0918: vpb: Most Libertarians are conservatives who are embarrassed to admit that they are conservatives.

I thought most Libertarians were Republicans that wanted to smoke pot?

Joking aside, the wanna be theocrats have just about finished commandeering the Libertarian label, just as they did Republican.


It's been said, "A libertarian is just a Republican who takes drugs," but I like "A Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke pot, screw a hooker, stay home from church, and not be called an a****le by his fellow Republicans for it," better
 
2012-06-27 12:59:36 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Most "Libertarians" are LINOs. It's just a deceptive title that really means "Republican" or "Tea Party" or "Christian nutjob." Or all three. In America, anyway.


Most of us that aren't, might as well be anyway. I'm left of Obama on all these stupid social issues but when it comes to spending money we don't have I'm still a "racist." So whatever.
 
2012-06-27 01:02:53 PM  

Oznog: Patronick313: Flood insurance, eh?

Perhaps those people could, I don't know, not live in such a high risk area for floods?

/I'm not sayin'
//I'm just sayin'

[learnsomethingnewtoday.us image 250x253]

Move to where the dry land is!!



Yes, we should abandon all the coastal areas, the flood plains, and areas around the great lakes because they are at risk for flooding. I mean Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Los Angelous, New Orleans, etc... should just be abandoned. So, I guess we all have to go live in the desert.
 
2012-06-27 01:05:16 PM  
The other night Mark Rubio was on "The Daily Show," and during the interview Stewart kept pressing on the obstructionism by the GOP, the uncompromising attitudes of the GOP, and the GOP's record-setting pace of using the Senate filibuster to stall anything and everything.

To Rubio's credit, his answer was pretty good. It was essentially, "But if the majority party doesn't even allow us to have votes on amendments, the filibuster is the only weapon we have left to get an amendment onto the bill." (Rubio did avoid answering about blocking provisions that had once been supported by Republicans.)

After that, I was thinking, "You know, that's actually a fair assessment."

BUT...then I read articles like this, where the GOP wants to add some really dumb shiat to a bill that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BILL. This is why we can't have nice things.

I'm sure this will now just be filibustered.
 
2012-06-27 01:06:30 PM  
If they do ever succeed at declaring a fetus a person, I can't wait to see them go batshiat when a pregnant woman files for dependent benefits.
 
2012-06-27 01:07:06 PM  
I found out I was pregnant in August of 2007. We were so happy.

Then we found out it was an ectopic pregnancy. There was a fertilized egg, hell there was even a heartbeat. But the pregnancy was not viable, the fetus, my baby, was already developing improperly because it was trapped in the fallopian tube.

It would continue to develop improperly and eventually the fallopian tube would burst and I would bleed out and die. Or I could have surgery to remove the fallopian tube and that tiny little heartbeat.

I would have gladly given my life if it would have saved that little heartbeat; to have him or her live, grow, develop and maybe get mom's warped sense of humor and dad's great love of music. But it wasn't to be. It was heartbreaking to us and our family.

If it's up to the Rand Paul's of this world, that little heartbeat's life would take precedence over mine. Would be allowed to kill me, despite the fact that I had an old child who needed me here. Despite the fact that nothing could be done to save it. And the act of ending that hopeless pregnancy would be a crime.

Life does not begin at conception. Unfortunately for me, it doesn't even begin with a heartbeat. So much can go wrong. There's no telling what can happen in the nine month's between conception and birth.

Deciding to end a pregnancy is a tough enough choice for women, no matter the circumstances. And even though I had a loving, caring man at my side, it's a decision no one but each and every woman has a right to make for herself. It's her body, her future, her life on the line.

I miss that little heartbeat every day. I hear it in my thoughts, my dreams.
 
2012-06-27 01:10:48 PM  

Hermione_Granger: I found out I was pregnant in August of 2007. We were so happy.

Then we found out it was an ectopic pregnancy. There was a fertilized egg, hell there was even a heartbeat. But the pregnancy was not viable, the fetus, my baby, was already developing improperly because it was trapped in the fallopian tube.

It would continue to develop improperly and eventually the fallopian tube would burst and I would bleed out and die. Or I could have surgery to remove the fallopian tube and that tiny little heartbeat.

I would have gladly given my life if it would have saved that little heartbeat; to have him or her live, grow, develop and maybe get mom's warped sense of humor and dad's great love of music. But it wasn't to be. It was heartbreaking to us and our family.

If it's up to the Rand Paul's of this world, that little heartbeat's life would take precedence over mine. Would be allowed to kill me, despite the fact that I had an old child who needed me here. Despite the fact that nothing could be done to save it. And the act of ending that hopeless pregnancy would be a crime.

Life does not begin at conception. Unfortunately for me, it doesn't even begin with a heartbeat. So much can go wrong. There's no telling what can happen in the nine month's between conception and birth.

Deciding to end a pregnancy is a tough enough choice for women, no matter the circumstances. And even though I had a loving, caring man at my side, it's a decision no one but each and every woman has a right to make for herself. It's her body, her future, her life on the line.

I miss that little heartbeat every day. I hear it in my thoughts, my dreams.


I has a sad now, in addition to anger at the modern Republican party.
 
2012-06-27 01:12:36 PM  

ciberido: Slives: So what the heck happened to the line-item veto that was in place a few years ago? This seems a prime target. Pass the bill, have the President veto the line about the person-hood amendment and then let Congress try and gets it 2/3 majority to override the veto.

I really don't understand why senators are allowed to tack amendments onto bills into the first place. What's the advantage of letting people clump issues together like that? Why isn't there some sort of policy that says a bill can deal with one issue and one issue only?

I expect there is some reason my "solution" is impractical or simplistic. There's a lot about how government works that I can't understand. Just point me at a link that explains why the current system is necessary and disallowing amendments to bills would be bad.


Amendments are intended to "polish" a bill to improve on the wording, to remove sections that might have glaring negative consequences.

Suppose a legislator introduces a bill to do X. As it stands, it sounds like a good bill, as doing X would be a good thing. However, upon careful retrospection, a negative unintended consequence of doing X would involve having Y occur. So rather than avoid the tedious job of not voting for X and then redrafting a new bill to do X without Y occurring, it would be easier to add an amendment to the bill that would do the same thing, the "X without the Y" amendment. That would be far more expedient.

However, there's no measurable way to qualify whether an amendment is fully or partially or not-at-all relevant to an original bill. There are, of course, amendments that are fully relevant to an original bill, such as my hypothetical "X without the Y" amendment. And there are amendments that are not-at-all relevant, such as Rand Paul's fetal personhood amendment to a flood insurance bill. But there are some that are in the middle, gray area which may be somewhat and somewhat not.

Now, supposedly, legislators are sagacious people who should be able to discern relevance from not. But it appears that the GOP has decided to shuck that label and go with "legislative terrorists" instead.
 
2012-06-27 01:13:59 PM  
Don't know why all you Libs are soooooo outraged. Your fav's do this ALL the time.
 
2012-06-27 01:15:06 PM  
This will happen as long as you have politicians who want to present a bill not because it's a good bill, but because the mere act of submitting the bill will make his voting constituents happy.
 
2012-06-27 01:16:32 PM  

ImpendingCynic: If they do ever succeed at declaring a fetus a person, I can't wait to see them go batshiat when a pregnant woman files for dependent benefits.


I would get pregnant every tax season, fill out my forms, collect my money, abort the demon, and then do it all over again the next year. fark them.
 
2012-06-27 01:18:14 PM  
I'm actually wondering if he is against the flood insurance bill, and figured this was a convenient poison pill to attach to it, rather than seriously wanting to pass the fetal personhood part.
 
2012-06-27 01:19:27 PM  

Gumaraid: Don't know why all you Libs are soooooo outraged. Your fav's do this ALL the time.


I dislike it when they do it, too.

What I think is really sh*tty about this particular case, though, is that the amendment at issue is absolutely ridiculous on its own merits. No reasonably necessary bill should be held up for some asinine, impractical attempt to prevent legal abortion.
 
2012-06-27 01:21:01 PM  
This will happen as long as we continue to allow the Establishment Class to control our government. This rule favors both sides. if you want to change it, stop electing lawyers, doctors and other establishment douchebags and start electing better people who have to work for a living.
 
2012-06-27 01:21:24 PM  

dr_blasto: Rand Paul is just another faux libertarian like his old man. The reality is that he is, much like the rest of the Republican Party, just another theocrat.

Keep electing jackasses like this and we'll be the Christian Republic of the United States American People in no time.


FTFY. The acronym works better.
 
2012-06-27 01:22:01 PM  

Gumaraid: start electing better people who have to work for a living.


They don't run.
 
2012-06-27 01:22:11 PM  

GAT_00: He's helping his bid for the VP spot. If Fundies like him, his value goes up.


This makes sense.

RAND PAUL
 
2012-06-27 01:22:18 PM  

RollingThunder: I'm actually wondering if he is against the flood insurance bill, and figured this was a convenient poison pill to attach to it, rather than seriously wanting to pass the fetal personhood part.


I can damn near guarantee he is. Like his dad, he doesn't think the feds should be involved in such ventures, and the private insurers will step up and fill the void.

The reality is the policies would be so expensive no one would purchase them.
 
2012-06-27 01:23:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Diogenes: Speaking on behalf of Florida, fark you, Rand.

"Can you believe that they're exasperated with me?" he said, responding to criticism of his attempt to attach the unrelated amendment. "If [Reid will] give me a freestanding vote, I'll take a freestanding vote any time."

Wanna take bets that Paul didn't even try for a freestanding bill?

It's a great play. Up your fetal cred knowing you have no chance of getting it through, while farking with important legislation. Low risk, high reward.

I always thought the guy looked like a true dickhead, but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt until I'd seen more of him in action.

So much for that.


It's sad. I can't remember what it was that I was ECSTATIC that he did in the Senate, but this pretty much wipes that out.

/I think it was his vote on the NDAA 2012--that whole indefinite detention thingee
//could be wrong
 
2012-06-27 01:25:47 PM  
Honestly...when will this Ryder crap be abolished. Its
absolute horse manure.
 
2012-06-27 01:27:06 PM  
A woman's rights should not be subordinate to those of the contents of her uterus. Either that, or organ/tissue donation becomes mandatory for all on demand due to need.

"Sorry Mr. Paul, you only need one testicle, and Mr. Boehner lost both of his in that bizarre belt sander incident."
 
2012-06-27 01:27:38 PM  

Patronick313: Flood insurance, eh?

Perhaps those people could, I don't know, not live in such a high risk area for floods?

/I'm not sayin'
//I'm just sayin'


And while we're at it, let's just evacuate earthquake-prone California, Tornado Alley, and every other American region with unique environmental threats! Hell, if those people were smart enough not to live in Colorado, they wouldn't be in their current predicament! Stupid farkers!

You're brilliant!!!
 
2012-06-27 01:30:37 PM  
Women have a great excuse at the bar.

"Ma'am, you've had too much. You need to call a cab."
"No! I'm drunk, but the fetus is a completely different person. HE'S driving me home and he hasn't a drop all night!"
 
2012-06-27 01:30:50 PM  
Why and how the Christ is this legal????
 
2012-06-27 01:33:00 PM  

Gumaraid: Don't know why all you Libs are soooooo outraged. Your fav's do this ALL the time.


Examples? I mean with fetal personhood type amendments, as opposed to some things that are partially relevant to the original bill?
 
2012-06-27 01:34:03 PM  

ImpendingCynic: If they do ever succeed at declaring a fetus a person, I can't wait to see them go batshiat when a pregnant woman files for dependent benefits.


I once had the opportunity of speaking with one of the biggest anti-choice asshats in the Virginia House of Delegates. This is a guy who once publicly called birth control "baby pesticide" and every House session tries to pull stuff like Rand Paul's doing. Upon learning his identity, I asked him sweetly that in addition to "the fetus is a person thing" whether he'd ever considered presenting a bill that would allow expectant parents to claim the fetus on their taxes and order the census to include the fetus in head counts. He chuckled and said "that would be dumb, they're not born yet."

It took him about ten seconds to realize what he had said. The look on his face was absolutely priceless.

/fark off, Rob Marshall, you douchecanoe
 
2012-06-27 01:39:52 PM  
I don't understand why this sort of thing is part of the system. It seems pretty farked up to me.
 
2012-06-27 01:39:59 PM  
Might not be a bad idea to attach unpopular riders to get flood insurance killed. I suggest also adding a rider that would make Hitler's Birthday a national holiday. And one that makes sharia law mandatory.
 
2012-06-27 01:44:33 PM  
Rand is not like his father as much as he is like the Republican party.
Perhaps he was adopted.

/He's a dick anyway.
 
2012-06-27 01:49:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization

What? The? fark?


He also diddled with the DC Budget Autonomy bill in an effort to force the people of DC to conform to his political whims.

The apple doesn't fall from the tree: he's a batshiat crazy liar just like pappy.
 
2012-06-27 01:50:04 PM  
So are police going to start investigating women who use types of birth control that could possibly allow an egg to get fertilized but not implanted? And send them to jail for murder?

Will women who smoke, drink, do drugs, or eat unhealthily while pregnant be investigated and have their children (when born) taken away for abuse?

Do I get a life insurance benefit if I keep trying to get pregnant and having miscarriages?

If a fetus is actually a person then can the father apply for full custody, win, and be able to control the woman's entire life?

When exactly is a fetus issued a social security number? Do we change birth certificates to 'fertilized certificates'?

And most of all: So if I get pregnant in the US, my child is a US citizen?
 
2012-06-27 01:56:40 PM  
See .. regardless of my personal view on abortion... and it's not shared with almost all of you farkers, i believe in the " don't be a dick about it" school of Christianity.

Is this the same asshat that tried to pass the "Only gold coins as currency" bill?
 
2012-06-27 01:56:53 PM  

FlashHarry: this just in, rand paul is a psychotic asshole!


Who has vastly more political power than you ever will.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report