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.

(WTKR)   House approves legislation that would take $126 million in federal money set aside for political conventions and apply it to pediatric cancer research. What could possibly go wrong?   (wtkr.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, political conventions, oncologies, cancer research, Senate, legislation  
•       •       •

2379 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2013 at 8:32 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-12 08:29:27 AM  
Wait, how is this a fail? Have you ever watched a convention?

/cue "The West Wing" Toby rant on why conventions matter
 
2013-12-12 08:37:04 AM  

somedude210: Wait, how is this a fail? Have you ever watched a convention?

/cue "The West Wing" Toby rant on why conventions matter


I believe subby's point is that there is no way the bill will get past the career politicians in the Senate.
 
2013-12-12 08:38:46 AM  
One more step to the United Socialist States of America.  Is that right Mr. Beck?
 
2013-12-12 08:41:29 AM  
The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.
 
2013-12-12 08:43:05 AM  
I''ll tell you what could go wrong:

Pediatric Cancer Political Conventions. Yes, that's right: PCP Conventions!

This is an outrage!!
 
2013-12-12 08:49:33 AM  
I agree with QUATCHI.  They cut cancer research grants out of the budgets, decrease science funding, try to GUT NASA and the NSF, and then try to pretend they are all about science and research because they pull this?
 
2013-12-12 08:51:15 AM  

somedude210: /cue "The West Wing" Toby rant on why conventions matter


summary please? i live in a cave.

/yes, my cave has wifi, i'm not the unibomber.
 
2013-12-12 08:51:27 AM  

A Cave Geek: I agree with QUATCHI.  They cut cancer research grants out of the budgets, decrease science funding, try to GUT NASA and the NSF, and then try to pretend they are all about science and research because they pull this?


but it's for the children! WHY DO YOU HATE LITTLE TIMMY AMERICA? HMM?
 
2013-12-12 08:52:18 AM  
Publicity stunt or not, I'm cool with $126MM going to try to help little kids with cancer.  It's a rounding error on the waste, anyway.  Better them than convention consultants.
 
2013-12-12 08:53:35 AM  
Assuming that it all that is in the bill, the Senate should just pass it. Please proceed, Senators.

$126 million over 10 years? Hell, in 2012 alone taxpayers paid $136 million for the conventions. Whoopty freaking doo!

BTW, cancer research was cut by $250 million per year as part of a $1.5 billion cut to the NIH.

Gee, thanks!
 
2013-12-12 08:55:22 AM  

winterbraid: summary please? i live in a cave.

/yes, my cave has wifi, i'm not the unibomber.


If I recall correctly, Toby meets with the programming directors of the big 3 networks and they tell him that they'll only show the candidate's acceptance speech and the balloons falling "because people like balloons". Toby then goes into a tirade about how the purpose of the conventions is so that the public can witness democracy in action and that denying the coverage was akin to denying a person's right to participate in democracy. And when they don't budge, he tells them that the three of them working together on this is grounds for conspiracy and he'll sick the FCC on them for monopolizing the airwaves

/it's been awhile since I've watched Season 3
//Toby's Sesame Street rant was one of the best
///It's FOZZIE bear, not fuzzy bear...
 
2013-12-12 09:03:08 AM  

GameSprocket: BTW, cancer research was cut by $250 million per year as part of a $1.5 billion cut to the NIH.


Cutting the NIH is such a bone-headed move that even George Will was able to figure it out. At least, I think he figured it out. Sometimes it's hard to tell what he's talking about after he's run his column through the thesaurus five or six times in a sophomoric attempt to sound intelligent.
 
2013-12-12 09:04:44 AM  
While it's completely uncharacteristic for Republicans to propose something that appears to help the needy at the expense of the privileged, and therefore makes me wonder if there's some shady ulterior motive to it, on the surface I don't see any problem with this.  Even if it's just "political posturing", denying funding for children's cancer research simply to prevent Republicans from scoring a few brownie points with people who don't know any better seems exceedingly petty.  We don't need to sink to their level.
 
2013-12-12 09:05:30 AM  
since they're so anti-science, anti-research it's hard to trust that this isn't a political ploy but if that really is all that's in the bill it seems like a smart thing to pass. I can't help but think there is more in the bill though like some riders that make women slaves or force children to pray in school or something. If not and it's an honest to god clean bill, the democrats are wrong not to pass it.

Putting bill killing provisions in popular legislation and forcing the other side to vote it down so they get bad press is a long used tactic. I'm not sure that is the case with this though. We need more information
 
2013-12-12 09:06:13 AM  

Fast Moon: and therefore makes me wonder if there's some shady ulterior motive to it


It's not an "if"...
 
MFK
2013-12-12 09:12:31 AM  
Not surprising. The majority of our tax dollars already go towards funding, death, destruction and wholesale killing via the Pentagon. Why would we want to stand in the way or prevent natural dying?

Death is obviously a huge campaign donor.
 
2013-12-12 09:18:52 AM  
skullkrusher:
Why not pass it? Can we simply not do with publicly funded lavish political parties where the conclusion is virtually never a surprise?

Because it is an attempt to mask the fact that the government already gutted science research, specifically cancer research.  They took a HUGE amount away from science, now they want to give back this pittance and look like heroes.  They need to be held accountable, and this legislation is a direct attempt to avoid being held accountable.
 
2013-12-12 09:19:56 AM  
skullkrusher:

The oligarchs can't throw a party unless it's subsidized?

What, and use their own money? That's not how they got rich.
 
2013-12-12 09:22:00 AM  

GameSprocket: Assuming that it all that is in the bill, the Senate should just pass it. Please proceed, Senators.

$126 million over 10 years? Hell, in 2012 alone taxpayers paid $136 million for the conventions. Whoopty freaking doo!

BTW, cancer research was cut by $250 million per year as part of a $1.5 billion cut to the NIH.

Gee, thanks!


Yep...it's like someone stealing your turkey dinner and giving you back a bologna sandwich.

It's also like rain on your wedding day.
 
2013-12-12 09:23:32 AM  

somedude210: //Toby's Sesame Street rant was one of the best


Toby's rants are one of the best reasons to even *watch* The West Wing.
 
2013-12-12 09:34:43 AM  

skullkrusher: HMS_Blinkin: skullkrusher:
Why not pass it? Can we simply not do with publicly funded lavish political parties where the conclusion is virtually never a surprise?

Because it is an attempt to mask the fact that the government already gutted science research, specifically cancer research.  They took a HUGE amount away from science, now they want to give back this pittance and look like heroes.  They need to be held accountable, and this legislation is a direct attempt to avoid being held accountable.

So withhold some funding for kids' cancer research because it might
make the GOP look good - despite the fact that it was drawn up by a Rep and a Dem? You some kind of monster?


No one's saying this is a bad idea.  What we're saying is that it doesn't matter at all, because it's a useless gesture, given what they've already done to "those poor kids"...research money is a LOT more important than a tax break for a billionaire.
 
2013-12-12 09:35:24 AM  

xanadian: somedude210: //Toby's Sesame Street rant was one of the best

Toby's rants are one of the best reasons to even *watch* The West Wing.


true. Toby was one of the best characters of any show
 
2013-12-12 09:46:41 AM  
Is this how we got so many doctors in Congress?
//political conventions = medical research
 
2013-12-12 09:50:14 AM  
skullkrusher: the HOUSE looks magnanimous and the Senate looks stupid.

No, it doesn't.  It looks petty, shallow, and looks even worse for trying to trumpet this as any kind of a 'big deal'.
 
2013-12-12 09:56:43 AM  

skullkrusher: No, it doesn't.  It looks petty, shallow, and looks even worse for trying to trumpet this as any kind of a 'big deal'.

What do you think Joe Main Street sees?


So you're admitting this is a publicity/advertising/image stunt, and nothing of any real substance?
 
2013-12-12 10:00:43 AM  
Democrats block pediatric cancer research?

Sick tag is more like it.
 
2013-12-12 10:02:21 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: skullkrusher:
Why not pass it? Can we simply not do with publicly funded lavish political parties where the conclusion is virtually never a surprise?

Because it is an attempt to mask the fact that the government already gutted science research, specifically cancer research.  They took a HUGE amount away from science, now they want to give back this pittance and look like heroes.  They need to be held accountable, and this legislation is a direct attempt to avoid being held accountable.


So what?  We can't let ourselves follow the Republicans' stance that anything that isn't 100% perfect must be burned down.  It's a drop in the bucket that they emptied themselves, but it's still better than nothing.

If the Republicans getting to look like heroes by putting a band-aid on a limb they chopped off is too hard to stomach, maybe the Senate could just reverse-troll them and send the bill back to the House requesting the funding be fully restored rather than the pittance they're offering.
 
2013-12-12 10:03:06 AM  
There's probably something in there about making Obama wear a tu-tu in the house and the reps get to throw rotten tomatoes at him.

Then Obama has to clean up the mess.
 
2013-12-12 10:11:12 AM  
Although, Republicans holding themselves up as moral heroes over this really reminds me of this:

Margaret: I spared her life.
The Doctor: You let one of them go but that's nothing new. Every now and then a little victim's spared because she smiled. 'Cause he's got freckles. 'Cause they begged. And that's how you live with yourself. That's how you slaughter millions. Because once in a while--on a whim, if the wind's in the right direction--you happen to be kind.
 
2013-12-12 10:14:45 AM  

A Cave Geek: No one's saying this is a bad idea. What we're saying is that it doesn't matter at all, because it's a useless gesture


It wouldn't be useless if the Senate passed it.  Then it would be a $126 million over 10 years gesture.
 
2013-12-12 10:16:19 AM  

skullkrusher: thurstonxhowell: GameSprocket: BTW, cancer research was cut by $250 million per year as part of a $1.5 billion cut to the NIH.

Cutting the NIH is such a bone-headed move that even George Will was able to figure it out. At least, I think he figured it out. Sometimes it's hard to tell what he's talking about after he's run his column through the thesaurus five or six times in a sophomoric attempt to sound intelligent.

George Will actually is that intelligent. He just let's the crotchety old man/bias get in the way. Dude has a Phd from Princeton


Then why does he write his column that way? One can be intelligent and still speak plainly. He takes entire paragraphs to explain what should take a sentence at most. He always seems like he's misunderstood the purpose of language entirely. Words are supposed to explain your thoughts, not obscure them.
 
2013-12-12 10:20:20 AM  

skullkrusher: And also refuses to sacrifice for kids' cancer. The GOP couldn't have written it better.


Thank you for proving that it was a publicity stunt, and nothing that shows that the GOP is actually interested in helping kids. Their actions are pretty much along the lines of me dropping a dime in a homeless guy's hat and asking for a medal.
 
2013-12-12 10:23:17 AM  
Well I guess the silver lining is that this will make for some awesome attack ads.

Fark anyone who votes to reelect any one of these asshats.
 
2013-12-12 10:29:01 AM  
I just want to cry when I see that girl.
 
2013-12-12 10:30:30 AM  

capn' fun: Publicity stunt or not, I'm cool with $126MM going to try to help little kids with cancer.  It's a rounding error on the waste, anyway.  Better them than convention consultants.


Kindness and humanity are contagious thing.  If politicians aren't careful they might discover their conscience.  This makes me happy.

I miss the days where politicians at least pretended to care.
 
2013-12-12 10:44:27 AM  

quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.


So you're ok with 127000000 going to conventions because using it for kids cancer is bad? Or since general cancer research is getting cut, fark the kids?

Political grandstanding aside, it's a lot of money for research that's currently used for bullshiat.
 
2013-12-12 11:05:44 AM  

grumpyguru: quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.

So you're ok with 127000000 going to conventions because using it for kids cancer is bad? Or since general cancer research is getting cut, fark the kids?

Political grandstanding aside, it's a lot of money for research that's currently used for bullshiat.


No one's saying 'don't do it'.  What we're saying is no one should be getting credit for doing something this tiny after gutting science and research budgets, then turn around and ask for props.  It's like the kid who broke someone's window with a crowbar coming back and giving them an apple and saying it's all better.
 
2013-12-12 11:18:09 AM  

A Cave Geek: grumpyguru: quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.

So you're ok with 127000000 going to conventions because using it for kids cancer is bad? Or since general cancer research is getting cut, fark the kids?

Political grandstanding aside, it's a lot of money for research that's currently used for bullshiat.

No one's saying 'don't do it'.  What we're saying is no one should be getting credit for doing something this tiny after gutting science and research budgets, then turn around and ask for props.  It's like the kid who broke someone's window with a crowbar coming back and giving them an apple and saying it's all better.



The entire Senate pretty much said that.
 
2013-12-12 11:20:14 AM  

quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.


The Democrats had a simple way to avoid that -- vote for the bill. You can do that and still point out that they house GOP voted to cut cancer funding overall and that it's pure political grandstanding.

Was there some poison pill in this that made it unacceptable to them?
 
2013-12-12 11:28:16 AM  

thurstonxhowell: skullkrusher: thurstonxhowell: GameSprocket: BTW, cancer research was cut by $250 million per year as part of a $1.5 billion cut to the NIH.

Cutting the NIH is such a bone-headed move that even George Will was able to figure it out. At least, I think he figured it out. Sometimes it's hard to tell what he's talking about after he's run his column through the thesaurus five or six times in a sophomoric attempt to sound intelligent.

George Will actually is that intelligent. He just let's the crotchety old man/bias get in the way. Dude has a Phd from Princeton

Then why does he write his column that way? One can be intelligent and still speak plainly. He takes entire paragraphs to explain what should take a sentence at most. He always seems like he's misunderstood the purpose of language entirely. Words are supposed to explain your thoughts, not obscure them.


Amen. Years ago I read a Will column that he wrote on Olympic Badminten. It was beautifully written. It made me excited about a sport I had never considered. I tried to watch it when it came up in the Olympic TV schedule. Not near as thrilling as advertised. I've tried on and of to watch it again. Can't do it.

As for Will's writing, I thought after reading that column that I must have been wrong after all those years. Maybe he did have some to say. Nope, his stuff is still unintelligble RW gobbleygook.
 
2013-12-12 11:33:25 AM  

skullkrusher: A Cave Geek: grumpyguru: quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.

So you're ok with 127000000 going to conventions because using it for kids cancer is bad? Or since general cancer research is getting cut, fark the kids?

Political grandstanding aside, it's a lot of money for research that's currently used for bullshiat.

No one's saying 'don't do it'.  What we're saying is no one should be getting credit for doing something this tiny after gutting science and research budgets, then turn around and ask for props.  It's like the kid who broke someone's window with a crowbar coming back and giving them an apple and saying it's all better.

And what's your analogy for blocking this bipartisan bill?


It's about the same order of magnitude.
 
2013-12-12 11:41:03 AM  
Win/win for the GOP:
Win 1) They get to grandstand on "doing it for the children"
Win 2) They make the political parties even more dependent on corporate sponsorship and the oligarchy
 
2013-12-12 11:46:40 AM  
Actually a case can be made that passing this bill is worse then doing nothing. $126 million over ten years will do almost nothing to actually help cancer research. But it will give the impression of helping, which is the most important part. This in turn will allow the politicians to ignore calls for substantive funding for research.
 
2013-12-12 11:48:00 AM  

skullkrusher: Zasteva: quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.

The Democrats had a simple way to avoid that -- vote for the bill. You can do that and still point out that they house GOP voted to cut cancer funding overall and that it's pure political grandstanding.

Was there some poison pill in this that made it unacceptable to them?

The poison pill was fear the GOP might look better.

skullkrusher: Sorry, cancer kids but the GOP has slashed funding for medical research so we can't allow this amount to go through for fear it may benefit them politically. You understand, right?


I was actually hoping for someone who thinks the Democrats did the right thing to explain why they think that.
 
2013-12-12 12:05:04 PM  

Zasteva: skullkrusher: Zasteva: quatchi: The Senate has no plans to consider the legislation.

Wow, the GOP pretending to give a shiat about kid's health in order to create attack ads on how the Dems hate kids or some such nonsense *is* a cheap and transparent political stunt.

Admittedly there are a few who are dumb enough to fall for it. And by "few", of course, I mean waaaay too many people.

The Democrats had a simple way to avoid that -- vote for the bill. You can do that and still point out that they house GOP voted to cut cancer funding overall and that it's pure political grandstanding.

Was there some poison pill in this that made it unacceptable to them?

The poison pill was fear the GOP might look better.

skullkrusher: Sorry, cancer kids but the GOP has slashed funding for medical research so we can't allow this amount to go through for fear it may benefit them politically. You understand, right?

I was actually hoping for someone who thinks the Democrats did the right thing to explain why they think that.


I'm not a huge fan of funding research in a piecemeal fashion like this, but sticking to that principle isn't sufficient justification for not holding a vote.

Sorry that I can't help you out...
 
2013-12-12 12:13:58 PM  

mizchief: But yet we can't find any money that can be cut from the budget. Give that money back to the taxpayers and let them decide what kind of charities they wish to support.


Trolling attempt?
 
2013-12-12 12:23:16 PM  
skullkrusher: Zasteva:  Was there some poison pill in this that made it unacceptable to them?

skullkrusher: The poison pill was fear the GOP might look better.

Sorry, cancer kids but the GOP has slashed funding for medical research so we can't allow this amount to go through for fear it may benefit them politically. You understand, right?

Zasteva: I was actually hoping for someone who thinks the Democrats did the right thing to explain why they think that.

skullkrusher: Heh what could they say differently?


Perhaps nothing. I think you might be right. But in the past the GOP has put deliberate poison pills into bills so the Dems would vote against them and they could point to how awful the Dems were. Just checking to see if that is the case here or if it's just straight up partisan stupidity.
 
2013-12-12 12:23:32 PM  
Reading the text, here's the Republican policy hook:

Before continuing any health economics research grant, project, or activity that is ongoing as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Director of NIH shall submit to the Congress a report that outlines the justification for such ongoing grant, project, or activity, including the reason for giving priority to such ongoing grant, project, or activity over research on pediatric diseases and disorders, such as autism, cancer, and other pediatric genetic disorders without cures.

The Director of NIH may not initiate any health economics research grant, project, or activity until-
(A)the Director has submitted the report described in paragraph (1); and
(B)a Federal law has been enacted authorizing the National Institutes of Health to use funding specifically for health economics research.



So only treat the symptoms, not the cause.
 
2013-12-12 12:23:36 PM  

paganj: Actually a case can be made that passing this bill is worse then doing nothing. $126 million over ten years will do almost nothing to actually help cancer research. But it will give the impression of helping, which is the most important part. This in turn will allow the politicians to ignore calls for substantive funding for research.


Except that argument could be used for every instance of any amount of money going to cancer research.

I think people see it as a gesture with the message that this issue is important, that can only help (not hurt) efforts to get more funding IMHO.  If the gesture is well received by the public, the Government also gets the message that the electorate seesthis as an important issue and will back you they pass funding bills increasing this type of funding.
 
2013-12-12 12:27:06 PM  

idsfa: Reading the text, here's the Republican policy hook:

Before continuing any health economics research grant, project, or activity that is ongoing as of the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Director of NIH shall submit to the Congress a report that outlines the justification for such ongoing grant, project, or activity, including the reason for giving priority to such ongoing grant, project, or activity over research on pediatric diseases and disorders, such as autism, cancer, and other pediatric genetic disorders without cures.

The Director of NIH may not initiate any health economics research grant, project, or activity until-
(A)the Director has submitted the report described in paragraph (1); and
(B)a Federal law has been enacted authorizing the National Institutes of Health to use funding specifically for health economics research.


So only treat the symptoms, not the cause.


Oh, yeah, that's pretty bad. That's really bad, actually.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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