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)   While defunding Obamacare is getting all the press, the House GOP bill to raise the debt ceiling is chock full o' crazy: means testing medicare, gutting EPA rules, repealing Dodd-Frank, building Keystone XL, and of course, Tax cuts   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 134
    More: Asinine, House GOP, GOP, obamacare, Medicare, EPA, tax cuts, EPA rules, tax reform  
•       •       •

1469 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2013 at 1:31 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 02:55:34 PM
I still don't think Obama will allow a default. Too much damage for no reason.
 
2013-09-24 02:56:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Reality would beg to differ:
rantpant.com
 
2013-09-24 03:00:02 PM

Nadie_AZ: You want to play 'both sides are bad' game


No. It's "neither side is good and neither side is evil and neither side is on your side" or else "both sides are the same".  Binary politico teamthink is a sign of a weak intellect. The question is and should always be "Is THIS good policy?", not "Is THIS good for the party?".

Nadie_AZ:  I might be bored as I'm sure I'll be broadsided with some inane detail.

It won't be from me. That whole line of hypothetical "b-b-b-but Bush!" reasoning is dumb and I'm not even getting started in it.

Thank you. Your response answered my question, and I'll let you go on your way. Have a nice afternoon.
 
2013-09-24 03:03:38 PM

vernonFL: I hope they remembered to defund ACORN and Planned Parenthood.


Don't forget NPR!
 
2013-09-24 03:04:24 PM

Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:


Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?
 
2013-09-24 03:08:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:

Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?


There really wasn't a rule change that allowed for a procedural filibuster. There's nothing stopping Harry Reid from forcing people who do not want to vote for cloture from actually talking. It's just that doing so would completely shut down the Senate because a group of 40 people can maintain a talking filibuster on a bill indefinitely while forcing 50 people who do want to invoke cloture to stay in the chamber perpetually.
 
2013-09-24 03:17:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Reality would beg to differ:

Interesting, but your chart isn't complete. Show me on the chart how it accounts for the difference between the traditional physical filibuster, and the 'procedural' filibuster. Also, remind me again who changed the rules to allow for a procedural filibuster? Please squint and look at when that spike actually started. And lastly, I notice that there is no accounting for which parties have contributed the most. I think that would be interesting to see, don't you?


Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:
i284.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-24 03:24:55 PM

Magorn: Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:


(Nice big red projected on the chart.)

I get it. Republicans are asshole poopyheads.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked about.
 
2013-09-24 03:28:12 PM
 
2013-09-24 03:33:30 PM
m.static.newsvine.com
 
2013-09-24 03:34:24 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: Let me make it more clear for you: In 2007 the Democrats gained control of the senate and the Republicans became the minority party, the one that needs to use the Filibuster, at which point his happened:

(Nice big red projected on the chart.)

I get it. Republicans are asshole poopyheads.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked about.


It ended up relatively accurate; the final count was 112 cloture votes, or 184% of the previous record set by the 107th Congress that was an even 50-50 split between the parties.
 
2013-09-24 03:36:37 PM

Lando Lincoln: The oil companies currently transfer oil from Canada to Missouri and Illinois for processing, via the Keystone pipeline. Much of that processed oil is sold here in the United States.

The oil companies really would like to transfer oil from Canada to Texas, via the Keystone XL pipeline, where it could be processed and put on boats, so it could be sold to overseas markets.

Less Canadian oil here = more domestic supplies used here.


You're missing that piping oil is cheaper than transporting it to the Gulf Coast by rail or truck, and those Gulf Coast refineries that would service KeystoneXL's terminus are situated comfortably in TFZ's meaning tax- and duty-free transportation, refining, and shipping.
 
2013-09-24 03:39:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Just yesterday I called you a habitual liar.  After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.

Good grief.
 
2013-09-24 03:41:57 PM

Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate


Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."
 
2013-09-24 03:42:51 PM

Tor_Eckman: After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.


Oh dear. A Fark slapfighter doesn't like me. Whatever shall I do?
 
2013-09-24 03:51:42 PM
Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?
 
2013-09-24 03:52:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Tor_Eckman: After this whopper, you've officially been promoted to pathological.

Oh dear. A Fark slapfighter doesn't like me. Whatever shall I do?


Slapfighter?  Oh, my.  Get me my fainting couch!

The republicans were the minority party in the last part of Bush's presidency.  And not only did they set new records for obstructionism (since broken by them), but Bush used his veto crayon 10 times in those last two years.

How this makes the Dems (the majority party mind you) during that time frame as obstructionist as the current minority party I have no idea.  Unless, of course, you are a pathological liar.
 
2013-09-24 03:55:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."


It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train. How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?
 
2013-09-24 03:58:03 PM

Zafler: Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?


Nope, I quit trying to deal with him at all and stuffed him headfirst in the beehive. With the bees.
 
2013-09-24 04:02:19 PM

Kittypie070: Zafler: Has Bojangles ever posted in a thread and been relatively accurate about anything?

Nope, I quit trying to deal with him at all and stuffed him headfirst in the beehive. With the bees.


Who then told him to buzz off.
 
2013-09-24 04:10:10 PM

Weaver95: The GOP is really gonna do it, aren't they? They'll destroy themselves in a vain attempt to defund obamacare and fail miserably. I...don't know what to say about that.


Not destroy themselves, create a bigger mess to blame on the Democrats.  It's always worked for them before.  Everything was Clinton's fault until 2008, when everything became Obama's fault (before he was even elected), despite there having been a chunk of time when the GOP held both houses of congress and the presidency and could do anything it wanted.

Anyone too smart to fall for that is already voting Democrat anyway (and probably uses birth control), so no loss to the GOP there.
 
2013-09-24 04:47:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."


You miss Beth's point.  He's stating that cloture numbers alone can't be used to estimate filibusters because filibusters don't need to be invoked in advance and as such you can assume that the filibuster is always potentially in play.  When any Senator refuses unanimous consent, the proper procedural step is to invoke cloture.
 
2013-09-24 05:34:00 PM
How can we even think of passing a budget until we get to the bottom of Benghazigate..

We need more hearings
 
2013-09-24 05:36:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


So...vote republican?

Find me the time when dems seriously threatened tonraise the debt ceiling, coming so close on one of their bluffs that the US credit rating was downgraded, with said behavior specifically cited as the specific cause for the downgrade.

/but, but Pelosi?
 
2013-09-24 05:45:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Nadie_AZ: I don't recall the Democrats pursuing these avenues while George W Bush was in office.

Really? You should have been paying closer attention in the last part of Bush's presidency when the Dems were able to be the obstructionists. Repubs today are using many of the plays that Pelosi and crew mastered under GW.


Yeah, it's too bad GWB didn't get whatever he wanted. The Patriot act seemed nice. Let's not forget No Child Left Behind, that would have really helped out education in this country. And poor big pharma really could have used that medicare part D thingy those mean ol dems obstructed.

/sarcasm mode off

When are you clowns going to give up all variations of both sides are bad?
 
2013-09-24 08:04:07 PM
If we just used a Consensus system, we could have split a long time ago.  Crazyland can go that way, everyone else can go the other way, everybody's happy.
 
2013-09-24 08:11:24 PM

dragonfire77: Rootus: why would you if you didn't have to?

My ex does...(not medicare, but our state's equivalent) because the benefits are better than what she can get in the private sector at her pay level.


Ive been there too. HSAs/high copay works fine for the boss, not at all for the low end.

/6 employees in the company
//family
///never work for family
 
2013-09-24 09:19:57 PM
ambivalence:  I keep hearing how the GOP will blame Obama and democrats on whatever backlash comes out of a shutdown/default scenario, and it's true. But I think those same people fail to realize that the public isn't as willing to buy it as they have in the past. The GOP have used that tactic way too many times in the last decade and people, even loyal republicans, are catching on that the GOP is full of shiat.
==============================

I'm not so sure that the american public isn't still completely idiotic.  The GOP may be crazy and psychotic but somehow they always know exactly what strings to pull to not get farked over.

Otherwise, they'd have been voted out a long time ago (aside from the fact the dems are too pathetic to take advantage)
 
2013-09-24 11:40:26 PM

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: It ended up relatively accurate

Again, not arguing that the GOP are not poopyheads. I am pointing out that the mechanism by which this is being done is a good example of being hoist on your own petard.

Also: "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment."

It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train. How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?


You're falling into trollboys logical fallicy.

In 2007-2008, Republicans weren't fillibustering bills like they are now to keep the president from getting a victory.  The Democrats had House and Senate.  The Republcians were fillibustering to keep the Democratic House and Senate from having any bills reach the pres, so the pres wouldn't have to get bad press by vetoing them.
 
2013-09-25 12:45:20 AM
So people think the Senate will just take out the Obamacare stuff and call it a day? Um, no?
 
2013-09-25 01:18:04 AM
Let me see if I've got this right: their trade-off for preventing a default - where one can't pay one's bills - is to reduce revenue? I'm not saying we don't have difficult problems to solve, but who the farking fark keeps electing these clowns?

If you could pinpoint a single moment when we lost any hope of fiscal sanity, it was July 2001 when we blew any chance of wisely using the projected surplus by issuing "tax rebates" which the Treasury paid for by borrowing $50+ billion in August.
 
2013-09-25 12:30:44 PM

Serious Black: It's true, but it does suggest there are problems with the polarization that otherwise uncontroversial votes are being held up by people who deny unanimous consent just to slow down the legislative train.

How many times have executive and judicial nominees been confirmed by virtually unanimous votes after somebody forced a floor debate on their qualifications?

(Satanic_Hamster: The Republcians were fillibustering to keep the Democratic House and Senate from having any bills reach the pres, so the pres wouldn't have to get bad press by vetoing them.)

Serious: I don't know off the top of my head, but I would steer clear of partisan blocked nominations as an example for "OMG, republitards are simply the worst!". After all, our current VP pretty much pioneered partisan obstruction for judicial nominees, and the democrats have a long history of same. Note that I said that Republicans are using tools developed by Democrats. I am not debating who is "worse".

We can go round and round about who doing worse more often, and as I said before, I'm not disputing that the current teabagger flavored congress is not worse than recent congresses, or that this is not a hyper-partisan and toxic environment. I completely agree that binary politico thinking is corroding our democracy and I say so in nearly every thread.

But this reflexive "Someone said something bad about my team, so I must say that their team is worse!" is NOT a counter, it is a continuation of the problem. The teabaggers are a reactionary group, and they are reacting against Pelosi and Reid's steamroller approach of "we got the votes, so suck it" approach even before Obama was nominated. They are reacting against massive expansion of government encroachment and spending, including under GW - remember that many teabaggers hate Georgie too and consider him to be "no true Scotsman". They may be wrong and blind zealots, but they do not exist in a vacuum. And Obama's strategy of derision, ridicule and refusal to accommodate, while understandable, is unproductive.

This isn't "BSABVR". This is "neither side is good and neither side is evil and neither side is on your side" or else "both sides are the same".  Binary politico teamthink is a sign of a weak intellect. The question is and should always be "Is THIS good policy?", not "Is THIS good for the party?".

So let's just skip past all the "which side is worse" nonsense. Many Farkers mistakenly assume I am a Republican, so here we go: "I AGREE that the teabaggers and right winger Republicans are being divisively partisan and making it worse ."

Now how many "left" Farkers can join me by saying "I AGREE that progressives and Democrats are being divisively partisan and making it worse."

Anyone?
 
2013-09-25 01:00:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: So let's just skip past all the "which side is worse" nonsense. Many Farkers mistakenly assume I am a Republican, so here we go: "I AGREE that the teabaggers and right winger Republicans are being divisively partisan and making it worse ."

Now how many "left" Farkers can join me by saying "I AGREE that progressives and Democrats are being divisively partisan and making it worse."

Anyone?


I consider myself a left-of-center independent and I know both sides are going "I only want what's good for the party". Sure, a decent amount of the ideas that Democrats have been trying to push through are more helpful to a greater amount of Americans than what the Republicans are trying to push through, but the bullheaded-ness of saying "You're wrong, I'm right" to every agenda on both sides is causing serious problems. Why can't we have compromise? Or instead, why can't we have good ideas that don't just benefit those who line your pockets? Corporate-sponsored representatives are terrible examples of the American people, red or blue.
 
2013-09-25 01:35:59 PM

Triple Oak: Why can't we have compromise?


Honestly, I think it is because we have reached a point where both sides are convinced that the "other side" are bad actors. That they have harm as a goal, not just that they are wrong, but that the INTEND to do wrong.

And below that, there is a fundamental inability to accept or even comprehend that contrary and contradictory views can ALSO be valid. That even where there is disagreement that BOTH sides can legitimately be RIGHT.

Lastly, there is a pervasive tendency - a habit really- of seeing policies in terms of which "team" is responsible as the primary attribute, even before addressing things like efficacy. ACA is a good example for me. Even in the face of a host of objectively identifiable flaws, and serious problems, and a tangible lack of delivery of stated objectives, many will defend it against ANY criticism based solely on the fact that is originated from their "team". Often with an attempt to dismiss ANY criticisms by simply saying " You just don't like it because you like the 'other' team.

All of this boils down to the absurdity of Party Allegiance. We cannot have a dispassionate discussion of right governance and good policy in an environment so completely polluted by party allegiance as the primary concern.
 
Displayed 34 of 134 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report