Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Straight talk from Chuck Schumer (D-Wall St.): "It's sort of like this - someone goes into your house, takes your wife and children hostage and then, says, let's negotiate over the price of your house"   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 297
    More: Obvious, Speaker John Boehner, Chuck Schumer, hostages, Wall St  
•       •       •

2234 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Oct 2013 at 8:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-06 06:46:36 PM  
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-10-06 06:47:58 PM  
I really don't think the GOP has thought this through. What's to stop the Senate Democrats from throwing the same kind of tantrum over something they want?
 
2013-10-06 06:53:44 PM  

fusillade762: I really don't think the GOP has thought this through. What's to stop the Senate Democrats from throwing the same kind of tantrum over something they want?


because they are adults?
 
2013-10-06 07:06:03 PM  

ManateeGag: fusillade762: I really don't think the GOP has thought this through. What's to stop the Senate Democrats from throwing the same kind of tantrum over something they want?

because they are adults?


Because they aren't as completely batshiat insane as the Republicans are just yet? I'm not saying the Democrats are farking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington but the GOP has gone completely off the reservation (and I don't mean that as a slur against Native Americans, it's just an expression).
 
2013-10-06 07:08:22 PM  

Mugato: ManateeGag: fusillade762: I really don't think the GOP has thought this through. What's to stop the Senate Democrats from throwing the same kind of tantrum over something they want?

because they are adults?

Because they aren't as completely batshiat insane as the Republicans are just yet? I'm not saying the Democrats are farking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington but the GOP has gone completely off the reservation (and I don't mean that as a slur against Native Americans, it's just an expression).


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-06 07:08:34 PM  
Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?
 
2013-10-06 07:10:35 PM  

SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?


I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.
 
2013-10-06 07:20:06 PM  

ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.


Schumer is THE bag man for Wall St. I'm sure they do not worry about money at all. When he eventually retires, he'll rake in $50-100 million from speeches, board seats, and "consulting" work.

Not that he's wrong about this analogy. Just not a huge fan of the guy.
 
2013-10-06 07:22:05 PM  

Shostie: Mugato:

Because they aren't as completely batshiat insane as the Republicans are just yet? I'm not saying the Democrats are farking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington but the GOP has gone completely off the reservation (and I don't mean that as a slur against Native Americans, it's just an expression).

[i.imgur.com image 213x163]


How about the GOP is beyond the pale? No wait, that's 12th century racist.
 
2013-10-06 07:24:46 PM  

ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.


When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.
 
2013-10-06 07:34:57 PM  
SkinnyHead:When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

A: This is a comparison a twelve year-old would make. B: This is not even remotely equal to what has actually happened in our government - not only is scope, but because you are simply wrong.
 
2013-10-06 07:44:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.


If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.
 
2013-10-06 07:52:17 PM  

vartian: A: This is a comparison a twelve year-old would make. B: This is not even remotely equal to what has actually happened in our government - not only is scope, but because you are simply wrong.


Are you suggesting that household finance and government finance are not EXACTLY the same thing? I bite my thumb at you sir!
 
2013-10-06 07:55:07 PM  
Just by coincidence, last night I watched the episode of The West Wing about the debt ceiling. Vinick is completely flabbergasted and furious anyone would consider farking with it, and he actually upbraids Bartlet in the Oval Office about it.

The West Wing can be simultaneously awesome and hard to watch, since it just makes you pine for the kind of Republican Party portrayed in it. Unfortunately Sorkin and Wells simply didn't understand the modern GOP, so they just modeled it over how they imagine conservatives would be (i.e. decent, intelligent, sincere people), and that's just not how the world is.
 
2013-10-06 07:58:20 PM  

Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.


Of course it's unreasonable, since football is only on once a week.

/twice, if you count college football
 
2013-10-06 08:08:19 PM  
SkinnyHead:

What happened to Paul "The Numbers Expert" Ryan?
 
2013-10-06 08:09:04 PM  

SkinnyHead: When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.


Negotiating isn't one side refusing to pay the bills unless they light their car on fire, and then say they want to compromise by only selling the car.
 
2013-10-06 08:09:40 PM  
 
2013-10-06 08:11:39 PM  

King Something: Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.

Of course it's unreasonable, since football is only on once a week.

/twice, if you count college football


<notsureifserious.jpg>

Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday
 
2013-10-06 08:12:48 PM  

King Something: Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.

Of course it's unreasonable, since football is only on once a week.

/twice, if you count college football


Actually, football's been on TV 7 days a week for a while now.  There are some mid-major programs -- I know Louisville used to do this a lot -- that scheduled games on Tuesday or Wednesday nights so they could get on The Ocho and get a little bit of attention.

So much for being "student atlhletes", huh?
 
2013-10-06 08:15:47 PM  
Solution?

Obama should send Newt Gingrich into battle. He is a political pawn and is useful for Obama. Why? He shut down the government previously and has criticized Republicans for not creating an alternative to healthcare reform. When there's a hostage situation, you need to bring in the police and a mediator. Obama needs to bring in a mediator which he has failed to do.
 
2013-10-06 08:16:59 PM  

timujin: King Something: Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.

Of course it's unreasonable, since football is only on once a week.

/twice, if you count college football

<notsureifserious.jpg>

Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday


Friday too for college occasionally and highschool
 
2013-10-06 08:17:02 PM  
"Honey, I know I asked you to buy a top of the line monitored alarm service the last ten years, and you decided to buy a new lawn mower... but you've been buying an awful lot of yogurt recently and i'm not spending a single cent on our bills until you stop it!"
 
2013-10-06 08:19:23 PM  

SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.


But republicans come to the table with ONLY a list of demands, they have NOTHING to offer in return, and they think compromise just means they get half of what they want, while dems still get nothing in return.

If you want to keep claiming that the gop is willing to negotiate, then back it up and tell us what concessions they are prepared to make to democrats in exchange for the demands they're making?
 
2013-10-06 08:20:02 PM  
 
2013-10-06 08:20:50 PM  
Allowing the GOP to attach poison pill riders to any CR or Debt ceiling bill now is singularly wrong-headed and a dangerous precedent that simply cannot come to pass come what may.

The Dems appear to know this now.

Some of the smarter GOPers are figuring it out but remain paralyzed by fear by the radical, foamy-mouthed teahaddists terrorists.

Here's how it works, GOP.

Doing the most basic and necessary part of your jobs (ie. keeping government up and running and not defaulting on America's obligations as per the14th) does not make every CR or DC bill Christmas morning where your wish list of policies get enacted or else.

Not yours, GOP.

Can not haz.

Learn this.

Soon.
 
2013-10-06 08:21:13 PM  

NickelP: timujin: King Something: Rincewind53: SkinnyHead: ManateeGag: SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?

I'm sure Mrs. Schumer doesn't suggest they not pay their bills at all.

When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.

Of course it's unreasonable, since football is only on once a week.

/twice, if you count college football

<notsureifserious.jpg>

Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday

Friday too for college occasionally and highschool


And later in the season, there are some college games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Lots of football.
 
2013-10-06 08:21:41 PM  
Schumer does have a point:  if there's no votes for it, then hold another vote to prove it.  Otherwise, we're taking the word of a man who is doing this simply for his pride.

(side note:  interesting how this has gone from Cruz to Boehner)
 
2013-10-06 08:22:39 PM  

Rincewind53: If the husband pulls all of the money from the joint bank account and says "I will set fire to this money if you don't let me watch Football every night of the week. But I'm open to negotiation, maybe we can settle on five nights a week." Then everyone would see that he is being unreasonable.


That's a better analogy because it at least recognizes that we're dealing with two equal partners who have an equal say in managing the family money, rather than some criminal who breaks into Schumer's home.  As far as torching all their money, well, man likes to watch his football.
 
2013-10-06 08:22:42 PM  

2wolves: SkinnyHead:

What happened to Paul "The Numbers Expert" Ryan?


Ryan's GED in math and family budgeting just came in the mail, so he's been furiously working on this issue for the last week.
 
2013-10-06 08:22:52 PM  
I thought Congress was given the power to pass the budget to fund the government. Aparently their job is to pay for what the president demands.
 
2013-10-06 08:23:08 PM  

SkinnyHead: Is that what Schumer says to his wife, when she wants an equal say in deciding the family budget?


ElChip strikes again!

/skookum was of higher entertainment value.
 
2013-10-06 08:23:24 PM  

vartian: SkinnyHead:When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

A: This is a comparison a twelve year-old would make. B: This is not even remotely equal to what has actually happened in our government - not only is scope, but because you are simply wrong.


OK.
How about this, specific person.
If the (R) republickers can hold the government and the American people hostage over the ACA and everybody caves to their whims and negotiates and kisses their butts and gives in and defunds it, what will be the next piece of legislation they repeal by extortion?
The Voting Rights Act?
The Clean Air and Water acts?
Social Security?

How's that for specificity and scope?
 
2013-10-06 08:23:42 PM  
Are you serious?, Our very form of governing is at stake.  I propose using metaphorical napalm on these farkwits...

/Failing that, the real thing would be appropriate...
 
2013-10-06 08:25:46 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-06 08:26:51 PM  
He is the authority on hostage taking politics.
 
2013-10-06 08:28:31 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: vartian: SkinnyHead:When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

A: This is a comparison a twelve year-old would make. B: This is not even remotely equal to what has actually happened in our government - not only is scope, but because you are simply wrong.

OK.
How about this, specific person.
If the (R) republickers can hold the government and the American people hostage over the ACA and everybody caves to their whims and negotiates and kisses their butts and gives in and defunds it, what will be the next piece of legislation they repeal by extortion?
The Voting Rights Act?
The Clean Air and Water acts?
Social Security?

How's that for specificity and scope?


The Congress controls funding, the executive enforces laws.

You can vote against them in a year if you're not happy, but nobody is doing anything wrong.

Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?
 
2013-10-06 08:29:30 PM  

fusillade762: I really don't think the GOP has thought this through. What's to stop the Senate Democrats from throwing the same kind of tantrum over something they want?


They won't have to, the GOP is one step from gone.
 
2013-10-06 08:30:32 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?


I think you forgot about the veto power.
 
2013-10-06 08:31:40 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: vartian: SkinnyHead:When a husband and wife both have an equal say in deciding the family budget, and they have a disagreement, they're expected to negotiate, to talk out their differences.  If husband refuses to negotiate or even talk to his wife about it, but just calls her a bunch of dirty names, everyone would see that he is the one being unreasonable.

A: This is a comparison a twelve year-old would make. B: This is not even remotely equal to what has actually happened in our government - not only is scope, but because you are simply wrong.

OK.
How about this, specific person.
If the (R) republickers can hold the government and the American people hostage over the ACA and everybody caves to their whims and negotiates and kisses their butts and gives in and defunds it, what will be the next piece of legislation they repeal by extortion?
The Voting Rights Act?
The Clean Air and Water acts?
Social Security?

How's that for specificity and scope?


Aw crap. I just defended the ass clown narrow brain.
Sorry. I'll be over here in the corner.
 
2013-10-06 08:32:13 PM  

Funk Brothers: Solution?

Obama should send Newt Gingrich into battle. He is a political pawn and is useful for Obama. Why? He shut down the government previously and has criticized Republicans for not creating an alternative to healthcare reform. When there's a hostage situation, you need to bring in the police and a mediator. Obama needs to bring in a mediator which he has failed to do.


www.grizzlybomb.com
I agree with your premise, but not your solution.
 
2013-10-06 08:32:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MugzyBrown: Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?

I think you forgot about the veto power.


Yeah but veto doesn't put something into effect. There's no double_negative veto that pays for something
 
2013-10-06 08:33:23 PM  
The problem with this analogy is that someone kidnapping your family can't claim that abduction is a legitimate use of the system.

A better analogy would be Bank of America wrongly initiating foreclosure proceedings on your house and sending someone in to remove your stuff and change your locks.  That would at least be legal enough that the cops wouldn't do anything.
 
2013-10-06 08:33:37 PM  

Funk Brothers: Solution?

Obama should send Newt Gingrich into battle. He is a political pawn and is useful for Obama. Why? He shut down the government previously and has criticized Republicans for not creating an alternative to healthcare reform. When there's a hostage situation, you need to bring in the police and a mediator. Obama needs to bring in a mediator which he has failed to do.


So we should hire a former hostage-taker as our mediator. Hmm. Intredasting.
 
2013-10-06 08:34:25 PM  
newlin-deschler.com
 
2013-10-06 08:34:52 PM  

stratagos: Why the hell do people still respond to skinnytroll, seriously? It's not like he even presents reasoned, well thought out statements that need rebuttal lest someone buy into them


http://xkcd.com/386/
 
2013-10-06 08:34:52 PM  

MugzyBrown: cameroncrazy1984: MugzyBrown: Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?

I think you forgot about the veto power.

Yeah but veto doesn't put something into effect. There's no double_negative veto that pays for something


You're right. So what's the argument here? That Obama has to rubber-stamp whatever the Congress (specifically the House) sends him? Why is it incumbent on Obama to do whatever Congress wants? Especially when what Congress wants is something as stupid as defunding a law that only 33% of the country wants to defund.
 
2013-10-06 08:34:56 PM  

MugzyBrown: Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?


Because the duty of the president, as sworn in his oath of office, is to enforce the laws.
So the question is, if congress violates the law or fails to carry out the law, can Obama have his attorney general take action?

Not that he will, of course.
Obama's not like that.
 
2013-10-06 08:37:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MugzyBrown: cameroncrazy1984: MugzyBrown: Why is it encumbent on Congress to do what Obama wants?

I think you forgot about the veto power.

Yeah but veto doesn't put something into effect. There's no double_negative veto that pays for something

You're right. So what's the argument here? That Obama has to rubber-stamp whatever the Congress (specifically the House) sends him? Why is it incumbent on Obama to do whatever Congress wants? Especially when what Congress wants is something as stupid as defunding a law that only 33% of the country wants to defund.


For a group that's awfully keen to marginalize minorities, the Tea Party sure pushes its own minority held agenda.
 
2013-10-06 08:40:42 PM  

MugzyBrown: I thought Congress was given the power to pass the budget to fund the government. Aparently their job is to pay for what the president demands.


The President is demanding them to pay things that our laws have enacted, yes. Would it be rational for a bunch of "No War" Congresspeople to refuse to enact a budget unless the government shuts down the Department of Defense? No. No it would not.
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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