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.

(Washington Post)   Now that Ted Cruz has promised to filibuster the budget bill, it has become physically impossible, according to the rules of the Senate and the law of time and space, for us to avoid a shutdown unless the House GOP caves, like, right now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 116
    More: Interesting, Senate, Budget Planning  
•       •       •

2962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Sep 2013 at 7:44 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-23 09:04:41 PM
6 votes:

SevenizGud: Dimensio: You deliberately presented cherry-picked data to support a demonstrably dishonest conclusion

I showed the last 15 years to show no warming in the last 15 years, which, by the way, was already admitted by Von Storch and Phil Jones and every climatologist on the planet. There has been no warming in 15 years, so tough shiat, Chicken Little. Cry about it.


You presented a graph which others showed to have been cherry picked to support a dishonest conclusion.

You lied. You are a liar.
2013-09-23 06:37:04 PM
6 votes:
www.thepaepae.com

/oblig
2013-09-23 10:38:44 PM
4 votes:

badhatharry: Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.


Really?  You think that in the entire history of America, when weighed against things like the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Indian Removal Act, the Espionage Act, and the Volstead Act - that saying "Hey guys, how about you buy some insurance so you can afford to get sick?  And if you don't want to, that's fine too - we won't force you, but we will dock you tax refund since inevitably the rest of us will pay for some part of your health care."

And those are just the actually bad laws.  I'm sure many a right-wing troll would have a hard time deciding whether the PPACA is worse than the 16th, 17th, 19th or 24th Amendments.
2013-09-23 08:42:45 PM
4 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: Otherwise, it's better for everyone to have skin in the game taking care of each other.

Yeah, I'm for utopia too.

Meanwhile, in the real world....


In the real world, there was a government shutdown in 1995 and, rather than your magical government-free utopia appearing, people got PISSED.

In the real world, responsible people who work *hard* can still get shafted by sudden, unexpected medical expenses.

In the real world, you are a terrible human being. I pray that you are never put in the position that you would like to put the poor in, where they must choose between medicine and food, fast death and slow death. Even if the world might be a better place if you *were* put in such a position.
2013-09-23 08:29:21 PM
4 votes:
Senator Cruz, I say this as someone directly affected by your actions as senator, despite not living anywhere close to Texas: GO FARK YOURSELF

Just let me do my job without it being a federal offense to do so because you have to get in your political points to make an ill-fated attempt to run for the presidency. No one is amused of your antics, no one is afraid you'll win. You have lost good sir. You have lost and there is no way for you to come out of this smelling any better than a bed of shiat-filled roses.

You want to run around and play Second Coming of Jefferson or whatever founding father you want to bastardize, that's fine, but your actions have serious consequences to those who just want to help make this country a little bit better for the rest of us. Is that too much to ask, you Canadian schmuck?
2013-09-23 08:27:58 PM
4 votes:

falcon176: is it lib in here or is it just everybody


You're just in the minority. If you want to surround your self with retards who think they are somehow a majority, the web site is freerepublic.com or something like that.

www.sabinabecker.com
2013-09-23 08:20:17 PM
4 votes:
If a majority of Americans wanted Obamacare defunded...a majority of Americans should've voted in November of 2012 for the political party that would've defunded it.
2013-09-23 08:13:58 PM
4 votes:

netcentric: Harry Reid may shiat down the Gov't.     Too funny.


Yes, it's Harry Reid's fault the Republicans are throwing a hissy fit because Democrats aren't letting them subvert the rule of law.

If they want to get rid of the ACA, the Republicans can try to repeal it normally...Oh wait, they tried that, and they CAN'T. That's why they're pulling this shiat and trying to circumvent the legislative process by using the debt ceiling to kill a law that makes a Democratic president look good.

They're willing to destroy the global economy because they lost, and they are whiny, spoiled children.
2013-09-23 04:43:32 PM
4 votes:

ferretman: Now rules matter to dems?


Considering the well-being of the nation has not mattered to Republicans for the past several decades, why should you be so concerned?
2013-09-23 10:13:29 PM
3 votes:
We TOLD you to end the goddamned filibuster, Reid. Again and again. Did you listen?

It's a Denial of Service attack on the nation.
2013-09-23 08:57:28 PM
3 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: Then tell your Republican buddies to tell the world that they want poor kids with cancer to die without treatment.

Way to misrepresent what I said. I never said they should get no treatment. I said they shouldn't get treatment that they don't pay for. They should still get treatment up until the point where they run out of money.


Then tell your Republicans to say, "We want kids with cancer whose parents only have $1,000 in savings to die"  Make sure all the 300+ million know it.
2013-09-23 08:54:55 PM
3 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: Then tell your Republican buddies to tell the world that they want poor kids with cancer to die without treatment.

Way to misrepresent what I said. I never said they should get no treatment. I said they shouldn't get treatment that they don't pay for. They should still get treatment up until the point where they run out of money.


Poor children will not be able to afford cancer treatment. Therefore, you desire poor children who develop cancer to die. The reasoning is sound, and you should encourage Republican legislators to openly state their intent, to clarify their message for those who may currently withhold their support due to uncertainty of whether Republicans support their pro dead poor cancer-stricken child beliefs.
2013-09-23 08:51:53 PM
3 votes:
ACA is law and Zimmerman went free

cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com
2013-09-23 08:44:59 PM
3 votes:

SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.

Just like you don't get a car if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
Just like you don't get food if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.


Then tell your Republican buddies to tell the world that they want poor kids with cancer to die without treatment.  YELL IT LOUD IT CLEAR!  Send it into every mailbox, every inbox, every telephone line, every TV channel, every website.  We want poor kids with cancer to die!
2013-09-23 08:39:24 PM
3 votes:

SevenizGud: Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.


I always love when the trolls go with the "die in the streets" argument.
2013-09-23 08:09:03 PM
3 votes:

twat_waffle: Wouldn't the CR fall under reconciliation, and therefore not be subject to cloture?


Yes, but it would be sent back to the House, which is controlled by bigots and terrorists who would rather have a global economic catastrophe that would make the Great Depression look like an overdraft fee than allow President Obama to have even a Pyrrhic victory. Sen. Cruz wouldn't be able to filibuster it, but Rep. Boner can -- by simply not allowing it to come up for a vote.

And even if the unfilibustered budget reconciliation bill comes up for a vote in the House, there's still the matter of getting the bigots and terrorists to vote for a bill which doesn't give them 100% of everything they want and gives President Obama more than 0% of what he wants.

/I just love the juxtaposition of the words "President" and "Obama." A nice, permanent reminder to the bigots and terrorists that hate him with every fiber of their being that they lost TWICE to a guy named Hussein whose father couldn't legally drink from the same water fountain as them
2013-09-23 08:07:48 PM
3 votes:
Obama needs to go every night on interviews and just repeat:
"The budget bill, passed by the Republicans in the House, is being filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate.  They're filibustering their own bill."
2013-09-23 08:01:32 PM
3 votes:

Aristocles: You mean how BOB and the dems forced a crummy law down Americans' throats?


So crummy the voters of America voted for Democrats into the White House, Senate, and House in 2012, with the only saving grace for the Republicans being Gerrymandering.
2013-09-23 07:56:03 PM
3 votes:
Remember when the Republicans demanded the Senate pass a budget bill? They said it was SO important to pass a real budget and not pass things via CRs... Then the Senate did and the Republicans refused to have a reconcile committee because they would be forced to compromise and wouldn't be able to hold the US hostage to get their way.

No one is mentioning this is how we got here. If we passed a real budge like the Republicans were demanding for and then refused to do we wouldn't be having this problem now,
2013-09-24 02:49:35 AM
2 votes:
A curious paradox defines the politics of welfare in the United States. On the one hand, we are an extraordinarily generous and forgiving people. In 1998 Americans donated more than $170 billion to charity, and we have proven open to giving just about anyone (even, say, a philandering president) a second chance. Americans are willing, even enthusiastic, supporters of vast social programs aimed at protecting individuals from what Franklin Roosevelt called "the hazards and vicissitudes of life."

On the other hand, Americans are more likely to be poor than citizens of other industrial countries, and American government does less than other advanced nations to shield its citizens from poverty. If we're so generous, just why do Americans hate welfare?

This puzzle is at the heart of Martin Gilens's compelling book, and his answer can be summed up in a word: race. Americans dislike the programs most commonly called "welfare"-- especially Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and its successor, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)--not because they are too individualistic to believe in public social provision or too self-interested to pay for it, but because they associate these programs with African Americans. Gilens, a Yale political scientist, traces this connection in the public mind to the mid- to late 1960s, when urban violence drew the spotlight of the national media to ghetto poverty.
But therein lies another paradox. Never have Americans been as tolerant of racial diversity or as supportive of the rights and aspirations of African Americans as in the past few decades (although there is still a long way to travel on both roads). So how can it be that race remains the principal barrier to more generous and universal social policy?
The book's most original contribution is to demonstrate quite ingeniously the distorting impact of the media's focus on urban poverty. Media images of the poor are disproportionately black. While African Americans make up about 30 percent of the poor, about 60 percent of the poor people shown on network television news and depicted in the major newsweeklies between 1988 and 1992 were black. Similarly, the media portray the black poor in a disproportionately negative light. Every single picture in newsweekly stories about the "underclass"--the ghetto poor--between 1950 and 1992 showed African Americans, Gilens finds. In more sympathetic stories about predicaments such as hunger or medical care among the poor, only about one-fourth of the people pictured were black.
As a result of systematic distortion, Americans consistently overestimate the black proportion of the poor and of welfare recipients. More important, however, these slanted images of black poverty evoke age-old stereotypes about African Americans--that they are lazy, unintelligent, and so forth--labeling them as undeserving recipi-ents of public assistance. The white poor more often are seen as striving and hard working, yet helpless in the face of social and economic forces beyond their control.


http://prospect.org/article/why-americans-hate-welfare
2013-09-23 10:15:59 PM
2 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: I'd love to know how, as a nation, we got to a place where ONE industry has so much clout that the national government is legislating that unimaginable wealth be directed to it by all citizens.
Fark that.


I really hope this entire debate is simply the death throes of the for-profit health insurance industry... so we can move onto single payer like the rest of the civilized world.


Dimensio: His effort is at least better than in SevenizGud's, which is firetruck/potato.


I have  SevenizGud farkied as "Bumper-Sticker Gospel." Can't remember where I came up with it, but it works well.
2013-09-23 09:53:53 PM
2 votes:
It's ironic isn't it, that a junior Senator from Texas, whose claim to be a US citizen is based on hearsay and not official documentation, and whose country of birth does have socialized healthcare for all, is one of the participants in holding the US government hostage?

/don't judge my grammar
//grammar
2013-09-23 09:12:21 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: We want kids with cancer whose parents only have $1,000 in savings to die

WTF are people with only $1K in savings doing having children? Obviously if you can only muster $1K, then you would have to be such a cesspool of shiatty genes that it would be unconscionable to have a child, since it is guaranteed to be a defective.

If you can't show at least $100K in savings and you have a kid, then both the parents and the kid should be shot on the spot on general principle.


100k is far from guaranteed to be enough to deal with cancer. But anyway, there's a reason that Republicans aren't yelling what you posted off the mountaintops, and that's because they don't believe you or are too chickenshiat to admit they do.
2013-09-23 09:08:23 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: Dimensio: You lied. You are a liar.

Nothing says "liar" like posting the HADCRUT data verbatim.


Your data was exposed as being "cherry picked", and the complete data contradicted your implication. You lied. You are a liar.
2013-09-23 09:00:15 PM
2 votes:

Aristocles: theknuckler_33: SevenizGud: LordJiro: So, if someone who can't afford a hospital bill breaks their arm or gets sick, they should either go bankrupt or die, right?

Preferably both.

Hard to believe such a douche-tastic view hasn't caught on.

Oh, but it has... don't the dems and libs want to steal your money when you die? I believe it's called the estate tax. Both the "preferably both" and the dem-lib view want you to die broke.


Poor people don't pay the estate tax.
2013-09-23 08:49:56 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: Dimensio: As you are already known to be a liar (based upon your previous usage of a demonstrably dishonest claim when you tried to deny climate change science), your opinion is of no value.

Yeah, because nothing says "lie" like quoting the data from HADCRUT verbatim.


You deliberately presented cherry-picked data to support a demonstrably dishonest conclusion. Your presentation was a lie, and you are a liar for having presented it. Due to your willingness to lie, your claims lack credibility.
2013-09-23 08:45:58 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: LordJiro: So, if someone who can't afford a hospital bill breaks their arm or gets sick, they should either go bankrupt or die, right?

Preferably both.


As you are already known to be a liar (based upon your previous usage of a demonstrably dishonest claim when you tried to deny climate change science), your opinion is of no value.
2013-09-23 08:42:11 PM
2 votes:

Karac: Who is Bob?


farm4.staticflickr.com
2013-09-23 08:39:50 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.

Just like you don't get a car if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
Just like you don't get food if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.


You do realize that pre-ghosts Ebenezer Scrooge was not supposed to be a role model, right?
2013-09-23 08:26:20 PM
2 votes:
Aristocles: That's because Pelosi told us "We have to pass the bill, so we YOU can find out what's in it," and shortly thereafter proceeded to ram it down our throats.


God, how the current crop makes me wish for the days of old; when Bevets would put in real effort, sourcing and citing cherry-picked quotes; when winterwhile would show up with his half-ounce of artistic, if bad, talent.

The new schmucks can't even figure out to to quote-mine.
2013-09-23 08:13:53 PM
2 votes:

bwilson27: [cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 400x300]

Thank these racist clowns for our current problems.


I prefer to blame the roughly 100,000,000 people who can't be assed to vote and the 22% of those who do vote but intentionally vote to be as destructive as possible purely out of spite.

The only reason those idiots have any sway is because millions sit idle and millions more choose to listen to them.
2013-09-23 08:08:38 PM
2 votes:
cloudfront.mediamatters.org

Thank these racist clowns for our current problems.
2013-09-23 08:07:08 PM
2 votes:
Who is Senator Ted Cruz?
Ted is his nickname.
His real name is Senator Rafael Eduardo Cruz.
Rafael was born in Canada, where he is still a citizen.
His father was a Cuban and a member of the Communist party.
Rafael uses the nickname "Ted" so as not to scar the Texas Tea Party rednecks that voted for him... his voters are afraid of "Illegal Mexicans."
One of Cruz's campaign promises was tighter border security!
So, how do you get "Ted" from Rafael?
His middle name is Eduardo... in English we say Edward.
Remember Senator Edward Kennedy?  The drunk one that ran against Carter and Anderson in the 1980 democratic primary?
Anyway, his nickname was Teddy.
So Rafael Edwardo = Ted.
Study it out!
2013-09-23 08:05:53 PM
2 votes:
Will of the people?

tommytoy.typepad.com

Down with Romneycare! Up with Obamacare!
2013-09-23 07:52:58 PM
2 votes:

Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.


Bob?

i.huffpost.com
"And over here we're going to build a happy little troll..."
2013-09-23 07:47:37 PM
2 votes:
I'm hoping the President ignores their nonsense and orders the Fed to continue to pay their government's debts as required, on time.
2013-09-23 06:56:46 PM
2 votes:

ferretman: Now rules matter to dems?


When didn't the rules matter to the Democratic Party as compared to the Republican Party? I'll take your inevitable lack of response as an admission of the 'bare assertion troll.'
2013-09-23 06:45:54 PM
2 votes:

IP: ferretman: Now rules matter to dems?

wat.


He's a troll. Ignore him.
2013-09-23 05:43:26 PM
2 votes:

abb3w: I suppose it also would technically be possible to avoid if John McCain decides to break Ted Cruz's neck on the floor of the Senate, as that would forcibly punctuate the filibuster. However, that would be a significant breach of the usual Senate decorum.


Just have the old man beat him with a cane. At least there's precedent for that.
2013-09-23 05:26:46 PM
2 votes:
I suppose it also would technically be possible to avoid if John McCain decides to break Ted Cruz's neck on the floor of the Senate, as that would forcibly punctuate the filibuster. However, that would be a significant breach of the usual Senate decorum.
2013-09-24 02:43:20 AM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: From The Woods: Your caricatures generalization of large amounts of people as being unwilling to work, or mentally retarded, stems from the strong current of racism towards impoverished blacks that has been around in the dixiecrat/southern republican area forever.

Yeah, well I'm for telling people of all shades to get a farking job. But way to play the race card. It worked so well for Detroit maybe we should use it nationwide.


Numerically, there are far more whites on welfare than nonwhites. Percentage speaking, the distribution is troubling, but based on volume, this is a white persons system.
2013-09-24 02:41:10 AM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: From The Woods: Your caricatures generalization of large amounts of people as being unwilling to work, or mentally retarded, stems from the strong current of racism towards impoverished blacks that has been around in the dixiecrat/southern republican area forever.

Yeah, well I'm for telling people of all shades to get a farking job. But way to play the race card. It worked so well for Detroit maybe we should use it nationwide.


Where there are jobs to give, there are people that will apply for it. Do you agree?
2013-09-24 01:08:32 AM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: LordJiro: So, if someone who can't afford a hospital bill breaks their arm or gets sick, they should either go bankrupt or die, right?

Preferably both.


I was thinking of defending you against Felgraf's assertion that you are a terrible human being. Then I read this.
2013-09-24 12:24:21 AM
1 votes:
Man I though Aristocles had won another thread with farking BOB, but SevenisGud has gone past Poe's law into straight up cartoonish super villainy...but continues to hook people.

Just truly awful trolling and yet still completely dominating the thread. Either it is the golden age of Fark trolling, or the other people who post here have gotten a lot dumber.
2013-09-24 12:19:56 AM
1 votes:
Workers at DHS have already gotten the email that we'll be furloughed if there isn't a bill passed.  On on hand, I'm thinking "shiat, I won't get paid."  But on the other hand "Well, I'm having wrist surgery anyway, this will save the leave I was going to take."

I wish if they were to shutdown the government, there would be absolutely NO federal services, critical or not.  Every agency should stop providing services, whether funded by appropriations or not.  The ONLY feds that would be working are Congress people and the President, and that's without pay (not that that matters to them anyway.)  Then this crap wouldn't be happening all the damned time.
2013-09-23 11:47:06 PM
1 votes:

Testiclaw: When is the government shutdown scheduled, if it does happen?


Funding for current government functions ends as of October 1. If continued funding is not authorized, the federal government will "shut down" on that date.
2013-09-23 11:43:54 PM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.

Just like you don't get a car if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
Just like you don't get food if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.

I'd love to know how, as a nation, we got to a place where ONE industry has so much clout that the national government is legislating that unimaginable wealth be directed to it by all citizens.
Fark that.


I'm not a fan of the individual mandate specifically because it forces us to support for-profit corporations.  However, it's necessary to make the rest of the law work.

Now, the ACA is overcomplicated, but that's the nature of any bipartisan legislation.  The GOP wanted certain things, the Democrats wanted certain things, so the whole thing is the result of compromise and tit-for-tat.

Even as overcomplicated as it is, and with the messy individual mandate situation, it's a hell of a lot better than what we had before.  If the GOP were to come up with a plan that kept the good parts but made it simpler and didn't put our money directly into the hands of corporations, I'd certainly listen, but they don't have another viable plan, they're just out to get rid of this one.

Obama should have just expanded Medicare for everyone and funded it through tax increases when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress after he took office.  Instead he decided to play the nice guy and actually tried to work with the GOP, who took full advantage of his naiveté at the time.

We should have universal single payer.  If repealing the ACA would get it, I'd be all for it, but it won't, it will just give us our old shiatty system back.
2013-09-23 11:12:15 PM
1 votes:
The exchanges will open October 1, and open enrollment will happen (in the states that are onboard with the exchanges), whether or not there is a shutdown, and whether or not Obamacare is "defunded". Deal with it, teabaggers.
2013-09-23 11:11:26 PM
1 votes:

Karac: badhatharry: I don't have to buy anything I don't want. This idea, it's a very bad idea.

The government does have the power to force you to buy something.  At least, it does assuming you're a free able-bodied white male citizen, in which case you were required to purchase a musket, bayonet, and various other military equipment.  And that law was written by the second session of Congress, and signed by George Washington.  But I'm sure none of them had any inkling of what the Founding Fathers intended for this country.


Psssh, you and your stories.  I doubt these, "founding fathers" of yours have any BIBLICAL evidence of even existing.

I'd continue with the creationist troll but it is late and I am tired.  Pretend it was marvelously funny.

PS I'm generally opposed to being forced to buy something if the government doesn't offer a baseline competitor, i.e. a "public option."  I'm also opposed to buying a gun, but that's just because I live a life that's privileged enough owning one would decrease my overall safety (i.e. "I am more likely to get shot by the gun in an accident than be in a situation where the gun would save me.")  But that's just my life, no bearing on others'.
2013-09-23 11:02:09 PM
1 votes:

clkeagle: Dimensio: His effort is at least better than in SevenizGud's, which is firetruck/potato.

I have  SevenizGud farkied as "Bumper-Sticker Gospel." Can't remember where I came up with it, but it works well.


I just have him as WAAAAAHHHH!!!!!
2013-09-23 10:59:56 PM
1 votes:

mpirooz: The GOP will cave. Only need 2 dozen Rs in the House after the filibuster falls short and the continuing resolution succeeds.

They have the debt ceiling battle to wage still.


That's what Boehner is lining up his ducks for. It's worse.
2013-09-23 10:51:40 PM
1 votes:

Karac: badhatharry: Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.

Really?  You think that in the entire history of America, when weighed against things like the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Indian Removal Act, the Espionage Act, and the Volstead Act - that saying "Hey guys, how about you buy some insurance so you can afford to get sick?  And if you don't want to, that's fine too - we won't force you, but we will dock you tax refund since inevitably the rest of us will pay for some part of your health care."

And those are just the actually bad laws.  I'm sure many a right-wing troll would have a hard time deciding whether the PPACA is worse than the 16th, 17th, 19th or 24th Amendments.


Executive Order #9066 of 1942 was unhelpful and unnecessary.
2013-09-23 10:48:01 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: I don't have to buy anything I don't want. This idea, it's a very bad idea.


The government does have the power to force you to buy something.  At least, it does assuming you're a free able-bodied white male citizen, in which case you were required to purchase a musket, bayonet, and various other military equipment.  And that law was written by the second session of Congress, and signed by George Washington.  But I'm sure none of them had any inkling of what the Founding Fathers intended for this country.
2013-09-23 10:43:50 PM
1 votes:

flondrix: SevenizGud: WTF are people with only $1K in savings doing having children? Obviously if you can only muster $1K, then you would have to be such a cesspool of shiatty genes that it would be unconscionable to have a child, since it is guaranteed to be a defective.

If you can't show at least $100K in savings and you have a kid, then both the parents and the kid should be shot on the spot on general principle.

Remind me again, which is the "Family Values" party?


It's a troll/sarcasm.  Poe's law applied up until the "cesspool of shiatty genes," since that's too scientific and too direct for a righty.  The line would be something like, "if you can only muster $1k then you clearly aren't spending enough time working for a living and shouldn't be wasting time and money sleeping around in the first place."

Of course these are the same people opposed to sex education and birth control, because while they are not-so-secretly eugenicists who believe in the divine right of kingssocial darwinism their answer to the problem of too many mouths to feed is to demand that for the first time in history EVER people just stop having sex.
2013-09-23 10:36:29 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: theknuckler_33: badhatharry: theknuckler_33: Did any of them involve attempting to re-legislate already passed law?

Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.

Oh. You'd think it's repeal would be a snap then.

You'd think so. In a sane world.


Instead of thinking that world is crazy, did you ever entertain the thought that maybe the law isn't anywhere near as bad as you've been led to believe?
2013-09-23 10:06:45 PM
1 votes:
So, no cloture. Make him filibuster for the next five days. I doubt he'll last 10 hours, but let's take lots of pictures to send to the troops with the caption, "This guy and his party don't want you to have a paycheck."
2013-09-23 10:04:44 PM
1 votes:

flondrix: Doesn't the Senate have a procedure for expelling a member?  They have a perfect excuse:  Cruz is a Canadian citizen.


Unfortunately dual citizenship doesn't bar membership in Congress or else Michelle Bachman would have been bounced long ago.
2013-09-23 10:02:27 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: badhatharry: theknuckler_33: badhatharry: This is not a repeat of:

September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 daysSeptember 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)November 13  to November 19, 1995 (5 days)December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)

Did any of them involve attempting to re-legislate already passed law?

Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.

I do hope you're being sarcastic.


In think he meant "we have never had a GOP house majority this retarded."
2013-09-23 10:01:10 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: theknuckler_33: badhatharry: This is not a repeat of:

September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 daysSeptember 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)November 13  to November 19, 1995 (5 days)December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)

Did any of them involve attempting to re-legislate already passed law?

Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.


I do hope you're being sarcastic.
2013-09-23 10:00:41 PM
1 votes:

badhatharry: theknuckler_33: badhatharry: This is not a repeat of:

September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 daysSeptember 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)November 13  to November 19, 1995 (5 days)December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)

Did any of them involve attempting to re-legislate already passed law?

Not sure, but we've never had a law this bad before.


See, you're cranky because you're up past your bedtime. You can have two cookies and a glass of milk and then it's straight off to bed with you.
2013-09-23 09:57:33 PM
1 votes:

powhound: It's ironic isn't it, that a junior Senator from Texas, whose claim to be a US citizen is based on hearsay and not official documentation, and whose country of birth does have socialized healthcare for all, is one of the participants in holding the US government hostage?

/don't judge my grammar
//grammar


Senator Rafael Cruz, a Cuban with Canadian citizenship who prefers to be called Ted in honor of the late Ted Kennedy, is a douche.
2013-09-23 09:43:36 PM
1 votes:

raerae1980: Chak: It's awesome sitting back and watching Aristocles aka Skinnyhead getting fact raped on links he uses to try and support his derp.

I don't think they are the same.  SH was bearable to read but this new guy....nope.  BORING.  I mean, how many times is he gonna type "read a book".   It's elementary.


I think I just figured out who Aristocles is...
2013-09-23 09:40:39 PM
1 votes:
This is not a repeat of:

September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 daysSeptember 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)November 13  to November 19, 1995 (5 days)December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)
2013-09-23 09:37:11 PM
1 votes:
So, do polls showing dissatisfaction with Obamacare take into account that some dissatisfied  people want to repeal and replace Obamacare with something even more socialist, like, single-payer?  And that these more socialist people would not support Republicans plans to throw us back to the wolves? This might explain why there does not seem to be much support for defunding Obamacare.
2013-09-23 09:28:24 PM
1 votes:

max_pooper: Dimensio: Lionel Mandrake: Obamacare is pretty popular with people who know what it accomplishes.

[i159.photobucket.com image 709x525]

But a lot of idiots get their infromation from FOX...

That poll is clearly biased; it fails entirely to assess public opinion of death panels.

Point of clarification: are you talking about government death panels or private insurance actuarial death panels?


Which one does Obamacare mandate as a measure to euthanize my grandparents?
2013-09-23 09:21:15 PM
1 votes:

Obamacare is pretty popular with people who know what it accomplishes.



i159.photobucket.com

But a lot of idiots get their infromation from FOX...
2013-09-23 09:18:28 PM
1 votes:
 

Aristocles: Corvus: Remember when the Republicans demanded the Senate pass a budget bill? They said it was SO important to pass a real budget and not pass things via CRs... Then the Senate did and the Republicans refused to have a reconcile committee because they would be forced to compromise and wouldn't be able to hold the US hostage to get their way.

No one is mentioning this is how we got here. If we passed a real budge like the Republicans were demanding for and then refused to do we wouldn't be having this problem now,

You mean how BOB and the dems forced a crummy law down Americans' throats?


I think I'm going to write a greasemonkey script that replaces "Bob" in all of your posts with "that attractive and successful african american I hate for being black".  It should bump up the sincerity level of your posts immeasurably.

/Anyone else want in on this?
2013-09-23 09:15:52 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: vernonFL: Keep laughing, Libs.

We'll see if you are still laughing in 2014 when the Republican win big majorities in the House and Senate, and then in 2016 when Marco Rubio wins the Presidential election in a landslide. The first bill he'll propose is the repeal of Obamacare.

We'll see who is laughing then.

-50/10 (yes. So bad that you OWE points)


His effort is at least better than in SevenizGud's, which is firetruck/potato.
2013-09-23 09:12:54 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: We want kids with cancer whose parents only have $1,000 in savings to die

WTF are people with only $1K in savings doing having children? Obviously if you can only muster $1K, then you would have to be such a cesspool of shiatty genes that it would be unconscionable to have a child, since it is guaranteed to be a defective.

If you can't show at least $100K in savings and you have a kid, then both the parents and the kid should be shot on the spot on general principle.


Remember, folks!

Moderators have ruled that this is just blatant differencing of opinion!  It can be in no way considered trolling, as fark doesn't allow trolling.

Isn't it nice to be on a website which doesn't restrict blatant and open differencing of opinion?
2013-09-23 09:12:46 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Keep laughing, Libs.

We'll see if you are still laughing in 2014 when the Republican win big majorities in the House and Senate, and then in 2016 when Marco Rubio wins the Presidential election in a landslide. The first bill he'll propose is the repeal of Obamacare.

We'll see who is laughing then.


-50/10 (yes. So bad that you OWE points)
2013-09-23 09:06:25 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: We want kids with cancer whose parents only have $1,000 in savings to die

WTF are people with only $1K in savings doing having children? Obviously if you can only muster $1K, then you would have to be such a cesspool of shiatty genes that it would be unconscionable to have a child, since it is guaranteed to be a defective.

If you can't show at least $100K in savings and you have a kid, then both the parents and the kid should be shot on the spot on general principle.


Sounds like a final solution.
2013-09-23 09:04:38 PM
1 votes:
It's awesome sitting back and watching Aristocles aka Skinnyhead getting fact raped on links he uses to try and support his derp.
2013-09-23 09:01:07 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Oh, but it has... don't the dems and libs want to steal your money when you die?


Nope, no one wants to steal anyone's money when they die.  Democrats do, to be sure, want to make sure that people who get millions of dollars of money they didn't earn pay fair taxes on it.
2013-09-23 09:00:13 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, die quickly.


Clarified.
2013-09-23 08:59:06 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: 12349876: SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.

Just like you don't get a car if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
Just like you don't get food if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.

Then tell your Republican buddies to tell the world that they want poor kids with cancer to die without treatment.  YELL IT LOUD IT CLEAR!  Send it into every mailbox, every inbox, every telephone line, every TV channel, every website.  We want poor kids with cancer to die!

Why are libs so selfish? Repubs and cons... even Teabaggers... believe in charity. Only in a world envisioned by a dem or a lib would anyone want kids to die.


You're right.  Health care in the 1800s was fantastic as an all charity enterprise.
2013-09-23 08:57:48 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: You deliberately presented cherry-picked data to support a demonstrably dishonest conclusion


I showed the last 15 years to show no warming in the last 15 years, which, by the way, was already admitted by Von Storch and Phil Jones and every climatologist on the planet. There has been no warming in 15 years, so tough shiat, Chicken Little. Cry about it.
2013-09-23 08:52:01 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: 12349876: SevenizGud: PanicMan: And what happens if i am unwilling or unable to pay for my health care?

Then, TA-DA!, you don't get health care.

Just like you don't get a car if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.
Just like you don't get food if you are unwilling or unable to pay for it.

Then tell your Republican buddies to tell the world that they want poor kids with cancer to die without treatment.  YELL IT LOUD IT CLEAR!  Send it into every mailbox, every inbox, every telephone line, every TV channel, every website.  We want poor kids with cancer to die!

Why are libs so selfish? Repubs and cons... even Teabaggers... believe in charity. Only in a world envisioned by a dem or a lib would anyone want kids to die.


Or in the actual real world where real life Republicans in the audience at a GOP primary debate erupted in a round of applause when Ron Paul said a person who could not afford health insurance should be left to die.
2013-09-23 08:50:47 PM
1 votes:
When did the popularity of a law become a meaningful criticism? ACA was passed by both Houses, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. It doesn't get more legitimate than that.
2013-09-23 08:47:42 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Dimensio: SevenisGud is also saying that if a single mother (due to the death of her spouse) of two children, who works two jobs to provide for her family, is suddenly struck by a hit-and-run driver and suffers a broken leg and rendered unable to work, that she should suffer bankruptcy and the loss of her employment (due to her inability to work), and that she and her children should die destitute.

She can put the kids up for adoption, or make them a ward of the state.


Making the children wards of the state would place a financial burden upon the state. Allowing the children to die is a more financially viable option.
2013-09-23 08:47:38 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: falcon176: is it lib in here or is it just everybody

It ain't everyone... I'm smackin down Farklib propagand left an right, but I'll save some for you should you care to partake.


i.imgur.com
2013-09-23 08:46:27 PM
1 votes:

TheWhoppah: His real name is Senator Rafael Eduardo Cruz.
Rafael was born in Canada, where he is still a citizen.
His father was a Cuban and a member of the Communist party.
Rafael uses the nickname "Ted" so as not to scar the Texas Tea Party rednecks that voted for him... his voters are afraid of "Illegal Mexicans."


Didn't his mother fail to meet the residency requirements to grant him US citizenship? Shouldn't he be required to become an American Citizen?
2013-09-23 08:46:25 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: 12349876: Otherwise, it's better for everyone to have skin in the game taking care of each other.

Yeah, I'm for utopia too.

Meanwhile, in the real world....


In the real world of Europe and Costa Rica and Israel and Japan and Canada etc. that's how it works.
2013-09-23 08:43:26 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.

Wrong again. Polls show American do not want Obamacare defunded.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976

herpity dooo!

Polls show Americans do not want Obamacare defunded if it means a government shut down.

There'd be no government shut down if BOB and the dems worked in good faith.

Who is Bob?

I guess you didn't read the article did you? It says aajoorty of the American public do not want Obamacre defunded. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

The percent of Americans who do not want Obamacare defunds goes from a majority to a bigger majority if it means a government shutdown.

Can you be more wrong on this issue?

On the law itself, moreover, 52 percent are opposed, vs. 42 percent in support; in 16 ABC/Post polls since August 2009, it's never received majority support. (pdf)

Read a book sometime.

So you didn't read the poll I posted that show a majority of Americans do not want Obamacare defunded?

There are lots of reasons to oppose the bill that don't fit into your insistance that it needs to be defunded. The American people have spoken and they said, "do not defund Obamacare."

I said that the majority of people don't want Obamacare, period. I didn't say anything about "defunding," that's your straw man.

So do you stand with the American public when they say, "do not defund Obamacare"?

You seem to believe that the will of the American public is important. Should Republicans go against the will of the American public and fight to defund of Obamacare or should Republicans respect the will of the American public and drop this defunding non-sense?

You cite one poll. While there are numerous polls showing that the majority of AMericans despise Obamacare. I stand with those who want to repeal and replace.

Maybe if you had more data on your side, I'd agree. But the poll sets up a false dichotomy which puts defunding in a negative light from the get go. In other words, your poll is biased.


How many of your polls show support for defunding Obamacare?

Do you support the will of the American public or do you support defunding Obamacare?
2013-09-23 08:39:59 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Karac: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.

Wrong again. Polls show American do not want Obamacare defunded.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976

herpity dooo!

Polls show Americans do not want Obamacare defunded if it means a government shut down.

There'd be no government shut down if BOB and the dems worked in good faith.

Who is Bob?

I guess you didn't read the article did you? It says aajoorty of the American public do not want Obamacre defunded. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

The percent of Americans who do not want Obamacare defunds goes from a majority to a bigger majority if it means a government shutdown.

Can you be more wrong on this issue?

On the law itself, moreover, 52 percent are opposed, vs. 42 percent in support; in 16 ABC/Post polls since August 2009, it's never received majority support. (pdf)

Read a book sometime.

So you didn't read the poll I posted that show a majority of Americans do not want Obamacare defunded?

There are lots of reasons to oppose the bill that don't fit into your insistance that it needs to be defunded. The American people have spoken and they said, "do not defund Obamacare."

I said that the majority of people don't want Obamacare, period. I didn't say anything a ...

The part I bold was in the article that the Farklib cited. The bolded part was what the Farklib "conveniently" left out when citing the link.

Brush up on your critical reading.


How do you know? You didn't even read the link that showed a majority of American are against defunding Obamacare, with or without a shutdown. When they asked about a shutdown, the majority of Americans against defunding Obamacare went even higher.

Do support defunding Obamacare even if it means going against the will of the American people?
2013-09-23 08:39:59 PM
1 votes:
If our nation ends up defaulting because of one single Teabagger, then Cruz and his Dad may as well try to sneak BACK into Cuba.
2013-09-23 08:33:07 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: LordJiro: Yes, full steam ahead. Tank the economy because the Teabaggers can't stand the thought of poor people getting healthcare.

Uhm, I was thinking more along the lines of I'll pay for my healthcare and you pay for yours, and fark you if you think I should be responsible for your oreo-guzzling ass.

And it will be better for the economy, not worse.


So, if someone who can't afford a hospital bill breaks their arm or gets sick, they should either go bankrupt or die, right?
2013-09-23 08:30:27 PM
1 votes:
Hmm. He's going to screw over the GOP in the races for seats in swing states for 2014.
2013-09-23 08:29:18 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.

Wrong again. Polls show American do not want Obamacare defunded.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976

herpity dooo!

Polls show Americans do not want Obamacare defunded if it means a government shut down.

There'd be no government shut down if BOB and the dems worked in good faith.

Who is Bob?

I guess you didn't read the article did you? It says aajoorty of the American public do not want Obamacre defunded. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

The percent of Americans who do not want Obamacare defunds goes from a majority to a bigger majority if it means a government shutdown.

Can you be more wrong on this issue?

On the law itself, moreover, 52 percent are opposed, vs. 42 percent in support; in 16 ABC/Post polls since August 2009, it's never received majority support. (pdf)

Read a book sometime.

So you didn't read the poll I posted that show a majority of Americans do not want Obamacare defunded?

There are lots of reasons to oppose the bill that don't fit into your insistance that it needs to be defunded. The American people have spoken and they said, "do not defund Obamacare."

I said that the majority of people don't want Obamacare, period. I didn't say anything about "defunding," that's your straw man.


So do you stand with the American public when they say, "do not defund Obamacare"?

You seem to believe that the will of the American public is important. Should Republicans go against the will of the American public and fight to defund of Obamacare or should Republicans respect the will of the American public and drop this defunding non-sense?
2013-09-23 08:25:28 PM
1 votes:

Elfich: vernonFL: Keep laughing, Libs.

We'll see if you are still laughing in 2014 when the Republican win big majorities in the House and Senate, and then in 2016 when Marco Rubio wins the Presidential election in a landslide. The first bill he'll propose is the repeal of Obamacare.

We'll see who is laughing then.

Try harder.


Coming up with batshiat crazy teabagger shiat is hard when you aren't a batshiat crazy teabagger

parkyplace.files.wordpress.com
2013-09-23 08:16:42 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Good.

Of course what will happen is what ALWAYS happens in cases like these...the Democrats will make the GOP its biatch, and the GOP will cave.

Have a farking spine this time GOP. Stick with it.


Yes, full steam ahead. Tank the economy because the Teabaggers can't stand the thought of poor people getting healthcare.
2013-09-23 08:15:20 PM
1 votes:

Isitoveryet: Aristocles: You mean how BOB and the dems forced a crummy law down Americans' throats?

is this what Fox News & Conservatives talk jockeys are still saying?


Ignore lists work so much better yo

I mean, interesting trolls are one thing. But this ass in a hat just spams the same shiat over and over. If fark had moderation he wouldn't even exist anymore.
 

2013-09-23 08:13:58 PM
1 votes:

Markoff_Cheney: bulldg4life: Looking at the politics tab for today is just one dumbass piece of idiocy after another.

this is different from any other day how?
it seems to be a constant stream of shiat, constantly flooding and never receding.
[i.chzbgr.com image 400x400]


River of shiat
River of shiat
Flow on, flow on, river of shiat
Right from my toes
On up to my nose
Flow on, flow on, river of shiat
I've been swimming
In this river of shiat
More than 20 years
And I'm getting tired of it
Don't like swimming
Hope it'll run dry
Got to go on swimming
Cause I don't want to die
Spoken:
Oh I can feel another 1000 years
Of the flapjacks of Sorrow! Unless!
Unless we make 2000 A.D.! 2000 A.D.
Our glorious deadline
A glorious deadline to make the
World a better place!
Or else the flapjacks of sorrow
Are going to slide down our throats
Slide down our throats
For another millennium
Of pain and war and oppression
And all our children's children's children's
Children's children children
Shall have to wade and to swim
In the same grim river
In which we now swim
Sing along with us
Sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing!
-Tuli Kupfenberger
2013-09-23 08:12:07 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: max_pooper: Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.

Wrong again. Polls show American do not want Obamacare defunded.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976

herpity dooo!

Polls show Americans do not want Obamacare defunded if it means a government shut down.

There'd be no government shut down if BOB and the dems worked in good faith.


Who is Bob?

I guess you didn't read the article did you? It says aajoorty of the American public do not want Obamacre defunded. Period. End of story. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

The percent of Americans who do not want Obamacare defunds goes from a majority to a bigger majority if it means a government shutdown.

Can you be more wrong on this issue?
2013-09-23 08:09:51 PM
1 votes:

bulldg4life: Looking at the politics tab for today is just one dumbass piece of idiocy after another.


this is different from any other day how?
it seems to be a constant stream of shiat, constantly flooding and never receding.
i.chzbgr.com
2013-09-23 08:09:51 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: Corvus: Remember when the Republicans demanded the Senate pass a budget bill? They said it was SO important to pass a real budget and not pass things via CRs... Then the Senate did and the Republicans refused to have a reconcile committee because they would be forced to compromise and wouldn't be able to hold the US hostage to get their way.

No one is mentioning this is how we got here. If we passed a real budge like the Republicans were demanding for and then refused to do we wouldn't be having this problem now,

You mean how BOB and the dems forced a crummy law down Americans' throats?


It's true, your honor.
2013-09-23 08:09:29 PM
1 votes:
The Republicans have control of one half of the legislative branch. They deserve to get everything they ask for. This is the senate and Obama's fault for not caving to their demands.
2013-09-23 08:07:39 PM
1 votes:
Fark it - make the turdbrain actually stand up and start talking.  Keep him there until he falls over.  No relief.  No breaks.  If he stops, he's done.
2013-09-23 08:06:52 PM
1 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Personally, I hope the President just ignores this whole process and tells the Treasury and the Fed to continue as normal under the 14th Amendment. Dare them to impeach him (even though blatantly seizing the power of the purse from the legislative branch should be an impeachable offense under normal circumstances).


I hate the grab of power by the Executive branch over the last 30 years. I just wish there was an alternative.
2013-09-23 08:06:14 PM
1 votes:
Looking at the politics tab for today is just one dumbass piece of idiocy after another.
2013-09-23 08:05:08 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.


The polls where they've asked people how they feel about the policies in the bill without calling it 'Obamacare' show overwhelming support.  There's just been too much FUD out there and many people don't realize how it works.

Of course the individual mandate isn't popular, but the whole thing falls apart without it.  I'm not a huge fan of the individual mandate either, but that's due to the lack of a public option, if that existed so I could pay for government issued health care instead of being forced to pay a private company, I'd be all for it.
2013-09-23 08:04:35 PM
1 votes:
Personally, I hope the President just ignores this whole process and tells the Treasury and the Fed to continue as normal under the 14th Amendment. Dare them to impeach him (even though blatantly seizing the power of the purse from the legislative branch should be an impeachable offense under normal circumstances).
2013-09-23 08:01:10 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.


America is so against it, that we turned it down TWICE in a national election for the Leader of the nation.
Oh Wait.

We didn't, and your just telling more lies.

Again.

Go play with your B.O.B. Troll.
2013-09-23 07:59:51 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: TuteTibiImperes: Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.

Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.

Polls show that most Americans don't want Obamacare.

/sure, there are some items in the legislation that we like, but as a whole, including the mandate, we hate it.


Wrong again. Polls show American do not want Obamacare defunded.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101053976
2013-09-23 07:58:24 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: What I think is getting lost in the coverage is that this bill supposedly does a lot of other bullshiat things in addition to defunding Obamacare.  Googling around all I can find are the Obamacare mentions, but doesn't it also cut funding for other important programs?  Anyone have a good source?


Yes, it'll have a bunch of BS in it, like hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars being spent on tanks and planes the Pentagon neither needs nor wants while cutting spending on less important things like "education" and "infrastructure maintenance." Thing is, that's about as newsworthy and unexpected as the sun rising in the east, which is probably why you can't find too much information about the House's budget bill beyond the "prevent that uppity Chicago thug from winning at all costs, but we're totally not racist because we didn't use the N word to refer to the Usurper In Chief" part.

As far as I know, it's just an ordinary and unremarkable annual budget bill, except for the part that completely defunds Obamacare. And because of that last bit, the GOP have taken an otherwise routine bit of basic nation-state operations and turned it into the logical conclusion of the escalation of poison pill politics.

MisterTweak: mediablitz: The Ivy-league educated Canadian born Cuban lawyer whose father was a foreign-born commie is going to become a Tea Party folk hero...

ftfy.


Fixed further.
2013-09-23 07:57:41 PM
1 votes:
So Republicans are both FOR and AGAINST the same CR bill. Refused to go to reconciliation on the Budget bill with the Senate and we are supposed to try to believe it's Obama's fault?


Riiiiiight!
2013-09-23 07:55:04 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: What I think is getting lost in the coverage is that this bill supposedly does a lot of other bullshiat things in addition to defunding Obamacare.  Googling around all I can find are the Obamacare mentions, but doesn't it also cut funding for other important programs?  Anyone have a good source?


Most of the nonsense is being attached to the debt limit hike, I believe. There's a grab-bag of things that they're trying to get through as part of that fight, including immediately approval of the XL pipeline, gutting funding for the CFRB, dismantling various financial regulations, blocking the EPA's new rules and opening federal lands to energy production.
2013-09-23 07:55:03 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: BOB


I think at this point your goal is to derail all political threads into a bunch of posts of well known BOBs.
2013-09-23 07:54:07 PM
1 votes:

Aristocles: It would also be avoidable if the dems and BOB stood with the Republicans on this one and acted in the interests of, and in accordance with the will of, the people.

Hint: Cruz isn't doing this because he supports Obamacare.


Alternatively, the House could behave and just pass what Obama and the Senate tell them to, instead of going against the will of the people again and again trying to repeal the ACA, especially since the majority of the country supports the ACA and wants to see it put into action.
2013-09-23 07:47:20 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Keep laughing, Libs.

We'll see if you are still laughing in 2014 when the Republican win big majorities in the House and Senate, and then in 2016 when Marco Rubio wins the Presidential election in a landslide. The first bill he'll propose is the repeal of Obamacare.

We'll see who is laughing then.


Fear, uncertainty, doubt.
2013-09-23 05:45:41 PM
1 votes:

Car_Ramrod: abb3w: I suppose it also would technically be possible to avoid if John McCain decides to break Ted Cruz's neck on the floor of the Senate, as that would forcibly punctuate the filibuster. However, that would be a significant breach of the usual Senate decorum.

Just have the old man beat him with a cane. At least there's precedent for that.


And getting away with it too
2013-09-23 05:25:40 PM
1 votes:

MisterTweak: mediablitz: The Ivy-league educated Canadian born Cuban lawyer is going to become a Tea Party folk hero...

ftfy.


Damn elitist foreigner...
2013-09-23 05:23:51 PM
1 votes:
This is either going to happen or it will not. Worrying about it won't do me much good.
2013-09-23 05:08:23 PM
1 votes:

ferretman: Now rules matter to dems?


*pats ferretman on the head*
2013-09-23 05:04:27 PM
1 votes:

ferretman: Now rules matter to dems?


lolwut
2013-09-23 05:01:41 PM
1 votes:
What I think is getting lost in the coverage is that this bill supposedly does a lot of other bullshiat things in addition to defunding Obamacare.  Googling around all I can find are the Obamacare mentions, but doesn't it also cut funding for other important programs?  Anyone have a good source?
2013-09-23 04:34:09 PM
1 votes:
DOOOOO EEEEEET!

/what could possibly go wrong?
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report