Cats generally aren't as vocal as Congress critters. It's more like trying to fight your way free of a pack of drunken, rabid howler monkeys without getting bitten or sexually assaulted.

Not a big fan of cats...



...but that's harsh.

Congress would be a lot better if it were run by cats. CSPAN would be the cutest channel on TV!

Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

pissedoffmick: These are the very same folks that spent a bazillion dollars running ads every 2 minutes for months and months touting how effective they would be once elected, right?

The ones I remember from the Republican primaries all vowed to cut spending and never allow the debt ceiling to be raised. So, they stated their goals of economic sabotage up front.

Don't house Republicans pretty much have block voting perfected?

Senators and Democrats may differ.

Apos: Someone once compared getting consensus in Congress to herding  cats cattle.
 
 
FTFY, subby.

Win

I would like to see the details of "plan b". It doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, but I just want to see if the GOP preserve preferential rates for cap gains and carried interest. You know, the 1%'s REAL top tax rate (15%). In other words, almost no one gets income over 1mil with "ordinary income" - it's all done with stock gains, bonuses (carried interest), etc. So, allowing the top rate (on ordinary income) return to pre-Bush levels wouldn't do diddly.

"Plan B" What an unnervingly appropriate name for a plan of destruction.

Obama is now being appropriately being described as being irrational. Well, that came a couple of years behind schedule.

Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

So Boehner decided he was done "negotiating" and will tr yto ram "his plan" through congress, which has no chance of passing the Senate, and President Obama can "take it or leave it"? That is a load of B.S. Rather than work towards a solution for the sake of the American people, he would rather "grandstand" and play political games trying to force blame on the White House. I suggest Boehner look at the latest opinion polls as well as the last election results; the American people outside of the conservative entertainment complex's echo chamber aren't buying it. The President now has the upper hand in the negotiations, the momentum has changed and Boehner is the one negotiating with a weaker hand. Boehner needs to realize this rather than dig an even deeper hole in their approval ratings by trying to force the desire of a few wealthy elite on the American people.

Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Oh Silly Jesus

Tard thread?





/hehe bonus pic of my mom's puppie Cookie and my sisters dog Ziggy

Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

Ah, I didn't realize that when subby said "Congress" he actually meant "Grover Norquist."

Silly Jesus: Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

Ah, I didn't realize that when subby said "Congress" he actually meant "Grover Norquist."

It's true, the article is about Congress. However, if somebody who has signed the pledge votes "yea" on this bill because it's not technically a tax increase but would vote "nay" on the Senate bill because it technically is a tax increase, they would be somebody who could agree that both of those things is true.

heavymetal: So Boehner decided he was done "negotiating" and will tr yto ram "his plan" through congress, which has no chance of passing the Senate, and President Obama can "take it or leave it"? That is a load of B.S. Rather than work towards a solution for the sake of the American people, he would rather "grandstand" and play political games trying to force blame on the White House. I suggest Boehner look at the latest opinion polls as well as the last election results; the American people outside of the conservative entertainment complex's echo chamber aren't buying it. The President now has the upper hand in the negotiations, the momentum has changed and Boehner is the one negotiating with a weaker hand. Boehner needs to realize this rather than dig an even deeper hole in their approval ratings by trying to force the desire of a few wealthy elite on the American people.

The people that fund their campaigns haven't changed their position on the issue, so why should they?

Sure, there's a chance they could get voted out by dissatisfied voters. But if they don't toe the party line, there's a better chance they'll lose their funding, and lose the election to a 'Bagger that does get the funding.

GIS for "angry brain damaged cats:"

Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

Ah, I didn't realize that when subby said "Congress" he actually meant "Grover Norquist."

It's true, the article is about Congress. However, if somebody who has signed the pledge votes "yea" on this bill because it's not technically a tax increase but would vote "nay" on the Senate bill because it technically is a tax increase, they would be somebody who could agree that both of those things is true.

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

I can. Grover is "moving ther goalposts" in an attempt to stay relevant. The moment Republicans who signed the pledge start compromising to revenue increases en masse, Grover Norquist no longer matters in any way in the American political theater. Grover knows this and sees the writing on the wall, President Obama holds the upper hand and tax increases are inevitable. Now Grover is in full damage control/spin mode. Watch as the more Republicans are forced to compromise, the more Norquist will movehis goal posts and try to rationalize it.

Someone once compared getting consensus in Congress managing computer programmers to herding cats
 
FTFM

heavymetal: Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Serious Black: Silly Jesus: Because anyone not sharing your exact viewpoints is obviously brain damaged.....

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

Ah, I didn't realize that when subby said "Congress" he actually meant "Grover Norquist."

It's true, the article is about Congress. However, if somebody who has signed the pledge votes "yea" on this bill because it's not technically a tax increase but would vote "nay" on the Senate bill because it technically is a tax increase, they would be somebody who could agree that both of those things is true.

Grover has said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $1 million is not technically a tax increase. Grover has also said that letting the tax cuts expire for people making over $250,000 is technically a tax increase. Please explain how anybody could say those two things or agree that both of those things are true without being brain damaged.

I can. Grover is "moving ther goalposts" in an attempt to stay relevant. The moment Republicans who signed the pledge start compromising to revenue increases en masse, Grover Norquist no longer matters in any way in the American political theater. Grover knows this and sees the writing on the wall, President Obama holds the upper hand and tax increases are inevitable. Now Grover is in full damage control/spin mode. Watch as the more Republicans are forced to compromise, the more Norquist will movehis goal posts and try to rationalize it.

born_yesterday: heavymetal: So Boehner decided he was done "negotiating" and will tr yto ram "his plan" through congress, which has no chance of passing the Senate, and President Obama can "take it or leave it"? That is a load of B.S. Rather than work towards a solution for the sake of the American people, he would rather "grandstand" and play political games trying to force blame on the White House. I suggest Boehner look at the latest opinion polls as well as the last election results; the American people outside of the conservative entertainment complex's echo chamber aren't buying it. The President now has the upper hand in the negotiations, the momentum has changed and Boehner is the one negotiating with a weaker hand. Boehner needs to realize this rather than dig an even deeper hole in their approval ratings by trying to force the desire of a few wealthy elite on the American people.

The people that fund their campaigns haven't changed their position on the issue, so why should they?

Sure, there's a chance they could get voted out by dissatisfied voters. But if they don't toe the party line, there's a better chance they'll lose their funding, and lose the election to a 'Bagger that does get the funding.

I guess to do it out of a more long term view of what is best for their party and country. Toeing the line just causes them to become more marginalized due to representing only a small fraction of the population they are supposed to represent, as well as holding unpopular antiquated policy positions. Eventually they will only be able to win primaries but not general elections no maatter how much money they get. Basically what is happening to them now. Gerrymandering can only hold it off for so long. Just my opinion. I see exactly what you are saying.

Republican House leaders try to build support for Boehner's 'Plan B'

I think it's too late for that, since he's in the 190th trimester of the pregnancy, but if everyone else is willing to try it, count me in.

wambu: The kind of kitty we need to spend time herding instead.
[i.imgur.com image 850x1231]

That woman's boobs are going to fall off one day.