Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have I? Of course. I'm a mother and grandmother to boot. When a baby is hungry and not fed fast enough - you wanna hear histrionics??
But you don't mind if babies are hungry, as long as nobody dies.
Fuck you.
Oh my GAWD! Everyone knows hungry babies cry... BUT WHY IN THE FUCK are you not demanding senate democrats fund WIC while they sort this whole thing out???
It's because YOU don't really give a fucking damn! I GUARANTEE republicans would agree to fund WIC in the interim.
ALL you care about is performing useless histrionics.
Oh, no you don't. You're fine with hungry babies, don't make this about congress etc. I am disgusted by you thinking everything is fine since babies (allegedly) won't actually starve to death. Deflection won't change that.
... says the cranks currently wailing about WWII vets not being able to visit a memorial.
You pull the vet crap, we counter with babies. We win. Deal with it. If you didn't want to fight that way, you shouldn't have started it.
... says the cranks currently wailing about WWII vets not being able to visit a memorial.
You pull the vet crap, we counter with babies. We win. Deal with it. If you didn't want to fight that way, you shouldn't have started it.
I say let's fund WIC and open air memorials... Why do democrats pretend to care about babies? You rip them from the womb daily!
Republicans are willing to fund everything except the debacle AKA obamacare...you know that piece of ship legislation that Obama has excused himself; members of congress; their families and staff; as well as 1200 of his big business cronies from.
Yet you would allow WIC babies to not latch on to tits so that you can win an argument?
And now you're just repeating yourself. Quite the opposite of clever.
I'm going back to bed, I still have to work tonight. Later, joyous starver of babies.
Of course Krauthammer nails the freaking argument!
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama*care are unseemly because it is settled law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama*care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate the individual mandate this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
Charles Krauthammer: Who shut down Yellowstone? - The Washington Post
Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
Of course Krauthammer nails the freaking argument!
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama*care are unseemly because it is settled law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama*care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate the individual mandate this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
Charles Krauthammer: Who shut down Yellowstone? - The Washington Post
Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
Because one has nothing to do with the other, where republicans have had ample opportunity to amend or repeal the law and have failed to do so. Their failure to do so does not justify shutting down the government and threatening a default.
Conservatives also confuse amending/repealing with implementing, where how an administration elects to interpret a given law in the context of implementation does not change the law; the text of the ACA is unchanged from the day it was signed into law.
If someone takes issue with how a given administration is interpreting or implementing a particular law, they are at liberty to challenge that interpretation or implementation in court.
Otherwise, existing Federal laws, including the ACA, can only be amended or repealed by Congress, including amending the Act to remove the IM or delay the IM for a specified period of time.
The fact that the ACA is settled law, that it was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the president in accordance with the law and Constitution, was upheld by the Supreme Court as indeed Constitutional, and reaffirmed by the American people during the General Election in 2012 only serves to reinforce the justifications noted above.
Of course Krauthammer nails the freaking argument!
President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obama*care are unseemly because it is settled law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court.
Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obama*care five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate.
Article I of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate the individual mandate this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?
Charles Krauthammer: Who shut down Yellowstone? - The Washington Post
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths
Mr. President, You Can End the Government Shutdown
President Obama has made it clear he will not negotiate when it comes to ending the government shutdown.
At last check, the nations capital wasnt run by one branch of government, or even one political party. But President Obama is so intent on protecting his unpopular, unworkable, and unfair health care law that hed prefer to keep the government closed.
Mr. President, heres a five-point plan to end the government shutdownusing some of your favorite phrases.
1. Heres the deal: Have a serious conversation with congressional leadership to talk about the real issue driving the shutdownthe negative consequences of Obamacare. Quit giving us lengthy law school lectures about why you are right and then dismissing the class.
2. Let me be clear: Mr. President, youve already delayed or repealed 14 provisions in Obamacare. Why are you unwilling to recognize how Obamacare has negatively impacted the American people? Certainly, it shouldnt take wrecking the economy and putting bureaucrats between doctors and their patients. There is a better way.
3. It will not be easy: The American people need a leader, not a lecturer.
4. Make no mistake: Despite the fact that you claim Obamacare will lower premiums, expand coverage, and increase wellness, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Obamacare is raising premiums for most Americans, making it difficult for those out of work to find jobs, and cutting workers hours. The cost of Obamacare to the budget, the taxpayers, and to the future of health care in this country is too high.
5. Yes we can: When a majority of Americans oppose your signature accomplishment and the implementation of the law isnt working, its time for a different course. We can reform health care so that patients are in charge of their health care decisions.
The House of Representatives has passed a number of bills that would fully fund the government or specific functions of government, including a couple that would have defunded or delayed Obamacare. Yet President Obama has threatened vetoes, and his allies in the Senate are refusing to consider the House bills altogether.
Despite the news medias tainted portrayal, the President seems intent on continuing his reckless and irresponsible position on the government shutdown, much like his position on barricading and blocking access for veterans to the World War II Memorial in Washington.
For President Obama and his political allies, protecting a failed law that is hurting the country seems to be their top priority.
ZERO WIC kids will die due to the shutdown...
The Obamacare/shutdown battle has spawned myriad myths
Obamacare Poster Boy Chad Henderson and His Dad Havent Signed Up for Obamacare, Says His Father
.
Huh huh have you??? The histrionics are absurd!
Tell the fucking bozo in chief to fund WIC Go ahead and bitch him out for being so heartless and cruel to them screaming babies!
