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) NewsFlash BREAKING: House Democrats announce they will bring discharge petition to the floor of the House to pass a clean CR, circumventing the Speaker and the House Majority   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 718
    More: NewsFlash, Chambers of parliament, Democrats, Republican, continuing resolution, House GOP  
•       •       •

13096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2013 at 2:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-04 04:15:58 PM  

Somacandra: imontheinternet: Yeah, IIRC, the point of the section was for the government to reject explicitly the assumption of Confederate debt, while guaranteeing that all other debts were still owed.

That was certainly the point at the time, but it is still part of the Supreme Law and may apply to other situations as well.


14th Amendment aside, Obama might be able to avoid a default.

Leaving aside the platinum coin gambit (which doesn't appear to break any laws), if we hit the ceiling, the executive branch will have to break some law; it's impossible to follow them all.

If they don't pay everything, they're breaking entitlement or appropriations law. If they take in extra revenue, they're breaking tax law. And if they borrow more money, they're breaking the debt ceiling law.

The least-bad option there is to just ignore the debt ceiling and hold a technically-illegal debt auction.

Unfortunately he's said he won't do this (or mint the coin). I'd sleep better if that was in Obama's back pocket. Though maybe it is, and he's just keeping the pressure on Congress.
 
2013-10-04 04:16:22 PM  

Ned Stark: Wonder how often "would vote for a clean CR" translates to "would vote for a clean CR brought to the floor by Democrats via an end run around house leadership".

/hope the answer is often enough.


If we make it to the 14th, moderate GOPers will be quietly lining up to sign it.
 
2013-10-04 04:16:38 PM  

mainstreet62: Also, from Freeperville:

[www.freerepublic.com image 600x450]


Takes a genius to declare that our country is great because our country.
 
2013-10-04 04:17:19 PM  

mrshowrules: What is noteworthy about the Freeper comments is a complete lack of optimism.  That is heart warming at least.


I am thinking that they're feeling the same way Saddam Husain felt in Gulf War I after he lined all his troops up against the Kuwait boarder then after sustaining a month of bombing, finding out that the
Coalition offensive will be from somewhere 200 miles to the west in Saudi Arabia.  Like Husain, the Teabaggers are out gunned and out maneuvered.
 
2013-10-04 04:17:26 PM  

jst3p: Corvus: jst3p: birdmanesq: birchman: The Freepers are NOT going to be happy about this.

Oh, please tell me what they are saying about this. Stay strong. Bring back quotes.

Any democrat who broke ranks would be shot. It's how the communists roll.


Yup, typical liberal strategy.
They know their logic is a joke.
Along with their intellect.
So, the only solution in to make sure that weak minded bimbos and bimboys get into congress, and then cheat, cheat, cheat.
Won't last much longer, libs. The last straw is coming, and then you will "live in interesting times".

I love how a majority in the house voting for something is considered "cheating" by right wingers.

Yeah there is this gem too:

The dems used some back handed trick to pass Obama care... IIRC L ouise slaughter of NY brain washed some procedure and got it to the senate and back and called it okay to do... and it was passed, by all democrats


Apparently a simple majority vote is now a backhanded trick.


You are a brave one.  I only hope you did not post, as logic summons the dread whargarbl from its black domain.  A creature far fouler than the derps and herps that float on the surface.
 
2013-10-04 04:17:31 PM  

qorkfiend: Infernalist: Bf+: Infernalist: This allows Boehner to throw up his hands and go "Sorry, petition rules and all that, I can't stop them from passing a clean CR, Tea Derpers. I did my best."

It was probably his idea.

That's my general thought.  Or whoever brought it to him pitched it like this:

"John, I know this whole thing has been hard on you.."

"Goddamned Tea Party freaks."

"Right, so here's this bill....Yeah, from March.  Now, remember 2002 when they did the petition against Hastert?"

"Yeah, complete end-run around him, he was...powerless to stop it."

"You see where I'm going with it, then."

"Send this over to Pelosi's office.  Use one of the mail runners, not one of our staffers."

I doubt it. I'm sure both sides have been aware of this for quite some time, because the people who end up in leadership positions in Congress are usually not stupid. Evil maybe, corrupt sure, shortsighted definitely, but not stupid.

The Dems were just waiting for a good moment, letting the shutdown stoke public outrage and ensuring that the blame is mostly fixed on the GOP.


The Republicans are still pushing the bullshiat despite the public turning against them.  They won't stop.
 
2013-10-04 04:17:35 PM  

Carn: Cpl.D: simplicimus: Rwa2play: Cpl.D: We need to start a fark pool.  Number of hours before fatal aneurysm by political pundit?

Put me down for 18.

I'll go for 6.  Ann Coulter will pop a vein for it.

So you actually think Coulter believes the things she says?

From every credible source I've heard, her TV persona is all an act to sell books to morons.  She plays to their jingoism and paranoia, and she's fleecing the sheep.

Real or not, her man hands are kinda scary


I call 'em freak hands.  And I do like my freaks.  Though whenever you date the freaks, you have to be aware that there's a line separating the freaks from the psychos, and you can't always see that line too well.

/had a knife put to my throat once
//stupid line
 
2013-10-04 04:17:57 PM  
Dying to find out how this turns out.
 
2013-10-04 04:18:57 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.


Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.
 
2013-10-04 04:19:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Infernalist: This allows Boehner to throw up his hands and go "Sorry, petition rules and all that, I can't stop them from passing a clean CR, Tea Derpers.  I did my best."

Yes, that's pretty disappointing. I'm hoping that they get the government open ASAP, but I really would like to see Boehner fry some more over this clusterfark.


Does anyone really think that the Tea Party will accept "I did my best" If this passes Boehner gets primaried hard.
 
2013-10-04 04:19:53 PM  

jst3p: imontheinternet: BMulligan: Exactly. By the way, that professor was one of the smartest people I've ever met - graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law where she was the first woman ever elected Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, clerked for Justice Blackmun, and now sits on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Nice as pie, too.

Wow.  That's a helluva resume.

Is she hot?


Sadly, no. Think of the Widow Hen from the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons.

Cork on Fork: I would be interested in hearing why you think it is more desirable to win or lose a case on some procedural basis instead of basing a decision on which side has a stronger legal argument.


A procedural argument is a legal argument, and often a very difficult and technical one. I know I practice in a jurisdiction with extremely persnickety service-of-process rules; if I fail to follow those strictly and exactly I should expect to have my ass handed to me.
 
2013-10-04 04:19:54 PM  
Why assume this was Boehners idea? The guy is a political coward who doesn't care about hurting america. I severely doubt he had any hand in this and will act all outraged right along the rest of the derp squad.

Put simply Boehner is the worst speaker we've ever had, I can't imagine a real solution could come from him at all.
 
2013-10-04 04:20:01 PM  

Witty_Retort: jst3p: Rwa2play: You know, sometimes wrestling is an actual reflection of reality:  The heels (RWers) are angry that the faces (Democrats) are using heel tactics against them.  Too damn funny.

Can you translate this to non-carney?

Heels and faces?


Thank you, that is a fascinating page. I want to learn all those terms and create an alt that only speaks in "wrestling"

"Heel face turn"
"Moral event horizon"
"X-pac heat"

Man that would be so fun.
 
2013-10-04 04:20:03 PM  

meat0918: qorkfiend: Infernalist: Bf+: Infernalist: This allows Boehner to throw up his hands and go "Sorry, petition rules and all that, I can't stop them from passing a clean CR, Tea Derpers. I did my best."

It was probably his idea.

That's my general thought.  Or whoever brought it to him pitched it like this:

"John, I know this whole thing has been hard on you.."

"Goddamned Tea Party freaks."

"Right, so here's this bill....Yeah, from March.  Now, remember 2002 when they did the petition against Hastert?"

"Yeah, complete end-run around him, he was...powerless to stop it."

"You see where I'm going with it, then."

"Send this over to Pelosi's office.  Use one of the mail runners, not one of our staffers."

I doubt it. I'm sure both sides have been aware of this for quite some time, because the people who end up in leadership positions in Congress are usually not stupid. Evil maybe, corrupt sure, shortsighted definitely, but not stupid.

The Dems were just waiting for a good moment, letting the shutdown stoke public outrage and ensuring that the blame is mostly fixed on the GOP.

The Republicans are still pushing the bullshiat despite the public turning against them.  They won't stop.


Sure. But they're feeling a lot more heat from their constituents, polls, and the media now than they were on Tuesday. And, the Democrats only need 18 of them to break ranks.
 
2013-10-04 04:20:25 PM  
meat0918:

The Republicans are still pushing the bullshiat despite the public turning against them.  They won't stop.

If Only they were More Conservative, things would go their way. I'm not counting on this working however; logic and rules against pure gibbering insanity.
 
2013-10-04 04:20:35 PM  

DamnYankees: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: DamnYankees: The more I think about this, the less I like it. If the GOP just sits on its hands, discretionary spending will drop 12% per year. That's insane.

It's not that much, I don't think. 120 days until it kicks in, thence 1% every three months.

Oh, I read it wrong. Ok, 4% per year then. Still not good.


Update to the article says the dems will bring his bill up and then amend it to remove the 1% before voting on it....even better
 
2013-10-04 04:22:48 PM  

jst3p: Witty_Retort: jst3p: Rwa2play: You know, sometimes wrestling is an actual reflection of reality:  The heels (RWers) are angry that the faces (Democrats) are using heel tactics against them.  Too damn funny.

Can you translate this to non-carney?

Heels and faces?

Thank you, that is a fascinating page. I want to learn all those terms and create an alt that only speaks in "wrestling"

"Heel face turn"
"Moral event horizon"
"X-pac heat"

Man that would be so fun.


You've never seen TVTropes before?
I'm sorry that you are about to lose hours of your life clicking through that site.
 
2013-10-04 04:23:56 PM  

Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.


my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures
 
2013-10-04 04:24:46 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Things are different at the state level of course, but it shows the type of abuse that the rule is intended to prevent.


I think I remember the Dem minority leader giving an aid the power-of-attorney to fetch his paycheck for him when that was pushed through.  Also, at one point I think the GOPers tried to get away with giving the Sargent-at-Arms Batman-like powers to go across state lines and arrest Dems who refused to come back.
 
2013-10-04 04:25:07 PM  

Cpl.D: Carn: Cpl.D: simplicimus: Rwa2play: Cpl.D: We need to start a fark pool.  Number of hours before fatal aneurysm by political pundit?

Put me down for 18.

I'll go for 6.  Ann Coulter will pop a vein for it.

So you actually think Coulter believes the things she says?

From every credible source I've heard, her TV persona is all an act to sell books to morons.  She plays to their jingoism and paranoia, and she's fleecing the sheep.

Real or not, her man hands are kinda scary

I call 'em freak hands.  And I do like my freaks.  Though whenever you date the freaks, you have to be aware that there's a line separating the freaks from the psychos, and you can't always see that line too well.

/had a knife put to my throat once
//stupid line


You are far braver than I, I'll stay over here <-------------------------    | freakish hands
 
2013-10-04 04:25:32 PM  
They still need to get the signatures of some Republicans to go against their own speaker.

Ain't gonna happen.
 
2013-10-04 04:25:50 PM  

Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures


I will venture a guess:

"Because it has to pass the senate and be not vetoed by Obama"?
 
2013-10-04 04:26:35 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: DamnYankees: Nadie_AZ: I was ok with this until I read:

After the first 120 days, auto-CR funding would be reduced by one percentage point and would continue to be reduced by that margin every 90 days.

Isn't this what the GOP wants? Can the amend this? Else we will have the incredible shrinking government. And while some think that is the awesomest of awesome, others realize we have a growing population and a growing elderly population.

Yeah that's not good, but I wonder what level it kicks in at. What's the number for the CR under this discharge petition? Sequester levels?

Yeah, sequester levels.  It does give 120 days before a reduction, and at only 1% every 90 days after that, there should be plenty of time to pass a new budget, but I have my doubts the House would support anything.

However, once we're clear of the shutdown and the debt ceiling crisis, we can at least go back to good old-fashioned negotiation when it comes to the budget numbers and appropriations.  The Democrats haven't said they're unwilling to negotiate, they're just unwilling to negotiate with their backs against the wall regarding the shutdown or the debt ceiling.


Not only No, but FARK NO. They will let this 1% crap fester for the next 3 years, and IT WILL BECOME THE STANDARD, much the same as the sequester amount has become the baseline.

There they go again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

\goddamnit
 
2013-10-04 04:26:44 PM  

Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures


The petition can only be amended by the sponsors, the two Democrats that are sponsoring it as a petition instead of a normal bill.

This means, they get a chance to amend it and then it's put to the floor for a vote.  No chance to change it or amend it again by either side.
 
2013-10-04 04:26:51 PM  

Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures


They would have to begin the same process, and they'd need a majority of signatures to do it. Since a majority of signatures would have already been collected in favor of doing the opposite, it seems pretty unlikely the repubs could pull that off, unless some people signed both petitions.
 
2013-10-04 04:27:26 PM  
i1222.photobucket.com


Hahahahahaha!
 
2013-10-04 04:27:26 PM  

qorkfiend: kasmel: Or they could have introduced a new legislative rule that allows a minority leader to call for an up or down vote for bringing a Senate passed bill to the floor. that would only take 7 days.

Except that rule would have to be advanced by the Republican-dominated Rules Committee.


They wouldn't have to advance it, simply agree that it constitutes a rule. The signatures are what advances it...I believe.
 
2013-10-04 04:27:40 PM  
The teabaggers will go nuts.
 
2013-10-04 04:28:16 PM  

CheapEngineer: TuteTibiImperes: DamnYankees: Nadie_AZ: I was ok with this until I read:

After the first 120 days, auto-CR funding would be reduced by one percentage point and would continue to be reduced by that margin every 90 days.

Isn't this what the GOP wants? Can the amend this? Else we will have the incredible shrinking government. And while some think that is the awesomest of awesome, others realize we have a growing population and a growing elderly population.

Yeah that's not good, but I wonder what level it kicks in at. What's the number for the CR under this discharge petition? Sequester levels?

Yeah, sequester levels.  It does give 120 days before a reduction, and at only 1% every 90 days after that, there should be plenty of time to pass a new budget, but I have my doubts the House would support anything.

However, once we're clear of the shutdown and the debt ceiling crisis, we can at least go back to good old-fashioned negotiation when it comes to the budget numbers and appropriations.  The Democrats haven't said they're unwilling to negotiate, they're just unwilling to negotiate with their backs against the wall regarding the shutdown or the debt ceiling.

Not only No, but FARK NO. They will let this 1% crap fester for the next 3 years, and IT WILL BECOME THE STANDARD, much the same as the sequester amount has become the baseline.

There they go again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

\goddamnit


Keep up.  They're going to strip that '1%' bullshiat and turn it into a plan and simple Clean CR after they get 218 signatures.
 
2013-10-04 04:28:20 PM  

jst3p: Witty_Retort: jst3p: Rwa2play: You know, sometimes wrestling is an actual reflection of reality:  The heels (RWers) are angry that the faces (Democrats) are using heel tactics against them.  Too damn funny.

Can you translate this to non-carney?

Heels and faces?

Thank you, that is a fascinating page. I want to learn all those terms and create an alt that only speaks in "wrestling"

"Heel face turn"
"Moral event horizon"
"X-pac heat"

Man that would be so fun.


You should watch the Monday Night Raw threads in the Sports section. XD
 
2013-10-04 04:28:38 PM  

Metalupis: my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures


Republicans wouldn't need to use the procedure, because they hold the majority. It would be weird though for the eighteen defectors to defect again and try to change the bill they just passed, but nothing would surprise me at this point. But since the House is the only thing Republicans control, their bill would just end up on the pile alongside their forty-some Obamacare repeals, personhood amendments, defunding ACORN again bills, etc.
 
2013-10-04 04:28:44 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: KarmicDisaster: Things are different at the state level of course, but it shows the type of abuse that the rule is intended to prevent.

I think I remember the Dem minority leader giving an aid the power-of-attorney to fetch his paycheck for him when that was pushed through.  Also, at one point I think the GOPers tried to get away with giving the Sargent-at-Arms Batman-like powers to go across state lines and arrest Dems who refused to come back.


Yes, they did, and Walker also authorized troopers to go to the legislators houses at 4am and try to arrest them there. Pairs of troopers, one to watch the other and report to make sure that they actually went.
 
2013-10-04 04:29:04 PM  

jst3p: Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures

I will venture a guess:

"Because it has to pass the senate and be not vetoed by Obama"?


I guess the question is, Do the ultra conservative crazies have enough votes to get the amendment added in to continue this ridiculous shut down even longer and if they have the votes, do they have the will to do something that will clearly label themselves as the cause of all this
 
2013-10-04 04:29:06 PM  

kasmel: qorkfiend: kasmel: Or they could have introduced a new legislative rule that allows a minority leader to call for an up or down vote for bringing a Senate passed bill to the floor. that would only take 7 days.

Except that rule would have to be advanced by the Republican-dominated Rules Committee.

They wouldn't have to advance it, simply agree that it constitutes a rule. The signatures are what advances it...I believe.


I still don't see the Republican-dominated Rules Committee doing such a thing.
 
2013-10-04 04:29:40 PM  

Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


The key here is that there are enough Republicans who want to vote for a clean CR that if it's put up to a vote it'll pass. But normally the Speaker of the House (Boehner) has discretion on what to bring up, and he's following the 'Hastert Rule' which says he won't bring to a vote any bill that isn't supported by the majority of the majority (i.e., if a bill has 49% GOP support and 100% Democrat support, it wouldn't ever be put to a vote). This gets around Boehner's discretionary privileges and forces the bill to the floor regardless of the Hastert Rule.
 
2013-10-04 04:30:28 PM  

Bucky Katt: The teabaggers will go nuts.


As opposed to their current state of mental health?
 
2013-10-04 04:30:30 PM  

Infernalist: Metalupis: Crocodilly_Pontifex: Shrugging Atlas: birchman: ********************************************************
UPDATE: One slight clarification. If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the periodic one-percent reductions in spending in the Lankford measure.

Oh that's badass.

Indeed. Hooooooooly shiat.

my only question is that if the Dems can gut and replace with a clean CR, can't the Repubs do the same with a defunding amendment as well?


/really can't keep up with all the rules and procedures

The petition can only be amended by the sponsors, the two Democrats that are sponsoring it as a petition instead of a normal bill.

This means, they get a chance to amend it and then it's put to the floor for a vote.  No chance to change it or amend it again by either side.


ok, that makes sense, thanks
 
2013-10-04 04:31:02 PM  

Bucky Katt: The teabaggers will go nuts.


Go?
 
2013-10-04 04:31:40 PM  

CheapEngineer: Not only No, but FARK NO. They will let this 1% crap fester for the next 3 years, and IT WILL BECOME THE STANDARD, much the same as the sequester amount has become the baseline.


psst.

Check the section at the bottom of TFA that is next to UPDATE:
 
2013-10-04 04:31:45 PM  

Bucky Katt: The teabaggers will go nuts.


How will we be able to tell?
 
2013-10-04 04:32:15 PM  
I like that the endgame they had planned is having the democrats look even better then they already did.
 
2013-10-04 04:33:01 PM  

naughtyrev: So what you're saying is, the House is going to force Boehner to discharge?


ewwww

+1
 
2013-10-04 04:34:18 PM  

lockers: I like that the endgame they had planned is having the democrats look even better then they already did.


The sad part is the teabaggers think they won. What they won, I have no idea. This will be epic if it passes. Not only will the government open again, the teabaggers will start eating their own.
 
2013-10-04 04:34:26 PM  

BMulligan: if I fail to follow those strictly and exactly I should expect to have my ass handed to me.


You should, yes. But not necessarily your client. The parties deserve to have their claims decided, and that should be what everyone wants. Lawyers should not be glad if the other side blows a filing deadline or screws up service. All that means is that someone with a legitimate complaint lost their chance to have a day in court.

(Criminal law here, so procedural rules will usually lose out to the interest in having issues resolved. But I know civil law is much less flexible)
 
2013-10-04 04:34:48 PM  

Infernalist: The petition can only be amended by the sponsors, the two Democrats that are sponsoring it as a petition instead of a normal bill.

This means, they get a chance to amend it and then it's put to the floor for a vote. No chance to change it or amend it again by either side.


touche
 
2013-10-04 04:35:35 PM  

lockers: I like that the endgame they had planned is having the democrats look even better then they already did.


There was no endgame. There are articles from the spring saying that the Rs were planning this, even though they had no idea what they wanted. They just knew that they wanted a shutdown and to extort something from the Ds.
 
2013-10-04 04:35:39 PM  

Bucky Katt: naughtyrev: So what you're saying is, the House is going to force Boehner to discharge?

ewwww

+1


Headline: Government Funding Comes Clean as Boehner Suffers Painful Discharge
 
2013-10-04 04:36:34 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: the teabaggers will start eating their own.


start?
 
2013-10-04 04:38:33 PM  

Null Pointer: TV's Vinnie: DamnYankees: Now that's fascinating. Force the moderate GOPers to vote for it.

The extreme cowardice of the non-TB republicans is disgusting! They're rather see America burn to the ground than risk seeing themselves getting primaried by the Teahadists.

To be fair they are looking out for their jobs. They know if the break ranks it will probably cost them their job by getting primaried by the teabaggers next year.


1. They're not doing their jobs. They're just dicking around yet still drawing a check from Uncle Sam. Just like they accuse these alleged "Welfare Queens" of doing.

2. Fine! Let them be replaced by some frothing madman from the Tea Party. The more buttholes in the gop the faster it'll sink into the swamp.
 
2013-10-04 04:40:08 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Null Pointer: TV's Vinnie: DamnYankees: Now that's fascinating. Force the moderate GOPers to vote for it.

The extreme cowardice of the non-TB republicans is disgusting! They're rather see America burn to the ground than risk seeing themselves getting primaried by the Teahadists.

To be fair they are looking out for their jobs. They know if the break ranks it will probably cost them their job by getting primaried by the teabaggers next year.

1. They're not doing their jobs. They're just dicking around yet still drawing a check from Uncle Sam. Just like they accuse these alleged "Welfare Queens" of doing.

2. Fine! Let them be replaced by some frothing madman from the Tea Party. The more buttholes in the gop the faster it'll sink into the swamp.


The problem is that the GOP went too far with the derp, and now they are having a real impact on the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 718 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report