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 111
    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 (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-10-01 01:22:20 PM
10 votes:
Umm... I may be wrong, but the ACA is already funded. That's why the Marketplace is open today.
2013-10-01 02:08:28 PM
6 votes:
The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.
2013-10-01 01:23:36 PM
5 votes:

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


No one said these were smart people.
2013-10-01 03:37:14 PM
4 votes:
It took these bumbling retards 2 years to agree on a Farm Bill that 80% of them supported, and even then they could only get it through by breaking it up into seperate pieces.   Even on something that was a slam dunk no brainier like disaster relief after Sandy, they were at each other's throats and breaking out into civil wars.   You really think they could agree to dismantle and pass the entire federal budget item by item?    The entire premise ignores the basic underlying problem that a small, but ridiculously powerful, faction of the Republican caucus utterly hates the American government and specifically believes they were sent to Washington to sabotage it from the inside.
2013-10-01 01:25:35 PM
4 votes:
You don't have to be dumb as a rock to support the GOP, but it sure helps.
2013-10-01 03:04:53 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-10-01 02:09:06 PM
3 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate House with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


FTFM
2013-10-01 01:51:47 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-10-01 01:23:19 PM
3 votes:

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


You are correct. Makes all this even more hilarious.
2013-10-01 05:54:07 PM
2 votes:
At the risk of putting logic into a Fark Politics thread...

This basically comes down to Boehner not being willing to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. If he put the Senate bill up for a vote, or a clean CR, then only 32 of the Republican Representatives would have to vote for it to pass. He won't do that, because he's sticking by the "Hastert Rule", which says that the speaker won't put a bill up for a vote unless the majority of the Majority is for it. This basically destroys moderate compromises if the radical end of the Majority is strong enough to carry just half the party. The thing about this is, it's not a law, it's a moral stand. As a matter of law and procedure, he can break it whenever he wants. If he did throw out the Hastert rule, he would deal with a primary challenger, and he would lose his Speakership at the next opportunity. On the other hand if he did what would be best for the economy, and he could get at least 50 to come with him, we might see some actual progress in the remainder of this Congress. And maybe the Tea Party organizations would be stretched to thin to primary all of them - and that might change things for the next Congress.

The President should not, in my opinion, deal with the GOP. They have shown several times during his administration that they cannot be expected to stand by a negotiated compromise or negotiate in good faith.
2013-10-01 04:47:21 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: acchief: Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.

Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured crisis as "the only way to get things done". It's bullshiat when Obama does it, it's bullshiat when the teabaggers do it.

This could have been avoided and addressed well ahead of time, but nowadays no one can be bothered to water the lawn unless a wildfire is approaching.


It could be done NOW.

If Boehner brings a clean CR bill to the floor it will pass.

He doesn't want to because the baggers will have his balls and what's an alcoholic failure to do when his cushy job is on the line.
2013-10-01 04:45:24 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.

I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.

Also, we SHOULD be prioritizing paying the military over paying bureaucrats. It's a dick move not to be paying people, but if a choice has to be made, we damn sure ought to be prioritizing the people who have agreed to risk their lives for us.


What's to say that this federal bureaucrat isn't more important than a guy doing ammo inventory in Nebraska? The federal bureaucrat may be a meat inspector.
2013-10-01 04:34:42 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.


Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?
2013-10-01 04:07:51 PM
2 votes:
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 04:06:00 PM
2 votes:

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 04:03:14 PM
2 votes:
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 04:03:08 PM
2 votes:

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 04:02:17 PM
2 votes:

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 03:54:49 PM
2 votes:

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 03:54:16 PM
2 votes:

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 03:49:34 PM
2 votes:
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....
2013-10-01 03:41:50 PM
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: Harry Reid's government shutdown


www.photo-host.org
2013-10-01 03:32:02 PM
2 votes:
randomjsa: [Nothing of consequence.]
2013-10-01 03:28:05 PM
2 votes:

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.


Ah yes - "pork". The conservative word for "spending I don't like".
2013-10-01 03:22:40 PM
2 votes:
All of this bullshiate isnt even about a real budget- this is about a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels until mid December- when we would have to do this all over again.

They are arguing over funding the government for 6 weeks.
2013-10-01 01:58:37 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-10-01 01:20:13 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-10-01 09:51:11 PM
1 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If they want piecemeal voting, then we should take to the most logical conclusion. Itemized voting for everything in every department.

All in favor of House Resolution 6,891,293 - "New Printer Toner for the Department of Agriculture's Forest And Fisheries Pennsylvania office, 2nd floor, Accounting Department's Network Printer Model Epson 4890G"


Let me quote that bill for you:

1. The 2nd floor of the Accounting Department of the Pennsylvania Office of the Division of Forest and Fisheries of the Department of Agriculture shall buy toner for their Printer Model Epson 4890G.
2. All abortion shall be permanently and irrevocably eliminated in the Unites States.

and they'll hope that everyone will be too worn out to notice. Which, by the way, is the only reason to pass piecemeal legislation that adds up to a clean CR.
2013-10-01 09:17:26 PM
1 votes:
If they want piecemeal voting, then we should take to the most logical conclusion. Itemized voting for everything in every department.

All in favor of House Resolution 6,891,293 - "New Printer Toner for the Department of Agriculture's Forest And Fisheries Pennsylvania office, 2nd floor, Accounting Department's Network Printer Model Epson 4890G"
2013-10-01 06:52:37 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Don't kid yourselves. Reid is being every bit a obstructionist as the teabaggers. He is a huge part of the problem.


It is now considered obstructionist to not give the teabaggers (70 members of the House) everything they want.

Give me a freaking break.
2013-10-01 06:30:54 PM
1 votes:

Evil High Priest: Right, this is all Reid's doing. Sure.


Not hardly. The teabaggers are definitely a huge part of the problem.

Tigger: Key difference...Reid is not willing to debate a topic that has already passed....


I am not speaking of Reid's actions only in this specific instance. I disagree with the teabaggers. But I also think it is worth noting that they aren't the only ones acting in bad faith by leveraging procedural technicalities, and when Reid has effectively nixed any and all bills out of the HR he doesn't like for years, it should not surprise anyone that the teabaggers so desperately jump on ways to get what they want by going around the normal processes.

Dwight_Yeast: I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorists here in the USA.


I don't think either Reid or Obama or the Teabaggers are "terrorists" and people who use that kind of rhetoric are just letting everyone know what binary partisan simpletons they really are.
2013-10-01 06:08:45 PM
1 votes:

hackalope: At the risk of putting logic into a Fark Politics thread...

This basically comes down to Boehner not being willing to stand up to the Tea Party caucus. If he put the Senate bill up for a vote, or a clean CR, then only 32 of the Republican Representatives would have to vote for it to pass. He won't do that, because he's sticking by the "Hastert Rule", which says that the speaker won't put a bill up for a vote unless the majority of the Majority is for it. This basically destroys moderate compromises if the radical end of the Majority is strong enough to carry just half the party. The thing about this is, it's not a law, it's a moral stand. As a matter of law and procedure, he can break it whenever he wants. If he did throw out the Hastert rule, he would deal with a primary challenger, and he would lose his Speakership at the next opportunity. On the other hand if he did what would be best for the economy, and he could get at least 50 to come with him, we might see some actual progress in the remainder of this Congress. And maybe the Tea Party organizations would be stretched to thin to primary all of them - and that might change things for the next Congress.

The President should not, in my opinion, deal with the GOP. They have shown several times during his administration that they cannot be expected to stand by a negotiated compromise or negotiate in good faith.


Which is kind of poetic, since Boehner was one of the coup members who attempted to knock Gingrich out back in the nineties.

He's going cling to his throne of king fark of shiat island while the country burns because his ego was bruised decades ago.
2013-10-01 05:56:19 PM
1 votes:
Dumbass Republicans. For all this trouble, you'd think they fighting for the right of a small minority to deny health insurance for those who can't afford it or have pre-existing conditions.
2013-10-01 05:27:50 PM
1 votes:
Pelosi just urged House Dems to vote no on bits and pieces of the CR.  It's DOA, not that it ever stood a chance in the House.  Republicans just want to try to turn this back around so that they aren't the ones causing the shutdown when everyone knows they are.
2013-10-01 05:12:14 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?


They're going to end up getting the medical device tax repealed, and and about a 10 point drop on the generic ballot.  They could have easily gotten that yesterday.
2013-10-01 05:08:24 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: spewing blatantly partisan easily debunked bullshiat or not


Sigh. You know I have you tagged as "Usually well reasoned", but lately, you have been putting that to the test.


Especially with nonsense like this. You know as well as anyone here that I don't, in fact, engage in advocating for partisan positions. Quite the opposite.

The problem is that you are, unfortunately, a partisan and cannot really conceptualize anything outside of that binary worldview. So when I am critical of Obama, it triggers your partisan attack mode, because I am "other". But when I am critical of the teabaggers, it doesn't register, because I am not "other". When I am supportive of Wendy Davis, nothing. When I am critical of The Hair (Perry), nothing. But when I am critical of Feinstein's irrational assault weapons ban, your partisan attack mode is engaged.

Again, my positions don't change, it's just that the question "Does taking this position put me in or out of alignment with a political party" just never enters into it.

What changes is your response to my posts invariable, and boorishly predictably determined by whether you interpret whatever I happen to post is "for" or "against" your "team".

And you can be better than that. If you choose to.
2013-10-01 05:08:07 PM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: What the fark is the end game?


I don't think they have a clue how this ends.
2013-10-01 05:08:00 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Has Reid announced he'll reject these smaller bills?


Here's your answer:

'Republicans are now trying to cherry-pick a few parts of the government to keep open. We won't pick and choose. We must re-open all of govt.'From Reid's twitter feed.
2013-10-01 05:06:17 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-10-01 05:04:33 PM
1 votes:

acchief: TheOtherGuy: 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...

Actually, no. They were elected by the people, and were given authority by the constitution to control the purse. So, to paraphrase Obama's own words, the people have spoken.


Sure, if self-deception makes you feel better.  They could hide behind your justification successfully  if the debt ceiling were something they admittedly felt and could demonstrate was a dangerous thing to raise.  As in, "We don't think you should raise it, so we won't approve it, period."  Instead, they say "Oh, sure, it's fine to raise it, but only if we get to hold your  legally passed legislation hostage.  No, that's not government, that's not responsible "purse strings" management as you say.  That's extortion, and we're the ones being extorted, not the Dems.
2013-10-01 05:04:26 PM
1 votes:

parasol: DeaH:
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


On the other hand? Not funding some stuff (say, HeadStart or WIC?) will merely "prove" these programs are a waste of money - after all? it didn't really impact you, did it?  The talking point writes itself.


But, you see, this sort of thing is exactly why negotiations are created. The House puts out a bill to fund soldiers. The Senate sends it back with an attachment for SNAP pointing out that many of our armed forces' families rely on Supplemental Nutritional Assistance. Now the Republicans are in a position of paying our soldiers, but not letting them feed their families.

Seriously, this is so dumb that it's a wonder these guys can walk erect.
2013-10-01 04:59:33 PM
1 votes:
You know what, GOP?

Eat a bag of raw, unprocessed cocks; pass the damn CR, and GTFBTW, assholes.
2013-10-01 04:59:24 PM
1 votes:

The_Six_Fingered_Man: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.

Why can't these "piecemeal" fundings be done all at once? Say, in a continuing resolution?

Not that I am defending this stupid practice going on in the Capitol today, but if they are funded, then that's it for the whole year, right? The CR would only last until December 31, from what I can gather. The funding bills would carry the departments through until the end of FY14, which is 9/30/2014.

Or am I mistaken? It's entirely possible.


One of the problems with funding something by program is that it encourages votes among party lines. When you bundle what you like with what you dislike - you usually end up voting for the bill. If you're allowed to separate it - you're no longer forced to compromise.
2013-10-01 04:54:13 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: This and previous debacles are a direct result of both Parties deciding that it is better to be right than to serve the interests of the country


Ahh, there's the old BP. Both sides are bad.
2013-10-01 04:52:06 PM
1 votes:

jst3p: OK, who took over BP's account?

sdd2000: Some one get a calendar BojanglesPaladin actually wrote something that has some level of sense in it.


Interesting how your perception of me changes depending on whether I seem to be on your "side" or not.

My opinions and positions haven't changed. This and previous debacles are a direct result of both Parties deciding that it is better to be right than to serve the interests of the country. And they are this way, because their constituencies demand it of them with blind binary politico thinking.

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. And they are ALL doing it wrong.
2013-10-01 04:51:00 PM
1 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: DamnYankees: So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?

If you look at the potential subjects of these bills I think the GOP believes it can't go wrong either way.  Keep in mind most of the items that would be funded are the same things Obama and other Dems have been hitting the GOP over the head with all day long:

1. Dems reject them.  Then it's,"Why do Dems hate the VA, or tourists, or whatever?!"  It also is probably an attempt to make the Dems look 'unreasonable' by sticking to their demand of a clean CR.  It's an effort to move the goalposts.

2. Dems pass them.  Then whatever item that is now funded is removed from the Dem talking points, and it also changes the tone of the conversation and the GOP (hopes) gets cast in a more reasonable light.

Keep in mind, I think most people paying attention will see right through this.  I also thing it's a horrible idea on the part of the GOP.   But right now the GOP is left with almost nothing but horrible ideas.  The Dems have been strangely united in opposition to anything but passage of a clean CR, and if that ends up happening (with most House Dems and a few Republicans voting for it) Boehner is hosed.


I only wish the Dems had been half as forceful as this when they controlled Congress during Bush's term. What a Bunch of Milquetoaste pantywaists. But alas, at least somebody's got some balls.
2013-10-01 04:50:03 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: Because we tried that, and we can't bring both sides together that way


Why not? Which side is unwilling to fund the government? Seems to me that's the goal of both sides, is it not?
2013-10-01 04:48:52 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: It's bullshiat when Obama does it,


Which was...when?
2013-10-01 04:46:30 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: So you think they are proposing this "split it up" thing hoping that the Democrats reject it? And that's the only reason?


If you look at the potential subjects of these bills I think the GOP believes it can't go wrong either way.  Keep in mind most of the items that would be funded are the same things Obama and other Dems have been hitting the GOP over the head with all day long:

1. Dems reject them.  Then it's,"Why do Dems hate the VA, or tourists, or whatever?!"  It also is probably an attempt to make the Dems look 'unreasonable' by sticking to their demand of a clean CR.  It's an effort to move the goalposts.

2. Dems pass them.  Then whatever item that is now funded is removed from the Dem talking points, and it also changes the tone of the conversation and the GOP (hopes) gets cast in a more reasonable light.

Keep in mind, I think most people paying attention will see right through this.  I also thing it's a horrible idea on the part of the GOP.   But right now the GOP is left with almost nothing but horrible ideas.  The Dems have been strangely united in opposition to anything but passage of a clean CR, and if that ends up happening (with most House Dems and a few Republicans voting for it) Boehner is hosed.
2013-10-01 04:46:05 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Shrugging Atlas: Dusk-You-n-Me: Shrugging Atlas: Nobody can argue it's a good idea to not pay an extremely well armed group of people that are also currently fighting overseas in some cases.

May not be a good idea but you could argue it's not terribly fair. Plenty of civilian federal employees who have their own financial responsibilities and mouths to feed. Prioritizing one set over the other is kind of a dick move -- though I get why R, D, and President got that through quickly.

I totally agree it's not fair at all.  But funding the military is far more sexy than funding some faceless (though useful) federal employee at HUD.

Sucks, but that's the reality.

Also, we SHOULD be prioritizing paying the military over paying bureaucrats. It's a dick move not to be paying people, but if a choice has to be made, we damn sure ought to be prioritizing the people who have agreed to risk their lives for us.


Not sure what they actually funded, but it takes a vast chain of private companies to keep the ammo and supplies and services and contractors and benefits flowing. They are going to have to pay more than just military salaries.
2013-10-01 04:45:37 PM
1 votes:

acchief: Nobody's got the spine to do it unless there is a crisis.


Yeah. I'm sick and tired of the manufactured crisis as "the only way to get things done". It's bullshiat when Obama does it, it's bullshiat when the teabaggers do it.

This could have been avoided and addressed well ahead of time, but nowadays no one can be bothered to water the lawn unless a wildfire is approaching.
2013-10-01 04:36:36 PM
1 votes:

Ring of Fire: 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.



Especially crazy is that they're doing this as the minority.
They've lost on this repeatedly through the democratic process so they're going with extortion tactics, and it's amazing just how many people they've duped into a both sides are bad whitewash of this whole thing.

/sad
2013-10-01 04:35:02 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: No it makes sense. They want the Democrats to actively pass a bill to defund the ACA - they know that shutting down the government doesn't defund it, they just thought that if they shut down the government, Dems would find that so intolerable they would be willing to actively defund the ACA in order to stop it.

Now, you and I agree that's dumb as hell, but at least it's a valid argument. it's not a sound argument, because its premises are false, but its valid. The splitting of the CR argument isn't even valid.


But did they, really?  Did they honestly expect the Dems to flinch?  That's the thing I can't get to parse.  I've been going with the belief that they actually don't want fedgov to operate at all.  That the shutdown *was* the goal they were trying to achieve, and the ACA was just a convenient cyanide pill.
2013-10-01 04:34:10 PM
1 votes:
Any bill coming from the House needs to have WIC and food assistance funding attached to it and sent back to the House for another vote.
2013-10-01 04:32:50 PM
1 votes:
RC: What we're seeing is the collapse of institutional Republican power. It's not so much about Boehner. It's things like the end of earmarks. They move away from Tom DeLay and they think they're improving the House, but now they have nothing to offer their members. The outside groups don't always move votes directly but they create an atmosphere of fear among the members. And so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire. The members begin to believe they can achieve things in divided government that most objective observers would believe is impossible. Leaders are dealing with these expectations that wouldn't exist in a normal environment.

Why Boehner doesn't just ditch the right
2013-10-01 04:31:52 PM
1 votes:
If it is done one bill at a time, then the minority Tea Party gets to determine what gets funded and what does not get funded.

In that case, a small minority faction would run the government.

There is no guarantee, even if possible, that they would defund only the ACA.  And even if they did, this is just the original proposal dressed differently.
2013-10-01 04:28:02 PM
1 votes:

sdd2000: 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?


If that's the case, why object to piecemeal funding of everything else, everything that does not relate to Obamacare.  The House can send piecemeal bills to the Senate one by one.  Military pay?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  No, he already allowed that one.  How about National Parks?  Does Harry Reid object to that?  Let's find out.  We can go through the entire budget that way, funding as much as we can.
2013-10-01 04:27:20 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Kuroshin: I still can't wrap my head around that one...

I mean, it sort of makes sense - it's a pretty simple hostage scenario. They're plan is to hope the Dems blink first. Now, I don't think it will work, but at least it makes sense in theory if you buy into the GOP's assumptions. The "splitting up the CR into multiple votes" just doesn't make any sense at all.


But one of these things doesn't lead to the other, by any logical path at least.  I mean, if the assets of the ACA weren't already guaranteed funding, then I could see the logic because shutting down the .gov would actually directly affect the ACA.

But this?  This just doesn't compute.  Especially now, like you said, with their new strategy of passing bits and pieces through.  Unless every piece contains language to de-fund the ACA...

But that is just doing the same thing as before, in an even less-efficient manner.
2013-10-01 04:26:43 PM
1 votes:

Kuroshin: DamnYankees: Target Builder: A: The piecemeal funding items get passed and the government shutdown is, in the short term, relatively painless to most Americans so the GOP will get minimal negative backlash.

But how is this good for them. The GOP needs the shutdown to be painful! That's the whole plan! Shut the government down which forces the Dems to defund Obamacare. If the shutdown isn't painful, they lose leverage over the Dems.

I still can't wrap my head around that one...


They (a small fraction of the GoP) believed that the Dems would flinch first if there was a government shutdown and agree to pass the CRs with the addition of delaying the individual mandate for one year. They also believed, against every indicator to the contrary, that they could spin the shutdown as being the Left's fault.

They were wrong on many levels.
2013-10-01 04:25:06 PM
1 votes:
DeaH:
Let's see if I get the logic of this. Government shutting down is bad. It's so bad that we think we can pressure the President and the Senate into giving us a bunch of stuff we want and they don't. But let's make it less bad by passing a bunch of stuff. That'll pressure them into giving into our demands!


On the other hand? Not funding some stuff (say, HeadStart or WIC?) will merely "prove" these programs are a waste of money - after all? it didn't really impact you, did it?  The talking point writes itself.
2013-10-01 04:23:06 PM
1 votes:

Deneb81: The problem is that a solid 30% or so of the US population doesn't believe in a social contract.


It's 27%

The same 27% that said in a poll today that shutting down the government is "a good idea"
2013-10-01 04:20:58 PM
1 votes:

acchief: Wow, that's alot. Scary almost even.
(0.15% => a factor of 0.0015 in growth)

Yeah, really scary.


Stupid, not scary. Unnecessary, self-inflicted, and stupid.
2013-10-01 04:18:48 PM
1 votes:

Kuroshin: Nope.

Remember, members from one party in particular like to claim they 'never signed a social contract.'


"The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

-Benjamin HUSSEIN Franklin
2013-10-01 04:13:28 PM
1 votes:

sdd2000: 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?


The Obamacare, the already, and the funded part most likely.


Why is skinnyhead refusing to negotiate with me in good faith for the 2 years of total fark that he owes me in one month bits.


----

So let me get this straight. The GOP is willing to find the government, but only if they do it as slowly as possible, one item at a time.
2013-10-01 04:11:10 PM
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: We should fund those things that we agree should get funding, and confine the battle only to those things in controversy.


So then you support a clean CR then.
2013-10-01 04:08:39 PM
1 votes:

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.


Sure. Or they could just pass them all at once in some sort of continuing resolution. Why take longer and do it separately?
2013-10-01 04:08:31 PM
1 votes:
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...
2013-10-01 04:06:24 PM
1 votes:
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 04:04:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:04:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:18 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:27 PM
1 votes:
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 03:56:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:30 PM
1 votes:
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 03:54:41 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:05 PM
1 votes:
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 03:50:59 PM
1 votes:
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 03:50:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:55 PM
1 votes:
Oh and as to the GOP piecemeal plan--Reid should just take every half-assed spending bill and amend it to be a complete CR, pass it, then send it back to the House :trollface:
2013-10-01 03:48:27 PM
1 votes:
No

POTUS can't have a line item budget

No piece-meal CR that will take the rest of the decade to get through

No

You have a clean bill, PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE

This is no longer a power play, a smart tactic, fiscal conservatism, or even a statement of ideology - 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

No
2013-10-01 03:48:16 PM
1 votes:
Someone find him and physically slap him.

This isn't Reid's shutdown.


img.fark.net


img.fark.net


img.fark.net
2013-10-01 03:47:43 PM
1 votes:
Up next:

Harry Reid attaches legislation to each piecemeal funding measure that makes gerrymandering illegal.
2013-10-01 03:46:58 PM
1 votes:
Obligatory?

 25.media.tumblr.com
2013-10-01 03:46:10 PM
1 votes:

OhioUGrad: the repeated use of the word piecemeal in this thread has made me hungry for chicken


Make sure the GOP doesn't get to it first.
2013-10-01 03:45:31 PM
1 votes:
SnakeLee: I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.


It's because the reporters covering this clusterfark are more concerned about keeping their access than they are about informing the public.

You can't fill a 24 hour news channel without lots of "interviews".
2013-10-01 03:44:38 PM
1 votes:

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
2013-10-01 03:42:24 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-01 03:40:27 PM
1 votes:
Harry Reid's government shutdown.

i.imgur.com
2013-10-01 03:32:46 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-01 03:32:15 PM
1 votes:

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
2013-10-01 03:31:58 PM
1 votes:
Wouldn't that take a very long time?
2013-10-01 03:31:50 PM
1 votes:
Well, it looks like the wingers have finally received their talking points.
2013-10-01 03:26:54 PM
1 votes:
Here's their brilliant plan:

They offered the Senate a bill that funded everything but Obamacare. It failed.

Now they will offer several bills that fund everything but Obamacare. It will not fail, because...


This is even worse than their attempt at the piecemeal idiocy previously, because then the clever plan was to get a vote on things that they believed some vulnerable Democrats wouldn't vote against, that wouldn't pass as part of the combined bill. That's not the case this time. The vulnerable Democrats already voted against all of the nice bits with delaying Obamacare attached. Splitting it into several pieces makes absolutely no difference, but such is their desperation that this seems like a novel new strategy.
2013-10-01 03:25:56 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: 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.

um... obamacare is already funded. you do know that, right?


You realize who you're talking to?
2013-10-01 03:08:46 PM
1 votes:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"
2013-10-01 03:06:34 PM
1 votes:
That's going to take a while. A long time actually. Apparently thee guys don't read the appropriations bills either.
2013-10-01 03:05:57 PM
1 votes:

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.


um... obamacare is already funded. you do know that, right?
2013-10-01 03:05:53 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-01 02:58:31 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: The more I think about it, the more insane this plan is.


It's a Republican plan. What else did you expect?
2013-10-01 02:44:32 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-10-01 02:44:22 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The Senate should return each individual funding bill back to the senate with a rider that would eliminate the need for a debt ceiling vote.


And all the rest of the funding attached with a simple majority vote after cloture.  They can easily do that.  Then after the first one goes back to the house and Boehner refuses to do anything with it, laugh their asses off as the Senate Republicans have to filibuster any additional House bills.
2013-10-01 02:34:32 PM
1 votes:

SnakeLee: I hate to say it, but the Republicans are way better at messaging on this than I thought they would be.


They've always been better at getting their message across.

They know you need to get out there and SHOW people what they should believe. The Democrats still think that letting events speak for themselves is an effective counter to this.
2013-10-01 02:31:33 PM
1 votes:

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


That's not what they're attempting.  But the rest of your premise is sound.
2013-10-01 02:01:56 PM
1 votes:
What part of "NO" don't those goatfarkers get?

/yeah, yeah... two letters is a lot for them...
2013-10-01 01:55:00 PM
1 votes:

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.


sorry 'never make it to the senate'

point about pig ignorant goatfarkers obviously stands.
2013-10-01 01:54:03 PM
1 votes:

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.


Yup.  And the Democrats could say they won't fund any of these, but then one that makes a little sense could get to the Senate and the Dems will vote for it, which will have the House GOP crying about how unfair it is that they did that.

I hate to say it, but the Republicans are way better at messaging on this than I thought they would be.  They have front position on every news site blaming the Senate and lying about exemptions.  I don't get how they can lie so blatantly and not get called out across the board, but here we are.
2013-10-01 01:22:44 PM
1 votes:
I'll eat one cookie, and drink some soda, but hell NO I ain't eating my vegetables!
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report