Republicans shut 'er down, boys!

[Not2BSubjugated]

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

So you're essentially justifying the president stonewalling the negotiation for (HOLY SHIT) egotistical reasons while out the other side of your mouth blaming the republicans for the shutdown? How dare they threaten the legacy of our exalted leader!?

Glad to see you've got your priorities on straight. I hope, for the sake of the country, that President Obama's motives are more altruistic and less vain than you make them out to be. If he's looking at it as what the republicans are wanting to take from -him-, and based on that he's willing to let things go this far, then, ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in the hands of a despot.

And if that's the case, Faun's still down! Lol!

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

 

[Sallow]

So you're essentially justifying the president stonewalling the negotiation for (HOLY SHIT) egotistical reasons while out the other side of your mouth blaming the republicans for the shutdown? How dare they threaten the legacy of our exalted leader!?

Glad to see you've got your priorities on straight. I hope, for the sake of the country, that President Obama's motives are more altruistic and less vain than you make them out to be. If he's looking at it as what the republicans are wanting to take from -him-, and based on that he's willing to let things go this far, then, ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in the hands of a despot.

And if that's the case, Faun's still down! Lol!

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Obama isn't doing this to "satiate his own ego"..he's doing it to protect legislative procedure and the ACA.

 

[Sallow]

No...he just sent the message that he WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH REPUBLICANS! That's pretty much a refusal to compromise. My way or the highway!..says the man who would be king!

Compromise on what?

A settled law?

Name another time in American history where the house refused to raise the debt limit over a settled law.

Name another time in history where a government shut down caused the National Parks to be closed. That was Obama's decision...to deliberately increase the pain to the American people.

Previous shutdowns have all lasted longer than this one...and no parks were closed.

Obama is a petulant child...posing as a grown man.

Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors

United States federal government shutdown of 1995?96 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now answer MY question.

 

[Faun]

So you're essentially justifying the president stonewalling the negotiation for (HOLY SHIT) egotistical reasons while out the other side of your mouth blaming the republicans for the shutdown? How dare they threaten the legacy of our exalted leader!?

Glad to see you've got your priorities on straight. I hope, for the sake of the country, that President Obama's motives are more altruistic and less vain than you make them out to be. If he's looking at it as what the republicans are wanting to take from -him-, and based on that he's willing to let things go this far, then, ladies and gentlemen, our nation is in the hands of a despot.

And if that's the case, Faun's still down! Lol!

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

 

[P@triot]

A national healthcare system has been discussed for more than a 100 years. Obama is the president who got it, which at the heart of the matter, is what is driving the right crazy since they were in favor of this same plan when Conservative and Republicans promoted it as an alternative to HillaryCare in the 90's. Obama made history by signing that bill which is why the right is bat-shit crazy trying to undo it. He's not about to give that up any more than Reagan would have let Democrats undo his supply-side economics; or any more than FDR would have let Republicans undo his New Deal.

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

They are not "hostage takers" you drama queen (or should I say drag queen?). In any case, the House is exercising their Constitutional authority. Everything here is legal and proper.

The problem is, liberals don't like Democracy (as illustrated by Obama acting like a dictator over and over). They hate the fact that they don't get their way 5% of the time and can't fast-track this nation to their communist utopia.

The government ran up $17 trillion in debt thanks to a dumbocrats. We the people said "enough" and shut it down. Get over it already...

 

[P@triot]

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

You were saying....?

Yet another Democrat: Who has time to read these bills? « Hot Air

 

[P@triot]

Negotiate on what? His signature legislation? Of course he's not going to let the GOP take that from him, nor should he. If the rightwing in America wants to end ObamaCare by destroying the economy, then let them. We went for some 60 years without the GOP controlling the House -- we can do it again.

That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

 

[P@triot]

The difference is that the Senate considered the House bills by voting on them.

Republican leaders wouldn't let their House vote on the Senate bills.

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

Health Policy​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

Except that the president has Constitutional authority over the military. While marxism is unconstitutional. See the difference there Sparky?

 

[Seawytch]

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

You're mistaken...

The GOP says Obama's decision to postpone implementing the "employer mandate" stomps all over the Constitution. It doesn't, and here's why

 

[Sallow]

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

You're mistaken...

The GOP says Obama's decision to postpone implementing the "employer mandate" stomps all over the Constitution. It doesn't, and here's why

Don't bother.

This fellow's never ever read the Constitution.

Anything he "knows" about it? Comes from FOX.

It helps that the Saudi Propaganda channel uses small words for him too..

 

[Faun]

There were certainly people on the right that were generally for an individual mandate (Obamacare, however, despite sharing the individual mandate aspect, is what, 30k pages long? You're telling me that in all those pages, there's not room around the individual mandate for a few points that perhaps even the people proposing the alternative to Hillarycare didn't include in their proposals? For my point, however, you don't even need to take this into account) back when the Dems were proposing Hillarycare. The argument can be made that much of the right jumped on the idea back then because it sounded better to them than single payer. You've decided that the right only doesn't like Obamacare now because it's Obama's and the right's racist. I'm taking the position that the right only liked individual mandate back then because it was the proposed alternative to single payer and, now that they've thought about it, they've decided it wasn't such a hot idea.

Ultimately, we're both just speculating as to somebody else's motives and, near as I can tell, neither of us is psychic.

And so we're still left with you supporting Obama in letting it go to government shutdown to satiate his own ego.

Maybe Reagan would've done the same thing to satiate his ego. Maybe FDR would've done the same thing. To the degree that their egos were more important than doing a job as important as theirs, I would call them despots, or at least horrible leaders.

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

They are not "hostage takers" you drama queen (or should I say drag queen?). In any case, the House is exercising their Constitutional authority. Everything here is legal and proper.

The problem is, liberals don't like Democracy (as illustrated by Obama acting like a dictator over and over). They hate the fact that they don't get their way 5% of the time and can't fast-track this nation to their communist utopia.

The government ran up $17 trillion in debt thanks to a dumbocrats. We the people said "enough" and shut it down. Get over it already...

You remain indubitability retarded, Dildo. The House has no such constitutional authority as one party holding the other hostage is actually tyrannical, not democratic. Perhaps you could quote the Constitution where it says the House has such authority? Though I seriously doubt it.

And who knows how you blame Democrats for $17t in debt when Republicans contributed to about half of that.

 

[P@triot]

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

You're mistaken...

The GOP says Obama's decision to postpone implementing the "employer mandate" stomps all over the Constitution. It doesn't, and here's why

Sweetie - Obama himself already admitted it. An opinion piece by his propaganda department desperate to protect him does not change the facts.

The executive branch is not authorized to bypass the legislative branch. And the legislative branch is the only one who can alter laws.

 

[Faun]

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

You were saying....?

Yet another Democrat: Who has time to read these bills? « Hot Air

Moron, the healthcare bill was being debated in committee for a month. Plenty of time for even the dumbest of Republicans to read it.

 

[Faun]

He deliberately delayed some of it himself. He knew it would be harmful to proceed as scheduled. He didn't want to lose votes!

Since nobody read the bill until it was rammed through by liberal numbnuts, it was discovered AFTER BEING SIGNED into law that it was extremely harmful rather than helpful. It should be repealed, delayed, defunded or whatever else it takes to reverse the damage. That is called CHANGING THE LAW...just as Obama deftly CHANGED THE LAW.

The effort to repeal Obamacare is justified!

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

Holy shit!

You never fail to entertain, Rightard. If Obama violated the Constitution, he'd be facing articles of impeachment right now, not a government shutdown.

 

[Faun]

So when Obamacare passed despite an overwhelming majority of Americans being against it, I take it you were equally incensed at the few trampling on the ability of a larger body to make its opinion heard? Probably not. I'd wager that you were like, "Fuck what the people think they want, this was passed legally and it's a standing law!"

But then, when congressional leadership, -in accordance with legal procedure-, knock down the senate's clean CR proposals without a vote, they're evil, right?

But hey, if we're gonna be consistent, here, why should the opinions of the larger voting body make a shit bit of difference as long as what was done was done according to the rules?

First of all, there wasn't an "overwhelming" majority against it:

• CBS: 48%
• KFF Health: 44%
• NBC: 48%
• CNN: 59%
• AP-GfK: 43%
• ABC: 50%
• USA Today/Gallup: 50%
• Fox: 55%
• Quinnipiac: 49%
• Bloomberg: 50%
• Pew: 48%
• Gallup: 48%

Health Policy​

... but what actually came to mind when this passed even though more people were against it than for it was when Bush was president and he told America he was proceeding with the surge in Iraq even though most people were against that. Conservatives/Republicans defended Bush as doing what he felt was best for the country, not what was popular.

Same holds true for Obama.

Except that the president has Constitutional authority over the military. While marxism is unconstitutional. See the difference there Sparky?

And yet, ObamaCare is a gift from the right as it was the Heritage Foundation who thought this idea up.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, the Heritage Foundation's plan predates the opposition to HillaryCare. It started in the 80's but was adopted by Congressional Republican's in the 90's to counter HillaryCare.

As far as supporting Obama for not giving up his landmark legislation, I subscribe to the tenet that one does not negotiate with hostage takers.

They are not "hostage takers" you drama queen (or should I say drag queen?). In any case, the House is exercising their Constitutional authority. Everything here is legal and proper.

The problem is, liberals don't like Democracy (as illustrated by Obama acting like a dictator over and over). They hate the fact that they don't get their way 5% of the time and can't fast-track this nation to their communist utopia.

The government ran up $17 trillion in debt thanks to a dumbocrats. We the people said "enough" and shut it down. Get over it already...

You remain indubitability retarded, Dildo. The House has no such constitutional authority as one party holding the other hostage is actually tyrannical, not democratic. Perhaps you could quote the Constitution where it says the House has such authority? Though I seriously doubt it.

And who knows how you blame Democrats for $17t in debt when Republicans contributed to about half of that.

I simply can't believe this has to be explained over and over and over to Dumbocrats....

Congress controls the purse strings. They do not have to raise the debt ceiling. Furthermore, they should not raise the debt ceiling.

Your fascination with dildos aside [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - I have a serious question. At what point have we spent enough money in your mind? We're $17 trillion in debt. When is it enough for you? When we're $20 trillion in debt? $25 trillion? $100 trillion? Is it your goal to collapse the U.S. under the Cloward & Piven strategy?

Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

 

[P@triot]

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

You were saying....?

Yet another Democrat: Who has time to read these bills? « Hot Air

Moron, the healthcare bill was being debated in committee for a month. Plenty of time for even the dumbest of Republicans to read it.

Moron, the final version of the bill - over 2,000 pages - was given to the representatives the night before the final vote.

Not the day before. The night before. Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama did not want anyone to have time to expose just how dirty this bill was. They knew the GOP couldn't do anything to stop it since they had had the full majority across the board. But they also knew there would be massive public backlash once the people learned that this was about marxism and not healthcare. Enter the 2010 mid-term election ass-kicking Obama took...

 

[Faun]

They are not "hostage takers" you drama queen (or should I say drag queen?). In any case, the House is exercising their Constitutional authority. Everything here is legal and proper.

The problem is, liberals don't like Democracy (as illustrated by Obama acting like a dictator over and over). They hate the fact that they don't get their way 5% of the time and can't fast-track this nation to their communist utopia.

The government ran up $17 trillion in debt thanks to a dumbocrats. We the people said "enough" and shut it down. Get over it already...

You remain indubitability retarded, Dildo. The House has no such constitutional authority as one party holding the other hostage is actually tyrannical, not democratic. Perhaps you could quote the Constitution where it says the House has such authority? Though I seriously doubt it.

And who knows how you blame Democrats for $17t in debt when Republicans contributed to about half of that.

I simply can't believe this has to be explained over and over and over to Dumbocrats....

Congress controls the purse strings. They do not have to raise the debt ceiling. Furthermore, they should not raise the debt ceiling.

Your fascination with dildos aside [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - I have a serious question. At what point have we spent enough money in your mind? We're $17 trillion in debt. When is it enough for you? When we're $20 trillion in debt? $25 trillion? $100 trillion? Is it your goal to collapse the U.S. under the Cloward & Piven strategy?

Power of the Purse | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Hey, anybody else notice this rightard just tried to give the House an authority granted to the whole Congress?



Dildo, the House is only a part of the Congress -- it is not the Congress. Don't you know anything???

And your query about how much debt is too much ignores what I said. You're sooo fucking stupid, you're blaming Democrats for all of it when Republicans are responsible for about half of it.

 

[Faun]

You were saying....?

Yet another Democrat: Who has time to read these bills? « Hot Air

Moron, the healthcare bill was being debated in committee for a month. Plenty of time for even the dumbest of Republicans to read it.

Moron, the final version of the bill - over 2,000 pages - was given to the representatives the night before the final vote.

Not the day before. The night before. Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama did not want anyone to have time to expose just how dirty this bill was. They knew the GOP couldn't do anything to stop it since they had had the full majority across the board. But they also knew there would be massive public backlash once the people learned that this was about marxism and not healthcare. Enter the 2010 mid-term election ass-kicking Obama took...

Rightard ... it was debated in committee for a month. You're talking about when the bill was out of committee. In committee, Republican members had a month. And during that month, they submitted some 700 amendments.

How is that possible if they hadn't read it???

A better question is ... when does your brain start to function?

 

[P@triot]

Complete bullshit. Perhaps you can explain how Republicans entered hundreds of amendments while act was in conference; and had 161 amendments accepted into the bill -- if they never had the opportunity to read the bill until it was signed??

By the way - lets not overlook the fact that Obama violated the Constitution (what are we up to now - three dozen times he has done that) when Obama altered Obamacare. The president cannot alter a bill or law - ONLY Congress can do that as they are the legislative branch.

The marxist asshole who thinks he's a dictator should be impeached for that very serious offense.

Holy shit!

You never fail to entertain, Rightard. If Obama violated the Constitution, he'd be facing articles of impeachment right now, not a government shutdown.

You were saying there Sparky....?

Obama: I Had To Violate The Constitution - Downtrend.com

It is truly amazing how ignorant you Dumbocrats are of current and events and the Constitution (not to mention politics in general).