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.

(NBC News)   Boehner: "Obama doesn't have a budget". Press: "It's on his website." Boehner: "Well if it was a real plan why doesn't the Senate pass it?" Press: *crickets*. What Press should have said: "The Senate voted on it last week; the GOP filibustered it"   (nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Senate, GOP, Gene Sperling, structural deficit  
•       •       •

1706 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2013 at 11:28 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-04 10:39:56 AM  
So close, Gregory. But epic fail.
 
2013-03-04 10:58:46 AM  
I'm pretty much convinced that very few of those who are in the position to make decisions actually understand the entirety of this thing.
 
2013-03-04 11:02:05 AM  
I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.
 
2013-03-04 11:04:17 AM  

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.


Obama is winning the war on messaging. Pretty easily. He's way more popular than the GOP, and voters greatly prefer his method for handling the budget to the GOP's. It doesn't matter; the GOP just re-won the House. They have no reason to compromise unless they lose elections, which is extremely unlikely given the composition of House districts.
 
2013-03-04 11:31:38 AM  

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.

 
2013-03-04 11:31:40 AM  
Damn Liberal media.
 
2013-03-04 11:33:17 AM  

make me some tea: I'm pretty much convinced that very few of those who are in the position to make decisions actually understand the entirety of this thing.


You are a kind soul to even allow that as a possibility.  I'm more inclined to believe they all know exactly what they are doing.  The words coming out of their mouths may sound ignorant but their intent is dangerously well served by them.
 
2013-03-04 11:33:32 AM  
incompetteence all around
 
2013-03-04 11:33:35 AM  

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.


lol
on the other hand, the GOP continues to dig the hole deeper ...
that counts for a lot

and at least some of the voters are waking up to this
 
2013-03-04 11:34:32 AM  
This is typical.  The GOP begs you to f*cking smash their face in with facts, and you freeze like in a deer in headlights because if you don't, the tinfoil brigade is screaming "liebrul media! liebrul media! Soros!" the entire following week.
 
2013-03-04 11:34:46 AM  

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit


Obama's a dictator!  Freedom of speech!  'Merica!

There, I've just summarized the Republican response.
 
2013-03-04 11:36:12 AM  
I didn't have to click the link to know that this was a giant David Gregory fail.

What a good way to fark up a show, put David Gregory on it.
 
2013-03-04 11:36:28 AM  
FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?


Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?
 
2013-03-04 11:37:00 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


He must conjur a Balrog of Morgoth.
 
2013-03-04 11:37:50 AM  
Our press exists to just repeat things. They aren't journalists.
 
2013-03-04 11:38:49 AM  
Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.
 
2013-03-04 11:39:52 AM  

desolation15: incompetteence all around


Indeed, it's almost as though both sides are bad.
I wonder if there's some kind of conclusion that can be drawn from that.
 
2013-03-04 11:40:26 AM  
Did he cry? I'll bet he broke down into tears, what with having to spend more than 10 minutes away from his flask
 
2013-03-04 11:40:37 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?

Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


gregory: Well, what about bringing some of those PESKY bills from the senate to the floor of the house for a vote? You know all those bills you keep claiming dont exist?
 
2013-03-04 11:41:16 AM  
Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?
 
2013-03-04 11:42:03 AM  

DamnYankees: Obama is winning the war on messaging. Pretty easily. He's way more popular than the GOP, and voters greatly prefer his method for handling the budget to the GOP's. It doesn't matter; the GOP just re-won the House. They have no reason to compromise unless they lose elections, which is extremely unlikely given the composition of House districts.


The GOP is polling poorly at the outset of the sequester.  They will hammer home lie after lie after lie after lie and never relent, never shift, never budge and abuse their position and the media's fixation on equal blame and they will win this war on messaging.  I've seen it too many times.  The Democrats are not interested in getting down and fighting back when this happens.  They assume people are paying attention to the facts but they aren't.  They are paying attention to stupid farking soundbites, and Boehner on Meet the Press, and whatever nonsense.

Obama won the election because the GOP put up a monumentally stupid candidate to placate monumentally stupid voters.  They have a stupid cast, they have a stupid supporting structure, but they have a blithely incompetent media that they can use to make sure that no matter how much they fark every single thing up, that they will only receive 50% of the blame, even when they get 98% of what they want.
 
2013-03-04 11:42:37 AM  

make me some tea: I'm pretty much convinced that very few of those who are in the position to make decisions actually understand the entirety of this thing.


Given the Tea Party thinks that the tax cut extension for 100% of working Americans (we let the upper two brackets reset to pre-Bush levels for that small subset of earners that fall in those brackets, but 100% of working Americans had the lower four brackets extended) was also 100% tax increases, despite that 2/3 of the bill was spending cuts, well, you know, you just might be right.
 
2013-03-04 11:43:16 AM  

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


Probably, the so called "nuclear option," but it doesn't change the fact all appropriation bills must start in the House and Boehner is sitting on his hands.
 
2013-03-04 11:43:19 AM  
De-fund the war on drugs right now and no cuts need to be done that are now happening.

/farking assholes are now in Guatemala(or somewhere in South America to fark it up again) ramping up the war on drugs.
farking assholes.
farking assholes.
farking assholes.
farking assholes.
farking assholes.
 
2013-03-04 11:43:51 AM  

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


Rules had to be set at the beginning of the session. He balked, so we have another 2 years of this bullshiat before it can be brought up again.
 
2013-03-04 11:45:19 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.


No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.
 
2013-03-04 11:45:27 AM  

DarnoKonrad: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Probably, the so called "nuclear option," but it doesn't change the fact all appropriation bills must start in the House and Boehner is sitting on his hands.


Well, that Obamacare repeal bill dealt with appropriations, didn't it?

It wouldn't be the first time the Senate gutted one bill and replaced its text with their budget proposal.
 
2013-03-04 11:46:23 AM  
A Democrat budget?  Really?  I thought we quit doing those.
 
2013-03-04 11:46:24 AM  
Why is it the job of the Press to inform the Speaker of the House what's going on in Congress?
 
2013-03-04 11:46:35 AM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.


Soledad would have called him on it.
 
2013-03-04 11:47:28 AM  

NeoCortex42: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.

Soledad would have called him on it.


She's ok.
 
2013-03-04 11:48:15 AM  

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


He can in two years.  The rules of each chamber are decided at the beginning of that Congress.  I doubt they can be changed.  Reid, for whatever god forsaken reason, balked at changing it in any meaningful way and we have the status quo for at least two years.
 
2013-03-04 11:48:47 AM  

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement
 
Bf+
2013-03-04 11:48:58 AM  
What "not a journalist" looks like:
media.salon.com
 
2013-03-04 11:49:19 AM  

Where wolf: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

He can in two years.  The rules of each chamber are decided at the beginning of that Congress.  I doubt they can be changed.  Reid, for whatever god forsaken reason, balked at changing it in any meaningful way and we have the status quo for at least two years.


They can be changed mid-session, but any change has to be based on the rules adopted at the outset of the session. So any attempt to change filibuster reform now would...be filibustered.
 
2013-03-04 11:51:04 AM  

NeoCortex42: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.

Soledad would have called him on it.


As would Maddow, which why they don't host high profile shows.  There's only one thing to keep in mind when it comes to commercial media.  They do not want to offend their largest demographic  which their advertising depends on.


Gregory is white bread for a reason.
 
2013-03-04 11:51:34 AM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.


I disagree, Tim had his corporate apologist moments but never anything that blatant.
 
2013-03-04 11:52:07 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement


I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot.  Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes.  Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.
 
2013-03-04 11:52:18 AM  

homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?


I believe that filibustering does not apply to the budget process according to their rules.

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That's because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate -- 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority -- not 60 votes -- is all that's required to pass a budget resolution.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/f eb/13/jack-le w/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/
 
182
2013-03-04 11:53:06 AM  

DamnYankees: So close, Gregory. But epic fail.


old man Russert would have skewered the Speaker.
 
2013-03-04 11:53:17 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.

I disagree, Tim had his corporate apologist moments but never anything that blatant.


He let people lie and lie and lie and lie on his show to sell war (not to mention all the other crap from his tenure). I don't know why anyone would think he was better at anything.
 
2013-03-04 11:54:57 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?

Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


he failed to be a leader

/am I doing it right Teahadists?
 
2013-03-04 11:55:18 AM  
David Gregory is a toolbox. Not news.
 
2013-03-04 11:55:30 AM  

DamnYankees: He let people lie and lie and lie and lie on his show to sell war (not to mention all the other crap from his tenure). I don't know why anyone would think he was better at anything.


To be fair, there was a TON of people lying us into war. People normally not known for doing those types of things.

There were quite a lot of us who didn't have our head screwed on straight after 9/11

NeoCortex42: I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot. Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes. Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.


I don't think it would matter. Your talking about the same guy who said that the House already passed bills quietly forgetting that we have a constitution and every two years is a new congress.
 
2013-03-04 11:56:48 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: He let people lie and lie and lie and lie on his show to sell war (not to mention all the other crap from his tenure). I don't know why anyone would think he was better at anything.

To be fair, there was a TON of people lying us into war. People normally not known for doing those types of things.

There were quite a lot of us who didn't have our head screwed on straight after 9/11

NeoCortex42: I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot. Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes. Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.

I don't think it would matter. Your talking about the same guy who said that the House already passed bills quietly forgetting that we have a constitution and every two years is a new congress.


I don't disagree. I was one of them (granted I was only a teenager). But that's his job. Not yours, not mine. His. He wanted that job.
 
2013-03-04 11:57:05 AM  

Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.


I'm pretty sure most non GOP shills know where it blames...

According to TPM's poll aggregator ...

Obama's net favorability +7.5%
Obama strong leader +10%
Congressional net approval -62%
Congressional Republican net approval -50%
Democratic Party Net Favorability  +2.3%
GOP Net Favorability -19%
 
2013-03-04 12:03:19 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Acted to do what? I really don't get this one at all. What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


they want him to fulfill their fantasies of him being a dictator so they can shout "SEEE!!!! WE WERE RIGHT!!!"
 
2013-03-04 12:04:48 PM  

NeoCortex42: MyKingdomForYourHorse: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement

I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot.  Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes.  Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.


They don't even need to do that.  They could eliminate the anonymous hold (if you want to filibuster, put your name on it) and introduce a tiered filibuster (2/3 for week 1, 3/5 for week 2, simple majority for every week after).  That would preserve minority rights while ensuring that the minority cannot lock up legislation forever.
 
2013-03-04 12:08:03 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

I believe that filibustering does not apply to the budget process according to their rules.

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That's because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate -- 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority -- not 60 votes -- is all that's required to pass a budget resolution.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/f eb/13/jack-le w/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/


Politifact had it very wrong on this, as usual (Politifact is horseshiat, was horseshiat, and always will be horseshiat, regardless of the issue or party or politician being discussed). The Senate cannot proceed on any matters related to the budget resolution without either the House concurring (with no changes) or a deeming resolution declaring that the resolution has been passed for the purposes of Senate procedure. On top of that, an appropriations bill that is not the yearly budget resolution apparently can be filibustered. It's a mess, which is why many progressives have been demanding an end to the filibuster even if it means that a later Republican Senate can get away with murder later.
 
2013-03-04 12:11:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.


Bullshiat. Timmy pitched more softballs than Eve Gaw.

desolation15: incompetteence all around


I'll say.
 
2013-03-04 12:11:39 PM  

Ishidan: Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit

Obama's a dictator!  Freedom of speech!  'Merica!

There, I've just summarized the Republican response.


You forgot "I was gunna watch mah WRASSLIN last night, but Obombo done cancelled it to lie his face off"
 
2013-03-04 12:16:37 PM  
Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"
 
2013-03-04 12:19:39 PM  

Mentat: They don't even need to do that.  They could eliminate the anonymous hold (if you want to filibuster, put your name on it) and introduce a tiered filibuster (2/3 for week 1, 3/5 for week 2, simple majority for every week after).  That would preserve minority rights while ensuring that the minority cannot lock up legislation forever.


WOW - this is rational and useful.
So it will never happen.
 
2013-03-04 12:23:15 PM  

The Muthaship: A Democrat budget?  Really?  I thought we quit doing those.


$3.8 trillion in outlays.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/asse ts /tables.pdf
 
2013-03-04 12:24:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.


This
 
2013-03-04 12:27:44 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?

Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


When Boehner says "acted", he means "capitulated".
 
2013-03-04 12:29:39 PM  
ctrl-
Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"



You win!!! succinctly explained for everyone who does not willfully misunderstand.
 
2013-03-04 12:30:40 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: $3.8 trillion in outlays.


Good.
 
2013-03-04 12:41:53 PM  

Mentat: NeoCortex42: MyKingdomForYourHorse: homelessdude: Real Question: Can Reid bring up that filibuster reform thing again or is that dead in the water? If he could, would it apply to getting the budget passed?

Not enough Blue Dogs to get anything meaningful, at best we might get a rule change that eliminates the gentleman agreement

I think just requiring a filibuster to actually be a person standing up and talking continuously would help a lot.  Instead of Boehner repeatedly going on about how the Senate is doing nothing, there would be hours and hours of footage of the Republicans actively blocking votes.  Just saying "there was a filibuster" doesn't seem to be enough for the media to cover them properly.

They don't even need to do that.  They could eliminate the anonymous hold (if you want to filibuster, put your name on it) and introduce a tiered filibuster (2/3 for week 1, 3/5 for week 2, simple majority for every week after).  That would preserve minority rights while ensuring that the minority cannot lock up legislation forever.



Eliminating the hold would have been the easiest option.  It does nothing to halt the process and gives the full defense option to the minority, but you would have to actually make a stand on an issue and put your name on it.  It would create accountability in Congress...So it will never happen.
 
2013-03-04 12:42:40 PM  

DamnYankees: NeoCortex42: DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.

Soledad would have called him on it.

She's ok.


OK?  She's.... Perfect.  Don't dare say otherwise.
www.topnews.in
 
2013-03-04 12:42:57 PM  
subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.
 
2013-03-04 12:45:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.
 
2013-03-04 12:49:07 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.


I believe because it was killed by filibuster, but google can help you on that

btw, how's the Republican's attempt to violate the constitution by giving Obama the power of the purse? Oh, right, it was defeated because it was a stupid idea
 
2013-03-04 12:50:08 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"


Awesome.
 
2013-03-04 12:50:14 PM  

DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.


it's fun to smack 10lbsofderp down to earth, isn't it?
 
2013-03-04 12:50:35 PM  

DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.


thanks.
I didn't see in the congressional vote database.

Makes sense it would fail since 0bama said he would veto these types of bills.

sad that Reid and Landrieu would vote against it.  Those crazy DINOs
 
2013-03-04 12:55:35 PM  

somedude210: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

I believe because it was killed by filibuster, but google can help you on that

btw, how's the Republican's attempt to violate the constitution by giving Obama the power of the purse? Oh, right, it was defeated because it was a stupid idea


Does the constitution does say that the House will determine how every dime of the budget is spent?
Do the various budget recipients get a detailed budget that provides them no discretion in how the budget is spent?
They are not allowed to delegate any discretion at all?

Citation?
 
2013-03-04 12:56:21 PM  

somedude210: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.

it's fun to smack 10lbsofderp down to earth, isn't it?


Ya, if you think shooting fish in a barrel is fun.
 
2013-03-04 12:57:45 PM  

somedude210: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster
.

So that filibuster was totally unbreakable, huh?

it's fun to smack 10lbsofderp down to earth, isn't it?
Huh, I asked a question and someone provided a link.  I never said it didn't happen.  But continue with your fantasies.
 
2013-03-04 12:58:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.

thanks.
I didn't see in the congressional vote database.

Makes sense it would fail since 0bama said he would veto these types of bills.

sad that Reid and Landrieu would vote against it.  Those crazy DINOs


Maybe if you had read one more sentence, or refrained from commenting on things you didn't understand... well, allow me:

FTFA: (Reid voted against the bill for procedural reasons -- now, he may call the motion for another vote on the bill.)
 
2013-03-04 12:59:21 PM  

VictoryCabal: tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.

thanks.
I didn't see in the congressional vote database.

Makes sense it would fail since 0bama said he would veto these types of bills.

sad that Reid and Landrieu would vote against it.  Those crazy DINOs

Maybe if you had read one more sentence, or refrained from commenting on things you didn't understand... well, allow me:

FTFA: (Reid voted against the bill for procedural reasons -- now, he may call the motion for another vote on the bill.)


sure.  and that is what you actually believe.
Okay.
 
2013-03-04 01:00:19 PM  
Since I almost never watch Meet the Press, I keep confusing Dave Gregory with Dick Gregory; who, of course, would probably make a much better host.
 
2013-03-04 01:00:50 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: somedude210: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

I believe because it was killed by filibuster, but google can help you on that

btw, how's the Republican's attempt to violate the constitution by giving Obama the power of the purse? Oh, right, it was defeated because it was a stupid idea

Does the constitution does say that the House will determine how every dime of the budget is spent?
Do the various budget recipients get a detailed budget that provides them no discretion in how the budget is spent?
They are not allowed to delegate any discretion at all?

Citation?


One other thing.
What is unconstitutional about the House telling 0bama to say where he wants the cuts and then having the House pass a bill with those cuts?
Citation?
 
2013-03-04 01:02:46 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: I didn't have to click the link to know that this was a giant David Gregory fail.

What a good way to fark up a show, put David Gregory on it.


i have no idea who thought giving him "meet the press" was a good idea but you'd think that by now the network would have realized what a mistake they made.
 
2013-03-04 01:03:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sure.  and that is what you actually believe.
Okay.


ow, i have whiplash.
 
2013-03-04 01:07:01 PM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Tim Russert would have nailed his ass to the wall.

No he wouldn't have. He was just as bad.


i see this but it sure doesn't match my memory of the show.

and no one, no one is as mealy mouthed as gregory.
 
2013-03-04 01:07:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: sure. and that is what you actually believe.
Okay.


Yes, I do believe that, because voting no on a bill you like in the face of filibuster that's likely to hold is actually quite common in the Senate.  This isn't something new.
 
2013-03-04 01:09:39 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Does the constitution does say that the House will determine how every dime of the budget is spent?
Do the various budget recipients get a detailed budget that provides them no discretion in how the budget is spent?
They are not allowed to delegate any discretion at all?

Citation?


the point of the senate and WH when it comes to appropriations is to provide recommendations on how the money is dolled out to which organizations, etc. They cannot originate appropriation bills, as only the House has the power of the purse. But it's the House that signs off on the appropriations and it then goes to the Senate and WH (assuming it passes both House and Senate)

What makes the McConnell bill a bit of a constitutional grey-area is that it forgoes the House's final say as to where funding goes and gives the WH the power to appropriate funding where he sees fit. That is the issue I have with the McConnell plan, and a few republicans had that similar concern, as the Senate Republicans couldn't come to a consensus as to how to vote and some wanted an actual budget instead of the cop-out.

That said, the Senate Democrats and WH have put forth a workable solution that takes cuts to SS and Medicaid (neither of which are touched by sequester) and raises revenue by closing loopholes. It's not a liberal's wet dream by any stretch of the imagination but it should've gotten passed the goddamn senate, since republicans get the social safety net cuts and democrats get revenue increases
 
2013-03-04 01:09:59 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: What is unconstitutional about the House telling 0bama to say where he wants the cuts and then having the House pass a bill with those cuts?


That's not unconstitutional but it is cowardly.

Obama wants revenues, he's named them. Boehner won't name any cuts he wants. Leadership.
 
2013-03-04 01:11:28 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.

thanks.
I didn't see in the congressional vote database.

Makes sense it would fail since 0bama said he would veto these types of bills.

sad that Reid and Landrieu would vote against it.  Those crazy DINOs



I have a feeling you didn't find it because you didn't look:  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_ c fm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00027

I read in a separate article that Reid actually  changed his vote to maintain the right to bring it back up, but that's not in the full congressional record.
 
2013-03-04 01:16:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tenpoundsofcheese: somedude210: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

I believe because it was killed by filibuster, but google can help you on that

btw, how's the Republican's attempt to violate the constitution by giving Obama the power of the purse? Oh, right, it was defeated because it was a stupid idea

Does the constitution does say that the House will determine how every dime of the budget is spent?
Do the various budget recipients get a detailed budget that provides them no discretion in how the budget is spent?
They are not allowed to delegate any discretion at all?

Citation?

One other thing.
What is unconstitutional about the House telling 0bama to say where he wants the cuts and then having the House pass a bill with those cuts?
Citation?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-plan

Hey look, it's the President's plan.  Now, the House has something they can bring to the table to discuss?

Oh, the President's plan has cuts so the House can't even look at it? Can't even take the parts they like and at least  do something moderately productive?

I really wish I could just write you off as a troll, but you move the goalposts like all my actual "conservative" friends, so I almost think you're human. Did you cry during The Land Before Time?
 
2013-03-04 01:17:16 PM  
Maybe the seneate should take a test before they vote on something.. at least have a 70% understanding of what you are doing, shouldnt be that hard right?
 
2013-03-04 01:18:39 PM  

Where wolf: tenpoundsofcheese: DamnYankees: tenpoundsofcheese: subby wrote:  "The Senate voted on it last week"

What was the vote tally?  Who voted for it?  What did they actually vote on?
  I couldn't find.it.  Thanks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571925/senate-blocks-sequester -r eplacement-plans/

51-49. Didn't break filibuster.

thanks.
I didn't see in the congressional vote database.

Makes sense it would fail since 0bama said he would veto these types of bills.

sad that Reid and Landrieu would vote against it.  Those crazy DINOs


I have a feeling you didn't find it because you didn't look:  http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_ c fm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00027

I read in a separate article that Reid actually  changed his vote to maintain the right to bring it back up, but that's not in the full congressional record.



And Landrieu voted against it because proposed cuts to agriculture were going to be too steep.
 
2013-03-04 01:18:54 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA:
DAVID GREGORY:
So Speaker, what happens now? What do you think the impact of all of this is? The president is saying there will be a ripple effect in the economy. There will be a growth cut. There will be a loss of 750,000 jobs. What's the impact?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER:
Well, then, why hasn't he acted?

Acted to do what?  I really don't get this one at all.  What sorcery do they expect the President to conjure up because Congress didn't do something?


Sometimes I wonder if it's a deliberate plot to inculcate the idea that in an "emergency", the President can literally do anything he wants.
 
2013-03-04 01:30:10 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: There were quite a lot of us who didn't have our head screwed on straight after 9/11


right after, sure. by the time we went into Iraq? a whole lot less. to this day i'm amazed/surprised sad as hell that we got conned into that mess. i doubt i ever will understand how that happened. factually maybe, emotionally never.

and please don't tell me the folks that went along were well intentioned. well intentioned is an excuse for lazy. our congress people, our leaders in the media and folks in general shouldn't be lazy.
 
2013-03-04 01:41:34 PM  

DamnYankees: Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit to very clearly lay out exactly why and how this problem exists.  It needs to be said, it needs to be said when people are watching and it needs to be said directly, confrontationally and in a manner that can't be instantly spun.  He needs to respond to incredulous bullshiat like "Senate Democrats haven't acted" by saying all of their legislation was blocked by Senate Republicans.  But somehow this gets lost in the transfer and comes out as "We're totes trying you guys".

No wonder the GOP always wins the war on messaging.

Obama is winning the war on messaging. Pretty easily. He's way more popular than the GOP, and voters greatly prefer his method for handling the budget to the GOP's. It doesn't matter; the GOP just re-won the House. They have no reason to compromise unless they lose elections, which is extremely unlikely given the composition of House districts.


To be fair, we're fast approaching the point where CancerAids is more popular than the GOP.
 
2013-03-04 01:46:46 PM  

DamnYankees: So close, Gregory. But epic fail.


This is why Maddow needs to host MTP. Gregory is inept at best
 
2013-03-04 01:48:47 PM  

tbhouston: Maybe the seneate should take a test before they vote on something.. at least have a 70% understanding of what you are doing, shouldnt be that hard right?


back up 2 steps
before they are allowed to run for office, they must show basic understanding in:
math: addition and subtraction would be a start, fractions and percents ...
civics: minimal understanding of the 3 branches of government
science: I dont know, freezing point of water and where babies come from

we would be so much better off ....
/voters should have to pass these tests too ... but that is for another day
 
2013-03-04 01:51:21 PM  

Hobodeluxe: DamnYankees: So close, Gregory. But epic fail.

This is why Maddow needs to host MTP. Gregory is inept at best


Eh, I understand why Maddow wouldn't - and probably shouldn't - have that job. She's openly, blatantly, admittedly liberal and a pretty clear advocate for liberals. While I obviously like that, it doesn't seem that appropriate for MTP.
 
2013-03-04 01:52:22 PM  

namatad: tbhouston: Maybe the seneate should take a test before they vote on something.. at least have a 70% understanding of what you are doing, shouldnt be that hard right?

back up 2 steps
before they are allowed to run for office, they must show basic understanding in:
math: addition and subtraction would be a start, fractions and percents ...
civics: minimal understanding of the 3 branches of government
science: I dont know, freezing point of water and where babies come from

we would be so much better off ....
/voters should have to pass these tests too ... but that is for another day


Who comes up with these tests, and who administers them?
 
2013-03-04 01:56:56 PM  

Curious: MyKingdomForYourHorse: I didn't have to click the link to know that this was a giant David Gregory fail.

What a good way to fark up a show, put David Gregory on it.

i have no idea who thought giving him "meet the press" was a good idea but you'd think that by now the network would have realized what a mistake they made.


Well because he did such a bang up job during the elections....

...ok I couldn't even type that with a straight face

WaitWhatWhy: To be fair, we're fast approaching the point where CancerAids is more popular than the GOP.


To quote my father in law (registered lifetime Republican) on voting for Mitt this past election
"I'd rather get kicked in the balls"
 
2013-03-04 02:15:24 PM  
Is there anyway Taibbi could get into some of these Q and A sessions
 
2013-03-04 02:25:51 PM  

qorkfiend: namatad: tbhouston: Maybe the seneate should take a test before they vote on something.. at least have a 70% understanding of what you are doing, shouldnt be that hard right?

back up 2 steps
before they are allowed to run for office, they must show basic understanding in:
math: addition and subtraction would be a start, fractions and percents ...
civics: minimal understanding of the 3 branches of government
science: I dont know, freezing point of water and where babies come from

we would be so much better off ....
/voters should have to pass these tests too ... but that is for another day

Who comes up with these tests, and who administers them?


grade school teachers, 2 from each state.
anything that is taught in a normal grade school is fair game
figure the candidates need to get 90% or better to get on the ballot
voters need to get 70% or better ...
 
2013-03-04 02:27:57 PM  

namatad: qorkfiend: namatad: tbhouston: Maybe the seneate should take a test before they vote on something.. at least have a 70% understanding of what you are doing, shouldnt be that hard right?

back up 2 steps
before they are allowed to run for office, they must show basic understanding in:
math: addition and subtraction would be a start, fractions and percents ...
civics: minimal understanding of the 3 branches of government
science: I dont know, freezing point of water and where babies come from

we would be so much better off ....
/voters should have to pass these tests too ... but that is for another day

Who comes up with these tests, and who administers them?

grade school teachers, 2 from each state.
anything that is taught in a normal grade school is fair game
figure the candidates need to get 90% or better to get on the ballot
voters need to get 70% or better ...


Who selects the teachers, and by what mechanism? Who decides what falls under "normal grade school"?
 
2013-03-04 02:34:44 PM  

qorkfiend: Who selects the teachers, and by what mechanism? Who decides what falls under "normal grade school"?


science
normal is already defined ... it is the norm ... not the gifted kid program, not the special ed kids ... the norm

teachers? who cares, if you get 100 teachers together and have them ask 1 question each, the test will about as fair and balanced as you could ever get.
on
MATH
CIVICS
SCIENCE

hell, we could even make it an open book test for the voters ... LOLOLOL

unless you are ok with the mouth breathing morans who are currently in congress??
/I heard that there are ZERO pregnancies from rape. cause the vagina stops working when raped. forcibly
 
2013-03-04 02:51:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"


Closer to:

Democrats: "1+1= 2.1"

Republicans: "1+1= potato"

Media: "1+1= 2.1GATE!!!!!"
 
2013-03-04 08:21:02 PM  

hiker9999: Ishidan: Elandriel: I just wish Obama would hold a prime time news conference and pre-empt programs and thoroughly abuse his bully pulpit

Obama's a dictator!  Freedom of speech!  'Merica!

There, I've just summarized the Republican response.

You forgot "I was gunna watch mah WRASSLIN last night, but Obombo done cancelled it to lie his face off"


I also forgot "Impeachment offense!"
 
2013-03-04 10:29:45 PM  

Coolfusis: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Democrats: "1 + 1 = 2"

Republicans: "1 + 1 = 3"

Press: "1 + 1 = 2.5"

Closer to:

Democrats: "1+1= 2.1"

Republicans: "1+1= potato"

Media: "1+1= 2.1GATE!!!!!"


That may be a bit extreme.

Perhaps more like:

Dems: "1+1 = 2"

Repulicans: "1+1 absolutely does not equal 2", furthermore, we refuse to support any plans for summing positive integers to 2 that don't have any 7s in them.

Media: "Obama has no plan to reach 2" said speaker Boehner Tuesday.  Meanwhile, unpopular Dem plan fails to reach the 60 votes required to pass the senate, getting only 59 votes which is clearly not enough.
 
2013-03-04 11:01:50 PM  
I'm beginning to think S.E. Cupp would do a better job than Dick Gregory.
 
2013-03-05 01:41:20 AM  
Is there a Republican left that is a an un-American traitor?  Apparently, all Republicans want the US to fail.  Figures.
 
MFK
2013-03-05 08:23:38 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: Is there a Republican left that is a an un-American traitor?  Apparently, all Republicans want the US to fail.  Figures.


They don't want the US to fail. They are just teaching us that elections have consequences and because we all voted for the blah guy, we need to be punished in order to teach us the error of our ways.
 
Displayed 101 of 101 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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