Republicans shut 'er down, boys!

[Faun]

The fact that they may have offered amendments to parts of the bill does not mean they were able to read the entire bill. You may recall that Republicans were LOCKED OUT of some of the writing sessions...by dear old Nancy Pelosi. She knew that they could be successful in hiding some of the bill's contents prior to voting.

..and I do recall Obama once saying that every bill would be posted for the American public to read ...for five days I think...before being voted upon. That didn't happen either.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they had access to the entire bill. The majority party cannot hide portions of a bill that is being voted on in committee.

because neither party are totally or were totally up on or understood, what the bill, in toto actually was, as to how one thing may affect the other, they all took hacks at it and I don't consider any of them on any side 'educated' as to what the bill was when it was voted on, we've had several admit as much.

Take the grassley amendment, I doubt half of them realized what it really meant, or would mean when the rubber meets the road, and, in that the dems fully expected to have the numbers after the election to keep massaging it the way they wanted to, via ping ponging it back and forth between house & senate till the dems in each chamber had or saw what they wanted or pulled out what they didn't....which they could no longer do with Brown elected.

They could only make changes ( which they did) that would effect the budgetary portions, higher subsidy levels etc. , which would allow the senate to by pass a cloture vote using the Reconciliation rule (whose benchmark is only 50 votes), ......so all of those other amendments or ones they didn't understand well enough, or read, had to stand.

Whether or not they were competent or not to understand it "in toto" is an entirely different argument. But they did have access to it for a sufficient amount of time. Again, it was debated in committee for a month and then for more than 2 more months until the Senate voted on it. Then for another 3 months until the bill was passed into law.

 

[RKMBrown]

Both Cruz and your MessiahRushie called it a filibuster. Look at the headline he gave it when Cruz came on his show!

Senator Cruz Continues the Filibuster on EIB
September 25, 2013

CRUZ: Well, look, Rush, I understand that frustration. It's why I think in many ways the central issue that we were trying to focus on in the filibuster was not the continuing resolution.

Cruz wanted the republicans to filibuster, the senate minority leader refused. What Cruz did was not a filibuster. When Cruz talked about focusing on a filibuster he was talking about what he wanted to have happen, that the republicans said no to.

Umm, if it wasn't a filibuster ... why was there a cloture vote to end it?

Of course it was a filibuster.

ROFL I'm gonna guess you don't know what cloture or filibuster means.

 

[EriktheRed]

Both Cruz and your MessiahRushie called it a filibuster. Look at the headline he gave it when Cruz came on his show!

Senator Cruz Continues the Filibuster on EIB
September 25, 2013

CRUZ: Well, look, Rush, I understand that frustration. It's why I think in many ways the central issue that we were trying to focus on in the filibuster was not the continuing resolution.

Cruz wanted the republicans to filibuster, the senate minority leader refused. What Cruz did was not a filibuster. When Cruz talked about focusing on a filibuster he was talking about what he wanted to have happen, that the republicans said no to.

Umm, if it wasn't a filibuster ... why was there a cloture vote to end it?

Of course it was a filibuster.

I'm pretty sure the cloture vote wasn't to end the wingnut from Texas' long-winded marathon speech. It was just scheduled at that time and he had to stop to let it be held.

It really wasn't an actual filibuster.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

Free advice is worth what you pay for it. The Congress, not the House, controls the purse strings. Despite being the body which initiates budget bills, the House cannot get any bill to the president's desk without the consent and approval of the Senate.

 

[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.

When the heritage foundation wrote it isn't the crux of our discussion. Your point was that "the right" used to want individual mandate, but now "the right" doesn't because they hate Obama. Keep tryin to dodge, I got crazy aim.

Our discussion is that the right was for it when they proposed it. They were for it when Romney implemented it in MA. There is no other reason they are against it now other than it now being implemented by Obama and Democrats.

One does not negotiate with hostage takers? So because you've decided that you're in agreement with the hyperbolic metaphors being used, then the Democrats are correct in not negotiating and letting the government shut down, and its the Republicans' fault? You do realize that, when you're making a deal with someone whose motives aren't your own, its customary for there to be stuff that you have that they want, that you won't give them without getting something in return, right? That's not called hostage taking. That's called the basic premise of a deal.

There is no such thing as a "deal" when the terms from one side are unrealistic. It's unrealistic for the GOP to expect the left to agree to the dismantling of one of the most landmark bills in the history of this nation that Democrats achieved. And for the GOP to insist that Democrats either dismantle their own landmark bill or face a government shutdown and a default on the public debt is tantamount to a hostage taker holding a gun to their victim's head while making unrealistic demands.

 

[Faun]

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.

So if a republican associated organization comes up with a proposal, there's some sort of rule against anyone with a conservative viewpoint to question its constitutionality?

I just came from that, "Do conservatives lack free will" post. Why is it that democrats, while arguing, will demand that "the right" concede to any points that any prominent republican agrees with them on, as though the viewpoint of a prominent republican should control the viewpoint of everyone who associates with the viewpoints of his party, and then at the same time accuse republicans of being sheep? (I agree that most of them are sheep, but it seems like a silly thing to criticize when you demand it).

Also, Freud would have a field day with that shit. What does it say about -you- if -you- believe that someone should kowtow to your opinion because a prominent politician from the party most closely associated with that someone's philosophy shares your opinion? Essentially, if your assumption is that people who stray from the opinions of the higher up's in their party of choice are doing something fundamentally wrong, how coarse is -your- wool?

My response was not a question of constitutionality. I am pointing out that Republicans were in favor of the individual mandate before they were against it. All that changed now is who implemented it ... Obama.

 

[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.

Right! In favor it was the 47% that would kiss his ass after he took a shit on their lawn...plus a few other numbnut fucking idiots that think his giveaways are worth a vote.

Your numbers mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to actual worth of Obamacare!

The numbers I posted, which are not "my numbers," were a rebuttal to the fallacious claim that an overwhelming majority of Americans were against it. That's why I only posted the numbers of those against ObamaCare. Regardless, I still acknowledged more were against it than in favor of it. To that point, I deferred to the Right's position on a defending a position a president promotes which the public finds unpopular.

 

[kiwina]

it is not the republicans who are shutting down the gaverment it is carring thinking repersentives of the people who understand what America stand for, and are fighting aganst trarnny who are taking the only corse of action to stop a tryant.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Remember back when they were complaining about White House tours!

GAME OVER
Shutdown clock runs out, no winner

After stealthy rounds of ping pong over tying the budget to Obamacare, the government is officially shut down. FULL STORY

No deal, no U.S. parks


Never mind that visit to the Statue of Liberty in New York City. Forget visiting Independence Hall in Philadelphia. That hike at Yellowstone National Park? Not happening. Why? Ask Congress. FULL STORY
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News

They are really putting their Grover Norquist Mission Statement to the test!

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size... - Grover Norquist at BrainyQuote

We interrupt this thread to input a minor correction for accuracy.

It is the DEMOCRATS and the DEMOCRATs ALONE who are shutting down the government.

You may return to your typical liberal Democrat propaganda based on disinformation, now.

 

[Nyvin]

It is the DEMOCRATS and the DEMOCRATs ALONE who are shutting down the government.

You may return to your typical liberal Democrat propaganda based on disinformation, now.

No, the shutdown is entirely on John Boehner...if he brought a clean CR bill to the floor it would pass and end the shutdown.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is the DEMOCRATS and the DEMOCRATs ALONE who are shutting down the government.

You may return to your typical liberal Democrat propaganda based on disinformation, now.

No, the shutdown is entirely on John Boehner...if he brought a clean CR bill to the floor it would pass and end the shutdown.

^ False. The bill proposed by the Republicans would have funded everything in government except for the fucking Obamashit crap.

Since Reid and the lolberal Democratics refuse to negotiate in good faith (or at all) thew blame for the shut down lies entirely with them and the fucking imbecile in the Oval Orifice.

This "clean" CR bullshit is just that, bullshit.

Get a clue. CONGRESS passes laws and CONGRESS can alter them or rescind them altogether; and CONGRESS has the power of the purse strings, so CONGRESS can defund the bullshit they previously passed, too.

The FULL ENTIRE COMPLETE and TOTAL "blame" for the gubmint shutdown lies at the feet and belongs in the bloody, shitty, filthy hands of the lolberal Democratics in Congress and the President.

There is no other honest way to put it.

 

[EriktheRed]

it is not the republicans who are shutting down the gaverment it is carring thinking repersentives of the people who understand what America stand for, and are fighting aganst trarnny who are taking the only corse of action to stop a tryant.

edukashun is for dum librels anyway

 

[PredFan]

Let's keep it shut down. As a matter of fact, let's look for more useless departments to close down. Start with the Oval Office.

 

[EriktheRed]

Let's keep it shut down. As a matter of fact, let's look for more useless departments to close down. Start with the Oval Office.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ough-votes-to-end-shutdown-4.html#post7936344

 

[Nyvin]

It is the DEMOCRATS and the DEMOCRATs ALONE who are shutting down the government.

You may return to your typical liberal Democrat propaganda based on disinformation, now.

No, the shutdown is entirely on John Boehner...if he brought a clean CR bill to the floor it would pass and end the shutdown.

^ False. The bill proposed by the Republicans would have funded everything in government except for the fucking Obamashit crap.

Since Reid and the lolberal Democratics refuse to negotiate in good faith (or at all) thew blame for the shut down lies entirely with them and the fucking imbecile in the Oval Orifice.

This "clean" CR bullshit is just that, bullshit.

Get a clue. CONGRESS passes laws and CONGRESS can alter them or rescind them altogether; and CONGRESS has the power of the purse strings, so CONGRESS can defund the bullshit they previously passed, too.

The FULL ENTIRE COMPLETE and TOTAL "blame" for the gubmint shutdown lies at the feet and belongs in the bloody, shitty, filthy hands of the lolberal Democratics in Congress and the President.

There is no other honest way to put it.

Okay...fine. "Congress" has the power of the purse. "Congress" can't agree to defund/delay ACA. Therefore there is no precedent to defund/delay ACA.

However...Congress COULD agree on passing a clean CR if Boehner just brought one up for a vote. So the only thing congress can agree on is a clean CR.

Therefore the impediment to funding the government is John Boehner's unwillingness to bring a clean CR up for a vote.

 

[SFC Ollie]

No, the shutdown is entirely on John Boehner...if he brought a clean CR bill to the floor it would pass and end the shutdown.

^ False. The bill proposed by the Republicans would have funded everything in government except for the fucking Obamashit crap.

Since Reid and the lolberal Democratics refuse to negotiate in good faith (or at all) thew blame for the shut down lies entirely with them and the fucking imbecile in the Oval Orifice.

This "clean" CR bullshit is just that, bullshit.

Get a clue. CONGRESS passes laws and CONGRESS can alter them or rescind them altogether; and CONGRESS has the power of the purse strings, so CONGRESS can defund the bullshit they previously passed, too.

The FULL ENTIRE COMPLETE and TOTAL "blame" for the gubmint shutdown lies at the feet and belongs in the bloody, shitty, filthy hands of the lolberal Democratics in Congress and the President.

There is no other honest way to put it.

Okay...fine. "Congress" has the power of the purse. "Congress" can't agree to defund/delay ACA. Therefore there is no precedent to defund/delay ACA.

However...Congress COULD agree on passing a clean CR if Boehner just brought one up for a vote. So the only thing congress can agree on is a clean CR.

Therefore the impediment to funding the government is John Boehner's unwillingness to bring a clean CR up for a vote.

Actually Mr Obama himself set precedent to delay it all by his little lonesome.....

 

[Sallow]

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.

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

That's the thing.

This law is already paid for..

Which makes this a wholly unique and unprecedented situation.

 

[TooTall]

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.

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

That's the thing.

This law is already paid for..

Which makes this a wholly unique and unprecedented situation.

Only if China continues to loan the US the money to pay for it.

 

[TooTall]

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.

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

Free advice is worth what you pay for it. The Congress, not the House, controls the purse strings. Despite being the body which initiates budget bills, the House cannot get any bill to the president's desk without the consent and approval of the Senate.

When was the last time the Senate approved a budget? Just askin'.

 

[Sallow]

No, actually, he was correct: the House DOES, in fact, control the purse strings. All budget bills MUST originate in the House.

No charge for the Constitutional Law 101 lesson, but the next one will cost you $50.

That's the thing.

This law is already paid for..

Which makes this a wholly unique and unprecedented situation.

Only if China continues to loan the US the money to pay for it.

What?

China doesn't loan us money. It buys Treasury Bills.

Sheesh.