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.

(Politico)   GOP's new plan, in lieu of passing a CR, is to pass small, individual bills funding one program at a time, and they just won't pass one for Obamacare   (politico.com) divider line 381
    More: Followup, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, White House, Senate, farm bills, House Majority Leader, House Republican Conference  
•       •       •

2371 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Oct 2013 at 3:22 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 03:49:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.


Actually that is more or less how it normally works now. The CR isn't actually a budget, it is a appropriation bill. The budget is basically a non-binding resolution to say this is where we want the money to go. Then each committee associated with the department goes off an creates an appropriation build that actually requests a specific dollar amount and specifies where those dollars actually go. The CR basically says since we are incapable of actually governing and passing the appropriation bills as we are supposed to, use the last passed versions usually with a increase for inflation when there is some and assign the same proportional amounts to each department it got last time.

The crux of the issue is the house republicans are fighting among them selves over appropriations and end up getting appropriation bills so right wing they have a hard time passing with just their caucus, which means it will never pass the senate. Basically the arguments about passing a budget are retarded because it is almost by definition a political document rather then anything of policy value, especially in a divided government, and at the end of the day are basically tossed in the trash once the appropriations process starts.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:04 PM

Tigger: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Correct.

They have to specifically DEFUND it. Which will obviously never make it to the house or past the veto.

These are the most pig ignorant goatfarkers ever to attempt governing.


Are we sure healthcare is their endgame?  Maybe it's something else on the agenda.  Food stamps?  The US Postal Service?  NPR?  Planned Parenthood
 
2013-10-01 03:50:06 PM

Cletus C.: mainstreet62: Up next:

Harry Reid attaches legislation to each piecemeal funding measure that makes gerrymandering illegal.

A lot of his Democratic friends in the House would not be happy with him.


I think you're full of it, but who gives a shiat?

Congress isn't working? Blow it up completely, and start from scratch.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:12 PM

WhyteRaven74: mainstreet62: Defunding this makes our troops vulnerable to attack.

Also if the troops don't get paid they're released from their contracts. Basically if the paychecks don't show up, they can walk.


Military is not effected by the shutdown.  Jeez people I thought we were smarter than that.  Plus NO not getting paid doesn't mean they can walk, for the love of god.  When you were a kid and the bus didn't show up within 10 min of it's scheduled time that meant you had a free day off of school too huh?
 
2013-10-01 03:50:37 PM

serial_crusher: Are we sure healthcare is their endgame?  Maybe it's something else on the agenda.  Food stamps?  The US Postal Service?  NPR?  Planned Parenthood


stockpiling potatoes.
 
2013-10-01 03:50:59 PM
FTFA: House Republicans are trying to pressure Democrats on their side of the dome. The bills will come up under suspension of the rules, which means they must garner two-thirds of the chamber for passage.

i.imgur.com

And they raised the threshold for passage to 2/3?

That's not going to happen.
 
2013-10-01 03:52:01 PM

SkinnyHead: Car_Ramrod: Quick question: let's say the Senate agreed to this stupid plan, and they funded every program one-by-one with separate bills. Approximately how long would that take?

Senate passed the military pay bill with a voice vote or unanimous consent, something like that takes hardly no time at all.  Other piecemeal funding bills can be passed through just as quickly.


I kind of like the idea of arguing for and against each thing individually.  Might cut down on the number of "I haven't had time to read the whole bill so I need to sign it to find out what's in it" moments.
 
2013-10-01 03:52:05 PM
Amendments to add all funding to each bill. And a debt ceiling increase.

That's a compromise. The republicans get the funding they want, and the government reopens. Win win.
 
2013-10-01 03:53:08 PM

amiable: Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?


Hehe, actually yeah, I do feel like that sometimes.

/It helps when he cries
 
2013-10-01 03:54:16 PM

StubePT: As much as I hate stooping down to someone's level, the GOP rhetoric is occupying WAY too much airtime in the news.

Democrats need to make a concession: agree to delay Obamacare for a year if the GOP agrees to ban assault rifles... or a massive tax hike on the 1%.

Oh, that goes against your agenda?!?!?!  It's non-negotiable?!?!?!

Welcome to COMPROMISE 101, asshats....


Just the tax hike, or abolishing the debt ceiling.

Gun control is more of a third rail than Social Security at the moment, and a lot of people that are upset with the Republicans will switch to supporting them because of that one single issue.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:20 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.


Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:36 PM

Somacandra: That's not going to happen.


But they will still debate it at 4:30.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram

House expecting to debate bill to fund Vets, Parks/Smithsonian & allow DC gov't to operate at 4:30 pm et


Nothing is happening today except clown shoes.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:41 PM

StubePT: As much as I hate stooping down to someone's level, the GOP rhetoric is occupying WAY too much airtime in the news.

Democrats need to make a concession: agree to delay Obamacare for a year if the GOP agrees to ban assault rifles... or a massive tax hike on the 1%.

Oh, that goes against your agenda?!?!?!  It's non-negotiable?!?!?!

Welcome to COMPROMISE 101, asshats....


LOL this.
 
2013-10-01 03:54:49 PM

DamnYankees: There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.


If they couldn't even pass a farm bill, there is no way that the majority of government gets funded by this process.  Basically, they're trying to break government down into small enough pieces that they can drown each individual piece in the bathtub.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:30 PM
SI heard this on the radio this morning. I think it was Laura Ingram who had a GoP Senator on. He told her "we got these small bills through to make sure that our military would be and individual bills for other essential employees. Yesterday Obama gave a speech and listed Parks and other government services. So we are going to go down that list and make sure that one by one each one gets funded. Then we can say 'OK Mr. Obama, we have compromised now it is your turn, delay the individual mandate for one year."

It was kinda surreal, they are going to cave on 'shutting down the govenrnment' one CR at a time and then try to act like they took the high road.

And then I got sad, because I realized most of the people listening to that show would buy it.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:43 PM

vernonFL: I wonder if the GOP has thought about what kind of precedent they are setting.

One day there will be a Republican President and a Democratic Majority House.


Do you ever think there will just be a President and a House?
 
2013-10-01 03:55:48 PM
I like how the GOP thinks they've won something.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:53 PM
Not the worst strategy in the world, but they're doing it far too early for it to work. Left a week, failure to resolve the shutdown will be more of a plague on both houses. That's when it becomes much harder for the Dems to make the case that it's right they should refuse to discuss funding individual measures.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:57 PM

Rann Xerox: That poor, poor chicken.


I think it's more like chicken pate by now.
simplevegetarianrecipe.com
 
2013-10-01 03:56:25 PM

skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.


Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?
 
2013-10-01 03:56:30 PM

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.

Problem: Obamacare is already funded through mandatory spending.

Why do you see that as a problem?

It's a problem with the GOP's plan. I didn't say it was a problem for me.

Looks like we're making progress here.  You would urge Harry Reid to accept this approach and approve any piecemeal funding bills that come from the house, to fund as much of government as possible.


And when each comes back with a portion of funding for the missing Obamacare funds, Boehner should push that!

It's compromise!
 
2013-10-01 03:56:50 PM

heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.


It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.
 
2013-10-01 03:58:48 PM

Stile4aly: DamnYankees: There's no chance in hell they do this - the last time they tried to do this a few months ago the GOP couldn't even get these bills out of committee due to an internal revolt.

If they couldn't even pass a farm bill, there is no way that the majority of government gets funded by this process.  Basically, they're trying to break government down into small enough pieces that they can drown each individual piece in the bathtub.


Here's a bathtub they can use.

abcnews.go.com
 
2013-10-01 03:59:10 PM

blastoh: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?


The funding was and is already secured.  They wanted to pull the existing funding, but dropped that and instead are focusing on the one thing in the legislation people don't like, the individual mandate.

Now it seems they are back to trying to defund it again, something that is overwhelmingly rejected by the American people.
 
2013-10-01 03:59:47 PM

MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.


Like Welfare and Food Stamps.
 
2013-10-01 04:00:13 PM

parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court


What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.
 
2013-10-01 04:00:32 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Somacandra: That's not going to happen.

But they will still debate it at 4:30.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram

House expecting to debate bill to fund Vets, Parks/Smithsonian & allow DC gov't to operate at 4:30 pm et

Nothing is happening today except clown shoes.


Same as the sequester--reopen the visible pieces and let the rest starve.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:17 PM

Headso: heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.

It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.


it's just straight up 'i reject your reality and substitute my own' type stuff, but without even a casual wink given to how self deluded they aim to be.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:27 PM
Serial Crusher: I kind of like the idea of arguing for and against each thing individually.  Might cut down on the number of "I haven't had time to read the whole bill so I need to sign it to find out what's in it" moments.

I can't be too clear on this - part of the JOB of being an elected representative of the people is to understand what has already been agreed to - a clean CR and the new law ACA falls into that category at this time.

Saying we can afford to keep the United States "closed" because "I need time to read all this stuff and then argue about it" is a monumental failure and, I suspect, a way to reject tea party ideas of "overspending" on programs,

You do remember how many people are not being paid right now?
 
2013-10-01 04:01:38 PM

acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.


They tried that.  Boehner put a stop to it regarding a jet engine the military doesn't want but is built in his district, as well as a lot of other military hardware the Pentagon says we don't need.
 
2013-10-01 04:01:38 PM

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.


I think the goal is more to fund only the most visible and sympathetic parts of government, like National Parks and Veteran's benefits, so that as few middle and upper class people as possible feel the pinch. That way people who tend to vote and donate more to candidates will be only slightly inconvenienced and won't be calling their congressmen to demand an end to this bullshiat. It is also intended to make people think "Well, this isn't so bad, maybe we could cut a ton of government services if this is the worst that happens from shutting the whole thing down".

Of course in the long term more acute effects might start to show up, but the GOP is betting things don't get that far.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:17 PM

acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.


The time to itemize your belongings for your homeowners insurance is not while the house is currently on fire.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:18 PM

amiable: Ever feel like John Boehner is trapped in his own personal purgatory where is is forced to try to sell gradually more insane Tea Party strategies all the while screaming "It's not going to work you dumb Farkers!!!!"   Do you think one day he is just going to snap?  I mean how much more degrading does this need to get for him?


I can't help but feel a little sorry for Boehner.  He'll go down as one of the worst Speakers in history, even though a lot of the problems he's had aren't entirely his fault.  If he was Speaker at any other time in the last 100 years or so, it could be a completely different story.

That said, on the shutdown he's in the wrong completely.  He has the power to put a clean CR on the floor, and he's refusing to do so.
 
2013-10-01 04:02:22 PM

Paul Baumer: shower_in_my_socks: Tea Qaeda spokesperson Michele Bachmann has already claimed GOP ownership of the shutdown: "It's exactly what we wanted, and we got it." She also thinks a miracle from God will force Obama to defund the ACA.

So you knuckledragging redneck apolgists can stop pretending that A) this shutdown is anyone's fault but the GOP's, and B) that your party isn't pants-on-head crazy.

And C) that you can somehow keep the rest of the country from noticing A and B.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/01/the-morn in g-plum-republicans-enter-the-danger-zone/?hpid=z4


forums.watchuseek.com
 
2013-10-01 04:02:57 PM

DarwiOdrade: [memedepot.com image 100x100]


i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com

i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-01 04:03:08 PM

Skyrmion: Marcus Aurelius: SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are

They have FOX News carrying their water for them.

Yeah, see this isn't really a government "shutdown", it's more like a happy little "slimdown".

[retired.talkingpointsmemo.com image 742x600]


Silmdowns sounds double plus good.
 
2013-10-01 04:03:14 PM
SKINNYHEAD,


You will buy me 2 years of total fark, but I want them in individual 1 month bits.


YOU HAVE UNTIL 6PM TODAY TO COMPLY!

//Its so sad that SkinnyHead is the best troll Ive seen in weeks.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:09 PM

heap: Headso: heap: Skyrmion: [img.fark.net image 742x600]

holy. boiled. owl. shiat.

i think foxnews.com just broke my wookie.

It's nice that derpers have their own language to describe things, it makes it easy to know who they are.

it's just straight up 'i reject your reality and substitute my own' type stuff, but without even a casual wink given to how self deluded they aim to be.


Hey don't knock it, their unskewed polls and echo chamber worked to get Romney elected... remember those sweet fireworks over boston habah?
 
2013-10-01 04:04:54 PM

Target Builder: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

I think the goal is more to fund only the most visible and sympathetic parts of government, like National Parks and Veteran's benefits, so that as few middle and upper class people as possible feel the pinch. That way people who tend to vote and donate more to candidates will be only slightly inconvenienced and won't be calling their congressmen to demand an end to this bullshiat. It is also intended to make people think "Well, this isn't so bad, maybe we could cut a ton of government services if this is the worst that happens from shutting the whole thing down".

Of course in the long term more acute effects might start to show up, but the GOP is betting things don't get that far.


This is exactly right, but again, it makes no sense. This isn't a "trick". The Democrats are willing to fund all of this. If they are going to do it piecemeal, just do it all at once. What's the point otherwise? There's nothing the Dems want funded in the CR that the Reps don't.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:58 PM

ArkPanda: Same as the sequester--reopen the visible pieces and let the rest starve.


These baby CRs won't pass the House let alone the Senate.  Chuck Schumer is already saying it's cynical and people shouldn't have to choose between opening national parks and enrolling kids in Head Start.

Funny:

@brianbeutler
It's not going to stop being the case that there's one viable government funding bill in existence and Harry Reid has already passed it.
 
2013-10-01 04:04:58 PM
acchief:
What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.

Not a damn thing - In fact, the House was presented with a budget they could have examined last spring. The time to examine the budget isn't when you've shut down the government.
This is another delay, period.
 
2013-10-01 04:05:09 PM
Attach a rider to every funding bill with heavy gun control. Then start counting down from the number of times they have tried to go after the ACA. Make those farkers burn in hell.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:00 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Isn't this sort of, in a way, the way actual budgets were passed back in the Gilded Age of Democracy?

I seem to remember something like 13-15 budget bills being voted on instead of the all-encompassing CR that does nothing but keep the status quo.

You're thinking of omnibus spending bills, I believe.

Checked Wiki. Looks like this is done for all discretionary spending, usually. If time does not permit, then they roll into an omnibus. But they can't even do THAT without bickering, so we get CRs. Looks like last Omnibus was in 2009.


Huh.  I wonder what changed...
 
2013-10-01 04:06:24 PM
You know,as a Montrealer/Canadian/Quebecer (in that order), I have to make a observation...

We had a referendum that could have split the country back in '96. It was very close, 51% to 49%.

The next day people went back to work and their lives. It wasn't the end of the separatists but I truly respect them for playing by the rules of the game; democracy and rule of law seems to be a sacred trust the majority of both sides agree upon.

I'm not sure that social contract still exists for our friends in the States.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:27 PM

blastoh: skinnycatullus: Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.

Ok, can someone help me out here.  How is this?
Im not doubting it, I'm just having trouble understand it.

I know a lot of the ACA is basically regulations (like getting rid of lifetime limits, and allowing for pre-existing condition, etc) that do not really need funding.

Is it that the rest relies on the exchanges that are expected to be self funded?
Is it this simple, or is there more to it?


The subsidies are mandatory spending, as are the funds for most of the sites and exchanges themselves.  As such, the DHHS had the authority to look at the ACA implementation as a whole and say, "This is all exceptional work (in the "exception to the rules" meaning), so they stay running."

They had to move budgets around a little to cover ~ $1 billion, IIRC, but that's it.  A prolonged shutdown will have adverse trickle-down effects no matter what, but the basic funding itself is not appropriated and so not affected by the shutdown.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:31 PM

Lost Thought 00: MindStalker: DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is. The whole point of this entire thing is that the House needs the Senate and the President to affirmatively defund Obamacare. Funding everythign else piecemeal does literally nothing to make that happen. Everything the House R's are willing to fund, the Democrats are also willing to fund. They might as well just pass the CR if they are going to do this.

Actually I think this is a great plan. There is a ton of Pork projects that might not make it through this process. Obamacare would keep going, but the budget could really get a good decent trimming.

Like Welfare and Food Stamps.



That was my thought as well; pass no-brainer bills like re-funding things like the EPA and NOAA, but leave out the social programs like WIC and other assistance programs. Then try and use those to get ACA un-funded. It still won't work but they may try it anyway.
 
2013-10-01 04:06:49 PM

SkinnyHead: This sounds like a good idea.  Fund everything in piecemeal fashion except Obamacare, and that effectively ends Harry Reid's government shutdown.  They've already done it once for military pay.  Senate agreed to that.  Fund everything else (except Obamacare) in the same way.


WHAT PORTION OF "OBAMACARE  ALREADY IS FUNDED" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
 
2013-10-01 04:07:51 PM
So basically they are trying to open up the portions of the government that they like and leave closed the ones they don't like in exchange for obamacare being repealed. Then they wanna call that compromise.
They want to do less than a full CR which is what the Dems. want and they expect to get everything they want out of the deal.
They are trying to dismantle the US government by shutting it all down and only opening back up the stuff they want.
That takes some gall.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:24 PM

Deneb81: acchief: parasol: No

 - this is a bunch of yahoos basically admitting they are so inexperienced and/or petty they need to examine the entire federal budget like a woman trying to find the "right" pair of black pumps while her husband slowly starves to death 100 feet from the food court

What have you got against examining the entire federal budget? It's about time somebody went through it with a finetooth comb and got rid of all the bloat.

The time to itemize your belongings for your homeowners insurance is not while the house is currently on fire.


But the house is always on fire. If everyday wasn't a crisis, nobody would know what to do, nor have the spine to do it.
 
2013-10-01 04:08:31 PM
At what point is it appropriate and necessary to define both the GOP and Tea Party as terrorist organizations, lock everybody up until and unless they promise to both act like freakin' adults and do their sworn duty as elected officials?  I mean, they've now done demonstrable harm to the United States, in terms of dollars, in terms of human cost.  What, exactly makes them not enemies of the state at this point?  They're organized, and seeking to affect the functioning of the state in an adversarial way by sowing chaos.

They're not objecting and trying to change or even overthrow a corrupt, incompetent, or tyrannical government.  They're trying to TAKE OVER and install their own corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical government.

Before you all rip into me, I'd rather not do this.  Really.  Everyone, elected or otherwise, has the right to disagree with the government and seek redress of grievances.  This is so not that.  It is abuse of political power to affect discord and destruction.  If it's not a crime, it bloody well ought to be.

I'm not an idiot.  I know this won't affect the majority of citizens in any significant way, at least not in the short term - which is probably the point they want to prove.  It's the precedent that bothers me.  Next time the blackmail may kill something more significant to the nation than park rangers' jobs.  Never mind the fact that it matters to you if you're a ranger...
 
Displayed 50 of 381 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report