dchurch0: Thank you for the amusing reply. I hadn't opened the article at the time of my post. I just saw the HuffPo banner and thought I'd throw the question out. I appreciate your help.

So you wanted to send that as a link to your firends without reading TFA? Yikes... Considering most Fark headlines tend to stray from the article they link to, you might have ended up with egg on your face.

/Also, sorry for sounding a little douchey in my reply.

Tommy Moo: Flab: Tommy Moo: They have a right to do it to make whatever point they are trying to make, just like the Dems can (and should!) pass a bunch of bills to end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy this year, knowing that none of them has a chance of passing the House. Force the GOP to show the country that they care about the 1% more than the 99%.

So you're saying that they should waste their time and your dollar to win political points?

No, I'm saying that they should spend their time and my dollar to convince the American people to elect a majority into both houses so that the tax cuts can actually be ended over $250k.

So you're ok with them campaigning while on the clock?

I can get fired for doing that, why should an elected official get away with it?

By the way, this goes for the non-binding motions recognizing the acievements of Michael Jackson, the journalistist integrity of James O'keefe, or the awesomeness of nutella, too. Congresscritters should be spending their time running the country, not trying to win points with the folks back home.

tommydee: Obama presidency, all of which was pure political theater and had zero chance of actually achieving its aims, cost taxpayers $50 bajillion. How's that for hopey changey?

You sound tired.

jayphat: gilgigamesh: slayer199: TFA is misleading. Congress votes on a number of BS issues, to say that the 2 weeks they've spent voting on the issue cost $48million is rather dubious since that's 2 weeks that Congress would be paid anyway. If it cost an additional $50 million, then they'd have a point.

If most Americans sat around on their jobs engaging in pointless wankery for two weeks, their bosses would not justify it by saying, "oh well, they would be getting paid anyway". They'd fire them.

Can someone get me the dollar amount it cost the US taxpayers for Sheila Jackson Lee to introduce a bill to honor Michael Jackson after his death.

Pretty sure something less than $48 mil.

There's plenty of this crap on both sides of the aisle.

I agree -- that's also crap. However, I wouldn't be REALLY pissed off until she tried to pass it over 30 times.

HellRaisingHoosier: /Independent myself

Really? For some reason my memory of you is as a libtard, or at least someone I often agree with. Could it be that because you're not constantly dribbling stupid sauce from the corners of your mouth that I just assumed you were a liberal? I can explain my jump to conclusion, though... independent-minded voters in the current climate are typically dismissed as "liberals" (i.e., someone not in lockstep), I suppose it was just a matter of time before I started making the same mistake but on the flip side of the coin. "That guy isn't an asshole! He must be one of us!"

_{/Nixon was a liberal}

Flab: the achievements of Michael Jackson, the journalististic integrity

/FTFM.

FlashHarry: trouble is, obamacare actually reduces the deficit.

And ObamaCare is not a tax. Obama said so.

Seriously, in ten years we are going to look back and say 'Compare to the actual costs of ObamaCare we have realized, that would have been the best $50 million we ever spent if that vote had succeeded in repealing Obamacare."

Here is the truth about Obamacare:

In the very near future: You won't be able to keep your plan. You won't be able to keep your doctor. Employers are going to dump health care plans as a benefit that is part of your job as they become too expensive for them. And there will be death panels comprised of government bureaucrats.

Ok, 'fess up. Who the fark is voting [smart] for skinnyhead's posts?

urbangirl: jayphat: gilgigamesh: slayer199: TFA is misleading. Congress votes on a number of BS issues, to say that the 2 weeks they've spent voting on the issue cost $48million is rather dubious since that's 2 weeks that Congress would be paid anyway. If it cost an additional $50 million, then they'd have a point.

If most Americans sat around on their jobs engaging in pointless wankery for two weeks, their bosses would not justify it by saying, "oh well, they would be getting paid anyway". They'd fire them.

Can someone get me the dollar amount it cost the US taxpayers for Sheila Jackson Lee to introduce a bill to honor Michael Jackson after his death.

Pretty sure something less than $48 mil.

There's plenty of this crap on both sides of the aisle.

I agree -- that's also crap. However, I wouldn't be REALLY pissed off until she the entire Party tried to pass it over 30 times.

SlothB77: FlashHarry: trouble is, obamacare actually reduces the deficit.

And ObamaCare is not a tax. Obama said so.

Seriously, in ten years we are going to look back and say 'Compare to the actual costs of ObamaCare we have realized, that would have been the best $50 million we ever spent if that vote had succeeded in repealing Obamacare."

Here is the truth about Obamacare:

In the very near future: You won't be able to keep your plan. You won't be able to keep your doctor. Employers are going to dump health care plans as a benefit that is part of your job as they become too expensive for them. And there will be death panels comprised of government bureaucrats.

Dogs and cats living together!

DempseySR26: I would like to see the expense report on a 50 million dollar vote. They vote on shiat everyday it can't cost 50 million to do this everyday. Then again democrats are running things.

One might wonder, though - if the GOP really is so fiscally responsible (or fiscally concerned, really), why would they hold a vote on legislation they know won't go anywhere?

OK, so if it's that important to hold a symbolic vote to get Representatives on the record with their positions on Obamacare, why would they hold more than 3 votes? Is that not enough to determine position? How many degrees of freedom are needed in Congress?

OK, so if it's that important to hold a few symbolic votes on a bill you know won't go anywhere, why do it 30 more times? Just to make sure the Senate also has to take time to say "Fark you, fark you, fark you..." 35 times?

So even if it is that important to hold ~35 symbolic votes against Obamacare that you know aren't going anywhere just so that the Senate gets to be the bad guy, you'll need to justify the expense. Otherwise, it's not very fiscally responsible of you, it's just grandstanding.

So which is it, GOP? Did you spend ~$50,000,000 on grandstanding, or on the necessary but useless business of "getting Reps on the record" with their positions on Obamacare (which is pants-on-head, seeing as how those Reps already voted on PPACA. Sort of how this mess got started, you see)?

// I know that there are many freshmen since PPACA passed
// most of them are teabaggers
// making this stunt even more useless

Flab: SkinnyHead: Diogenes: SkinnyHead: Just because arrogant Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refuse to allow a vote on the issue doesn't mean that the House of Representatives should stop doing their job.

Fair enough.

When will the House of Representatives start doing their job, though?

Repealing Obamacare is their job. Their job is to represent the people, and the people want to see Obamacare repealed.

I thought people wanted them to fix the economy and create jobs.

Don't be silly. The American People Want (what is it the GOP says they're for this week? That's what the American People Want... the GOP just told you that! Duh.) what is in their best interests. And by 'their' I mean 'GOP'.

Facts are pointless, the GOP feels it in their heart that it's so, and God wouldn't send them this message unless it was the truth.

Ultra Derpicus is just the messenger.

SlothB77: FlashHarry: trouble is, obamacare actually reduces the deficit.

And ObamaCare is not a tax. Obama said so.

Seriously, in ten years we are going to look back and say 'Compare to the actual costs of ObamaCare we have realized, that would have been the best $50 million we ever spent if that vote had succeeded in repealing Obamacare."

Here is the truth about Obamacare:

In the very near future: You won't be able to keep your plan. You won't be able to keep your doctor. Employers are going to dump health care plans as a benefit that is part of your job as they become too expensive for them. And there will be death panels comprised of government bureaucrats.

Would you happen have any sort of proof of your claims?

I mean this is nation wide front page grade A material.

Surely you must something to corroborate it with.

Share with the class, for we are but students, and you the teacher!