Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
The Boehner-McConnell-Reid-Obama Alliance
The CrOmnibus passed last night and the story of the day is the TEA party-Elizabeth Warren wings of the parties uniting in an unsuccessful bid to derail it.
Lots of people are having fun with the idea that Ted Cruz and Warren have become mirror images and wondering what this might portend for the GOP. I think this is missing the real story. What we should be focusing on is that the establishment of the GOP was far more interested in cutting deals with the Democrats than they were in exercising the power of their new majorities come January. Look at the provisions that the GOP included in CrOmnibus that set off the Democratic progressives and some TEA types... First was an increase the limits donors can give to political parties.The provision would increase the amount of money a single donor could give to national party committees each year from $97,200 to as much as $777,600 by allowing them to set up different funds for certain expenses. The change would be a huge boost for party committees that have faced steep challenges in recent years from well-funded outside groups. ... “Conservatives support the First Amendment and believe there should be no limits on political speech,” said Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund. “Unfortunately, the new limits included in the omnibus only increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.”The second was a 'reform" of Dodd-Frank. Republicans have been running against Dodd-Frank for years. Normally their critique is that it hurts small businesses that can't afford to comply with a maze of regulations. The reform the GOP stood fast on? A provision literally written by Citigroup.
The derivatives provision would let JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc. (C:US), Bank of America Corp. (BAC:US) and other banks trade almost all swaps in divisions that have government backstops like deposit insurance. It would repeal a requirement that some of the trades be pushed out to separate units, which Wall Street argued would drive up costs for clients and increase risk in the financial system by moving the trades to firms less regulated than banks.So thanks to the brave leadership of John Boehner, Harry Reid and Barack Obama we made it easier for political parties to fend off outside interest groups and make sure banks can trade derivatives again with the knowledge that if things go south, the taxpayers will foot the bill. The chairman of Citigroup certainly must be pleased with his personal lobbying efforts. I'm not one to say there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats, that's silly. But it's not nearly enough or as much as they like to pretend. The story isn't that a minority of the GOP found common cause with some Democrats to oppose these deals, it's that after facing a populist backlash after the failed GOP administration of 2001-2007, the party has successfully weathered the storm and returned to business as usual. Big donors and big business get theirs. Meanwhile voters who thought they voted for spending cuts and opposition to amnesty just six weeks or so ago are told, sorry can't do it. Good luck ever collecting. I know there's a lot of anger on the right today, as there should be. But don't blame the GOP. There's no White Knight coming to liberate the GOP from the evil clutches of Boehner and McConnell. They are what the GOP is. Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Boom!
Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Smoked Sausages at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (MbqmP)
Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (jpc8l)
3
ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time.
----
Because the alternative is worse (if only marginally), and I'm not sure we did think it would be different.
----
Because the alternative is worse (if only marginally), and I'm not sure we did think it would be different.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (gmeXX)
4
Because this time, they WON'T do anything surprising in our mouths.
Posted by: Chupacabras at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (CGjum)
5
TEFFGIACOMT. They and their FSA, they think they can rule us.
Posted by: John A. Fleming at December 12, 2014 10:50 AM (K6udK)
6
Because the alternative is worse (if only marginally), and I'm not sure we did think it would be different.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (gmeXX)
I think the country would survive if we went scorched earth on the cronies in the house.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:48 AM (gmeXX)
I think the country would survive if we went scorched earth on the cronies in the house.
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (o2Jt2)
7
And Salvador Dali is GONE.
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (MPK82)
8
It's open season on RINOs!
Posted by: Rhino Hunter at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (LLOa1)
9
So Drew, I guess you voted third party, right?
Posted by: hadoop at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (2X7pN)
10
Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time.
I don't support them. I didn't vote for them. And I have no hopes of things ever being different.
I don't support them. I didn't vote for them. And I have no hopes of things ever being different.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (zF6Iw)
11
Much will need to be settled in the Burning Time.
Posted by: toby928(C) is keeping a list at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (rwI+c)
12
Shouldn't Boehner be doing a radio talk tour touting his clever negotiations with the Dems?
I would think OUR LEADER would be out there, everywhere, telling us why he supported this particular budget.
Seriously, don't you think he'd be proud of his position?
I would think OUR LEADER would be out there, everywhere, telling us why he supported this particular budget.
Seriously, don't you think he'd be proud of his position?
Posted by: seems legit at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (A98Xu)
13
Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (M1uf/)
14
Good point, DrewM. It's definitely time to dump the GOP. Vote Libertarian.
Posted by: The DNC at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (dFBkj)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (M1uf/)
16
Conservatives have been raped. What's Sabrina Rubin Erdely's phone number?
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (MPK82)
17
You know what I'm livid about?
Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (mf5HN)
18
I understand Drew's constant negativity. Republicans suck.
What is the point of these posts if there is no other party to support? Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?
What is the point of these posts if there is no other party to support? Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (VRc/p)
19
Darnit; What happened to the art thread?!!. I certainly would rather participate in that
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (Dj3AB)
20
Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why
you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any
different this time.
Ron Paul!
you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any
different this time.
Ron Paul!
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (IRpZs)
21
Give the GOP credit for taking ideas that conservatives are generally supportive of, but only taking them half-way and in a way that furthers the narrative of GOP as the party of big business.
Most conservatives agree in expanding in the size of campaign contributions - but to an infinite level - as it should not be capped - free speech means that, not free up to a certain amount.
Most conservatives agree in expanding in the size of campaign contributions - but to an infinite level - as it should not be capped - free speech means that, not free up to a certain amount.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (gmeXX)
22
Torches and pitchforks!!!!
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (LA7Cm)
23
I would think OUR LEADER would be out there, everywhere, telling us why he supported this particular budget.
Seriously, don't you think he'd be proud of his position?
Posted by: seems legit at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (A98Xu)
HAHA...good luck selling that one. Incoming republicans should be pissed off.
Seriously, don't you think he'd be proud of his position?
Posted by: seems legit at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (A98Xu)
HAHA...good luck selling that one. Incoming republicans should be pissed off.
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (o2Jt2)
24
No, just wait! When they take full power in January, everything will be different!
We did get a reduction in Michelle's salt rules for kids' lunches, though. What a triumph.
We did get a reduction in Michelle's salt rules for kids' lunches, though. What a triumph.
Posted by: PJ at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (cHuNI)
25
Conservatives have been raped. What's Sabrina Rubin Erdely's phone number?
*golf clap*
Bravo sir, bravo!
*golf clap*
Bravo sir, bravo!
Posted by: hadoop at December 12, 2014 10:53 AM (2X7pN)
26
I'm not shocked, but your endless Eeyorism is also kind of tiring.
You endlessly bark on Twitter that everyone who said to vote GOP voted for this.
The GOP is cronyist, just like the Dems. No shocker. No short-term fix to this either.
2016 will be a year of populists, and rightfully so.
You endlessly bark on Twitter that everyone who said to vote GOP voted for this.
The GOP is cronyist, just like the Dems. No shocker. No short-term fix to this either.
2016 will be a year of populists, and rightfully so.
Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (FA3Z7)
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (TIIx5)
28
If I understand the criticism of the Citi amendment then, its that banks can underwrite swaps from their AAA rated government backed banking subs instead of trying to do it from lower rated and privately insured subsidiaries.
Socializing risk and privatizing profits, big-time, I guess. When the story of the Obama years is written I hope the authors expose the enormous profits given to individual bankers by the Treasury.
Socializing risk and privatizing profits, big-time, I guess. When the story of the Obama years is written I hope the authors expose the enormous profits given to individual bankers by the Treasury.
Posted by: MTF at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (6um35)
29
Being a lo-fo mofo with no knowledge of what goes on in DC looks better and better all the time.
That said, I'm out. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
That said, I'm out. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (zF6Iw)
30
Democrat base: We are going to assault cops and anybody else who gets in our way, block traffic, loot a d burn businesses until urban yutes can rob convenience store in perfect safety.
Obama: Cool. I down with that. Burn, baby, burn.
Republican base: We want our borders secure.
Boehner: Damn You racist retards! And damn your children, too. I'll teach you!
Obama: Cool. I down with that. Burn, baby, burn.
Republican base: We want our borders secure.
Boehner: Damn You racist retards! And damn your children, too. I'll teach you!
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (c6yrX)
31
Meanwhile voters who thought they voted for spending cuts and opposition to amnesty just six weeks or so ago are told, sorry can't do it.
Just be patient, wingnuts.
*hic*
Just be patient, wingnuts.
*hic*
Posted by: John Boehner at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (MPK82)
32
Some of look forward to the art thread. It's like a little moment of grace. I hope it comes back.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (Dj3AB)
33
Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
--
Many gallons of valu-rite are needed to wash off the stink.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
--
Many gallons of valu-rite are needed to wash off the stink.
Posted by: @votermom at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (XqKJF)
34
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:52 AM (mf5HN)
If you wade into the Dump thread, desk warning re: comment 110.
If you wade into the Dump thread, desk warning re: comment 110.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (M1uf/)
35
Warren is a little cronyist too though, don't be fooled. She likes ExIm bank.
Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (FA3Z7)
36
I'm not angry. This is basically what I expected.
Donor Class is more important to a modern party than the Activist Class - cause LIVs.
If the Donor Class gives you money, you can buy LIV votes.
In 2014, Wall Street gave 63% of donations to Repubs. Wall Street went for Dems in 08 cuz Obama. But shifted to Repubs in 2012 and 2014.
Repubs get crushed by actual voters in NYC -- but actually win the Wall Street money race.
At least as it's officially tracked by Wall Street employee giving -- I think a different story would emerge if we tracked the campaign donations of their wives and children.
But anyway, Repubs get crushed in the Big Money race in other American money pots like Silicon Valley and Hollywood, who pour money into Dem hands.
Repubs do very well in Energy money and now are winning Finance money.
So -- basically the left-wing stereotype of Republicans as in the pocket of Big Oil and Wall Street Bankers.
Donor Class is more important to a modern party than the Activist Class - cause LIVs.
If the Donor Class gives you money, you can buy LIV votes.
In 2014, Wall Street gave 63% of donations to Repubs. Wall Street went for Dems in 08 cuz Obama. But shifted to Repubs in 2012 and 2014.
Repubs get crushed by actual voters in NYC -- but actually win the Wall Street money race.
At least as it's officially tracked by Wall Street employee giving -- I think a different story would emerge if we tracked the campaign donations of their wives and children.
But anyway, Repubs get crushed in the Big Money race in other American money pots like Silicon Valley and Hollywood, who pour money into Dem hands.
Repubs do very well in Energy money and now are winning Finance money.
So -- basically the left-wing stereotype of Republicans as in the pocket of Big Oil and Wall Street Bankers.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (ZPrif)
37
"Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time."
Look people, it's time to stop fooling around with all this "we'll reform them from the inside!" nonsense.
No you won't. You will never capture the GOP, with your plans to start at the local level and move up. They have rules in place already designed specifically to stop that from happening. You will never be able to "flood the conventions" and get control of the reins in the GOP. They will simply Roberts Rules of Order you into silence and continue with business as usual.
It's time to face facts, people - the GOP needs to disappear. It needs to disappear, and be replaced with a viable populist/conservative second party that will actually represent what we the people actually stand for and want. If this doesn't happen, then every single one of us is effectively disenfranchised, because we have no one we can vote for who we can expect to represent our interests in what is supposed to be a "representative republic."
The big banks and K-street lobbyists have their representatives. The welfare queens and social justice warriors have theirs. It's time to get ours. If that means the destruction of the Republican Party as an institution, then so be it.
Stop with the "Waaaaah! Fighting the Democrats is just too important to do that!!!!" nonsense. The GOP isn't doing that, even when it wins the elections that are supposedly the mostest importantest ones evah.
It's time to repeal and replace the Republican Party.
Look people, it's time to stop fooling around with all this "we'll reform them from the inside!" nonsense.
No you won't. You will never capture the GOP, with your plans to start at the local level and move up. They have rules in place already designed specifically to stop that from happening. You will never be able to "flood the conventions" and get control of the reins in the GOP. They will simply Roberts Rules of Order you into silence and continue with business as usual.
It's time to face facts, people - the GOP needs to disappear. It needs to disappear, and be replaced with a viable populist/conservative second party that will actually represent what we the people actually stand for and want. If this doesn't happen, then every single one of us is effectively disenfranchised, because we have no one we can vote for who we can expect to represent our interests in what is supposed to be a "representative republic."
The big banks and K-street lobbyists have their representatives. The welfare queens and social justice warriors have theirs. It's time to get ours. If that means the destruction of the Republican Party as an institution, then so be it.
Stop with the "Waaaaah! Fighting the Democrats is just too important to do that!!!!" nonsense. The GOP isn't doing that, even when it wins the elections that are supposedly the mostest importantest ones evah.
It's time to repeal and replace the Republican Party.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
38
"Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?"
Well, either vote Libertarian or just step away from politics. Either one works for us.
Well, either vote Libertarian or just step away from politics. Either one works for us.
Posted by: The DNC at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (dFBkj)
39
Support the Import UKIP to Whip Some Ass Act.
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (lG2E3)
40
OK I guess its "Fk Art Friday" now
Posted by: Bigby's Outfielder's Glove at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (3ZtZW)
41
Let it burn.
Posted by: LibertarianJim at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (XMDuf)
42
If you wade into the Dump thread, desk warning re: comment 110.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (M1uf/)
I saw it.
Well said.
Though I am deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in the lack of TruCon cat.
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (M1uf/)
I saw it.
Well said.
Though I am deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in the lack of TruCon cat.
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (mf5HN)
43
I don't support them. I didn't vote for them. And I have no hopes of things ever being different.
Same here. I don't understand that line of thinking, either.
When I vote for someone to take my place and do my bidding in DC, what I get is always, ALWAYS the polar opposite of my bidding.
#WASTF
Same here. I don't understand that line of thinking, either.
When I vote for someone to take my place and do my bidding in DC, what I get is always, ALWAYS the polar opposite of my bidding.
#WASTF
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (0HooB)
Posted by: Lizzy at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (ABcz/)
Posted by: Johnny "Cheeto" Boner at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (LA7Cm)
46
And because it deserves to be reposted (and, yes, an expanded version WILL end up on that Blog I Don't Have later) here's mine from the earlier thread:
===========================
Okay. Let's get this straight.
For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they *did* have, because the MFM would call them big meanies.
Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)
So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much.
Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat *of course* they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
===========================
Okay. Let's get this straight.
For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they *did* have, because the MFM would call them big meanies.
Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)
So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much.
Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat *of course* they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (M1uf/)
47
Sorry, but we can't quite hear you over the hundreds of thousands in new campaign contributions merrily clanking into our money cauldrons.
Could you speak up a little?
Posted by: The GOP - A Proud Member of the JPMorgan Investment Family
Sorry, but we can't quite hear you over the hundreds of thousands in new campaign contributions merrily clanking into our money cauldrons.
Could you speak up a little?
Posted by: The GOP - A Proud Member of the JPMorgan Investment Family
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 12, 2014 10:57 AM (kdS6q)
48
You know what I'm livid about? Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF
I don't see why. She's lying her ass off. She's not going after dems. She's grandstanding.
This item shouldn't have been there. Neither she or pres boyfriend called for a 'clean' bill.
It will be very interesting to see ifthe pederast and Princess running joke rip this outin te Senate version, and dare the markup session in the House to reject it.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF
I don't see why. She's lying her ass off. She's not going after dems. She's grandstanding.
This item shouldn't have been there. Neither she or pres boyfriend called for a 'clean' bill.
It will be very interesting to see ifthe pederast and Princess running joke rip this outin te Senate version, and dare the markup session in the House to reject it.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 12, 2014 10:57 AM (Spluw)
49
It's time to repeal and replace the Republican Party.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
----
I could get behind that. Hard to do, but there is precedent. It would not surprise me if a third party took hold in this country and the GOP and Dems morphed together.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
----
I could get behind that. Hard to do, but there is precedent. It would not surprise me if a third party took hold in this country and the GOP and Dems morphed together.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:57 AM (gmeXX)
50
Drew, old boy, if you're not willing to say that there are no differences between the GOP and Dems, then what in your opinion is/are the thing(s) that truly differentiate them?
I for one know the answer to that, and as many of you may know, I think we have a de-facto one party system in this country. It's fascistic (economically for now) and anti-constitutional.
Drew, old boy, if you're not willing to say that there are no differences between the GOP and Dems, then what in your opinion is/are the thing(s) that truly differentiate them?
I for one know the answer to that, and as many of you may know, I think we have a de-facto one party system in this country. It's fascistic (economically for now) and anti-constitutional.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 10:57 AM (CMkNk)
51
@ 18 - "What is the point of these posts if there is no other party to support? Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?"
You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (YYJjz)
52
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
-
You don't understand. We can't take any divisive, controversial positions this close to an election.
-
You don't understand. We can't take any divisive, controversial positions this close to an election.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (ZPrif)
53
The Derivatives , Dodd/Frank reform... Can someone actually explain the pro side of this? I heard just a short bit of Rush yesterday arguing with a female caller who was beserk over this reform as she thought it was a complete give away to the banks.
Rush, on the other hand, was completely convinced of the opposite, that the reform was needed and good.
What is the actual truth of this? Dodd/Frank has been universally disliked and blamed for many of the current ills of the financial markets by conservatives, and I'm wondering why there seems to be such angst about it on the right.
Rush, on the other hand, was completely convinced of the opposite, that the reform was needed and good.
What is the actual truth of this? Dodd/Frank has been universally disliked and blamed for many of the current ills of the financial markets by conservatives, and I'm wondering why there seems to be such angst about it on the right.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (oOlEN)
54
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (mf5HN)
I don't have TrueCon cat. If I did, I'd post a link.
I don't have TrueCon cat. If I did, I'd post a link.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (M1uf/)
55
Posted by: hadoop at December 12, 2014 10:51 AM (2X7pN)
Yes.
And when there wasn't a third party option, I simply didn't vote for that position.
I don't regret that since my GOP Congressman voted for this crap.
Sadly he won reelection but at least I didn't subsidize his bullshit.
Yes.
And when there wasn't a third party option, I simply didn't vote for that position.
I don't regret that since my GOP Congressman voted for this crap.
Sadly he won reelection but at least I didn't subsidize his bullshit.
Posted by: DrewM. at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (8cWgt)
56
Third parties work once in a very long while. Game theoretically it makes basically zero sense. And America is *not* clamoring for a Tea Party Revival. Don't kid yourselves.
You might as well just withdraw from the political process. Probably more effective to put your time and energy in that.
You might as well just withdraw from the political process. Probably more effective to put your time and energy in that.
Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (FA3Z7)
Posted by: Ohio's 8th Congressional District at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (XzRw1)
58
If you fight this.....you areassholes If you don't fight this....you areassholes If you say something, you are assholes. If you don't say something, you are assholes. There is only one solution. A bottle of single barrel jack daniels on a friday night. That's the ticket!
Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (uJK1E)
59
Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
--
Many gallons of valu-rite are needed to wash off the stink.
Posted by: @votermom at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (XqKJF)
Mighty racist of you to advocate giving fire water to Native Americans.
Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something.
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
--
Many gallons of valu-rite are needed to wash off the stink.
Posted by: @votermom at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (XqKJF)
Mighty racist of you to advocate giving fire water to Native Americans.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (TIIx5)
60
your existence is trite and meaningless
Posted by: GOP Big Money Donors at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (Tj+s6)
61
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
----
Well you get to vote for Ted Cruz.
----
Well you get to vote for Ted Cruz.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (gmeXX)
62
You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (YYJjz)
Because it's been over 150 years since then?
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (YYJjz)
Because it's been over 150 years since then?
Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (FA3Z7)
63
If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
Money, and the rules making it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
Money, and the rules making it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (M1uf/)
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (uSAVP)
65
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
Agreed. I said one more chance and I meant it. No more.
Agreed. I said one more chance and I meant it. No more.
Posted by: hadoop at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (2X7pN)
66
"Posted by: The GOP - A Proud Member of the JPMorgan Investment Family"
Yeah, yeah, that's nice. Nice.
Doesn't make me go to the polling place and cast a ballot for you though.
Yeah, yeah, that's nice. Nice.
Doesn't make me go to the polling place and cast a ballot for you though.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (LA7Cm)
67
If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014? Money, and the rules making it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
It can be done, but it's a bitch and a half.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
It can be done, but it's a bitch and a half.
Posted by: zombie Teddy Roosevelt at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (Spluw)
68
46 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (M1uf/)
Just to expand on your thoughts, I often like to remind people that between 2001 and 2006, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress as well as the White House.
What happened? The greatest expansion of government and increase in debt and deficits of any administration until the coming of SCOAMF.
Please enlighten as to how the GOP as it exists right now is any different than the Democrats, at least substantively as it pertains to my ability to be a free citizen who can go about his business to be as prosperous as he can within the constraints of a just and stable law.
Just to expand on your thoughts, I often like to remind people that between 2001 and 2006, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress as well as the White House.
What happened? The greatest expansion of government and increase in debt and deficits of any administration until the coming of SCOAMF.
Please enlighten as to how the GOP as it exists right now is any different than the Democrats, at least substantively as it pertains to my ability to be a free citizen who can go about his business to be as prosperous as he can within the constraints of a just and stable law.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (CMkNk)
69
I think we have a de-facto one party system in this country. It's fascistic (economically for now) and anti-constitutional.
I'm holding on to slivers of hope that's wrong, even if right now I worry its correct.
I'm holding on to slivers of hope that's wrong, even if right now I worry its correct.
Posted by: MTF at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (6um35)
70
Actually, I think Dodd-Frank is mostly a terrible law that should never have become law and should be repealed. Huge regulatory burden that accomplished little, massive growth of Federal power and Bureaucratic State.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Pointless Man at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (zwoD2)
72
You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
The electorate looked a bit different then. Plus the media.
The electorate looked a bit different then. Plus the media.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (Tj+s6)
73
Let's hear it for the City of Denver, by the way. They have ordered the cops to not wear protective gear while monitoring g Ferguson protesters so they won't intimidate them and make matters worse. Last week, protesters cheered as four cops were run down by a car.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (XUKZU)
74
64 Article IV Convention.
Hereeeee Weeeee come!
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (uSAVP)
Article V, anyway.
Hereeeee Weeeee come!
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (uSAVP)
Article V, anyway.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (CMkNk)
75
You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
Because, as much as the people here get incensed about the size and scope of government, it's nothing compared to the slavery issue which tore apart the Whigs - a party that lasted only about 30 years anyway.
Because, as much as the people here get incensed about the size and scope of government, it's nothing compared to the slavery issue which tore apart the Whigs - a party that lasted only about 30 years anyway.
Posted by: zerk at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (dFBkj)
76
If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
Money, and the rules making it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
----
Unlikely - sure. But I think it folly to assume that the two parties will exist in perpetuity. History is not so kind. These things tend to look impossible and then happen very quickly. The Whigs collapsed and the GOP was born and became the dominant party in relatively short order.
I don't expect it, but things just don't go on forever in the same fashion.
Money, and the rules making it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
----
Unlikely - sure. But I think it folly to assume that the two parties will exist in perpetuity. History is not so kind. These things tend to look impossible and then happen very quickly. The Whigs collapsed and the GOP was born and became the dominant party in relatively short order.
I don't expect it, but things just don't go on forever in the same fashion.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (gmeXX)
77
Well you get to vote for Ted Cruz.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (gmeXX)
Omelet => eggs.
Unless something drastic changes in the next 2 years, the national GOP is never getting another vote from me. Even the TX GOP is on very *very* thin ice. They may fall through it next year (they're expected to select Joe Strauss for Speaker again).
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 10:59 AM (gmeXX)
Omelet => eggs.
Unless something drastic changes in the next 2 years, the national GOP is never getting another vote from me. Even the TX GOP is on very *very* thin ice. They may fall through it next year (they're expected to select Joe Strauss for Speaker again).
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (M1uf/)
78
@ 49 - "I could get behind that. Hard to do, but there is precedent. It would not surprise me if a third party took hold in this country and the GOP and Dems morphed together."
The problem with most third parties is that they either don't appeal to most people (Greens, Libertarians), or they are close enough to at least part of a major party that there is no perceived need for them outside of a few activist types (Constitution Party, etc.)
The only way to turn a third party into a second party is to precipitate a mass movement from one of the major parties to a viable and serious (as in, actually being willing to do the heavy lifting instead of being a boutique platform for their founder to generate book deals) third party. This requires a broad-based information cascade against the second party that opens a door of opportunity for the third.
The good news is that with this latest - and let's face it, most blatant - sellout to date, that information cascade is starting to form.
The bad news is that acting on that information cascade still requires people to act with boldness and initiative, which unfortunately are in short supply among most Americans today.
The problem with most third parties is that they either don't appeal to most people (Greens, Libertarians), or they are close enough to at least part of a major party that there is no perceived need for them outside of a few activist types (Constitution Party, etc.)
The only way to turn a third party into a second party is to precipitate a mass movement from one of the major parties to a viable and serious (as in, actually being willing to do the heavy lifting instead of being a boutique platform for their founder to generate book deals) third party. This requires a broad-based information cascade against the second party that opens a door of opportunity for the third.
The good news is that with this latest - and let's face it, most blatant - sellout to date, that information cascade is starting to form.
The bad news is that acting on that information cascade still requires people to act with boldness and initiative, which unfortunately are in short supply among most Americans today.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (YYJjz)
79
Lone Ranger: Where did you get that?
Tonto: Make trade.
Lone Ranger: With a dead man?
Tonto: Hard bargain.
The story of the GOP sellout. Just replace Fauxcohontas with Tonto. Yes, Boehner is the dead man.
Tonto: Make trade.
Lone Ranger: With a dead man?
Tonto: Hard bargain.
The story of the GOP sellout. Just replace Fauxcohontas with Tonto. Yes, Boehner is the dead man.
Posted by: Billy Blaze at December 12, 2014 11:03 AM (HRo7B)
80
If you wade into the Dump thread, desk warning re: comment 110.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (M1uf/)
I saw it.
Well said.
Though I am deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in the lack of TruCon cat.
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (mf5HN)
Is this the RINO-calling thread? We haven't had one of those in awhile, like at least 12 hours.
If you wade into the Dump thread, desk warning re: comment 110.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:54 AM (M1uf/)
I saw it.
Well said.
Though I am deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in the lack of TruCon cat.
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (mf5HN)
Is this the RINO-calling thread? We haven't had one of those in awhile, like at least 12 hours.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 11:03 AM (TIIx5)
81
I don't have TrueCon cat. If I did, I'd post a link.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (M1uf/)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm disappointed that TruCon cat isn't in the posts.
Let me sum up the thread:
TruCons say this.
RINOs say that.
Everyone yells at each other.
Recriminations.
Boobehs.
Guns.
Boobehs.
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (M1uf/)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm disappointed that TruCon cat isn't in the posts.
Let me sum up the thread:
TruCons say this.
RINOs say that.
Everyone yells at each other.
Recriminations.
Boobehs.
Guns.
Boobehs.
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (mf5HN)
82
There is a civil war on the left
Warren is running. And will get the nomination but not before dragging hillary and the party to the Venezuelan left. Former obama staffers are urging her to run
There is a war between the Clinton people and the obama people
She will lose in the general. It does matter
There is a difference.
Warren is running. And will get the nomination but not before dragging hillary and the party to the Venezuelan left. Former obama staffers are urging her to run
There is a war between the Clinton people and the obama people
She will lose in the general. It does matter
There is a difference.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (zOTsN)
83
Style book question. Shouldn't it be the Cromulent Omnibus bill?
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (XUKZU)
84
I do blame the GOP. It is burning and instead of playing a fiddle our politicians are pouring gasoline.
I do not vote GOP any longer as it is a waste of my vote.
I do not vote GOP any longer as it is a waste of my vote.
Posted by: Merkan at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (hm8tW)
85
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (XUKZU)
I see no way that could possibly go wrong...
I see no way that could possibly go wrong...
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (M1uf/)
86
The bad news is that acting on that information cascade still requires people to act with boldness and initiative, which unfortunately are in short supply among most Americans today.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (YYJjz)
And two years from now, this budget will be history and we'll be on to the next squirrel.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (YYJjz)
And two years from now, this budget will be history and we'll be on to the next squirrel.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (oOlEN)
87
Actually, I think Dodd-Frank is mostly a terrible law that should never have become law and should be repealed. Huge regulatory burden that accomplished little, massive growth of Federal power and Bureaucratic State.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (ZPrif)
-----
Agreed, but instead of repealing it, the GOP tinkered with it in a way that clearly looks to help major Wall Street.
Instead of focusing on Obamacare and Amnesty which the voters care about, they do this. No one ran on repealing Dodd-Frank (which I am fully supportive of).
If Cromnibus had repealed Dodd-Frank, my admiration of Boehner would be off the charts right now.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (ZPrif)
-----
Agreed, but instead of repealing it, the GOP tinkered with it in a way that clearly looks to help major Wall Street.
Instead of focusing on Obamacare and Amnesty which the voters care about, they do this. No one ran on repealing Dodd-Frank (which I am fully supportive of).
If Cromnibus had repealed Dodd-Frank, my admiration of Boehner would be off the charts right now.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (gmeXX)
88
The Derivatives, Dodd/Frank reform... Can someone actually explain the pro side of this?.
Posted by: Jen the original
I have a kid with a business degree from Yale that's up for an internship at Chase.
-30-
Posted by: Your Republican Representative
The Derivatives, Dodd/Frank reform... Can someone actually explain the pro side of this?.
Posted by: Jen the original
I have a kid with a business degree from Yale that's up for an internship at Chase.
-30-
Posted by: Your Republican Representative
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (kdS6q)
89
AEI: The Error at the Heart of Dodd-Frank
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FSO-2011-September-Wallison.pdf
The underlying assumption of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) is that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the disorderly bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. This is evident in the statements of officials and the principal elements of the act, which would tighten the regulation of large financial institutions to prevent their failing, and establish an "orderly resolution" system outside of bankruptcy if they do.
The financial crisis, however, was caused by the mortgage meltdown, a sudden and sharp decline in housing and mortgage values as a massive housing bubble collapsed in 2007. This scenario is known to scholars as a "common shock" -- a sudden decline in the value of a widely held asset -- which causes instability or insolvency among many financial institutions.
In this light, the principal elements of Dodd-Frank turn out to be useless as a defense against a future crisis. Lehman's bankruptcy shows that in the absence of a common shock that weakens all or most financial institutions, the bankruptcy of one or a few firms would not cause a crisis; on the other hand, given a similarly severe common
shock in the future, subjecting a few financial institutions to the act's orderly resolution process will not prevent a crisis. Apart from its likely ineffectiveness, moreover, the orderly resolution process in the act impairs the current insolvency system and will raise the cost of credit for all financial institutions.
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FSO-2011-September-Wallison.pdf
The underlying assumption of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) is that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the disorderly bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. This is evident in the statements of officials and the principal elements of the act, which would tighten the regulation of large financial institutions to prevent their failing, and establish an "orderly resolution" system outside of bankruptcy if they do.
The financial crisis, however, was caused by the mortgage meltdown, a sudden and sharp decline in housing and mortgage values as a massive housing bubble collapsed in 2007. This scenario is known to scholars as a "common shock" -- a sudden decline in the value of a widely held asset -- which causes instability or insolvency among many financial institutions.
In this light, the principal elements of Dodd-Frank turn out to be useless as a defense against a future crisis. Lehman's bankruptcy shows that in the absence of a common shock that weakens all or most financial institutions, the bankruptcy of one or a few firms would not cause a crisis; on the other hand, given a similarly severe common
shock in the future, subjecting a few financial institutions to the act's orderly resolution process will not prevent a crisis. Apart from its likely ineffectiveness, moreover, the orderly resolution process in the act impairs the current insolvency system and will raise the cost of credit for all financial institutions.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
90
69 I'm holding on to slivers of hope that's wrong, even if right now I worry its correct.
Posted by: MTF at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (6um35)
I can only look at things and draw the seemingly right conclusions. Look at the behavior of our party to non establishment candidates before last November. Look at what they just did. Look at the positions of the Chamber of Commerce and the big donors/corporatists. Look at the actions of the Bush administration from 2001-2006 when the GOP controlled the government.
With the exception of the Reagan years, the GOP since Ike has accepted and embraced the New Deal and the notion that we need a big central government.
It's now coming to a head and I sadly have to stick by my assessment.
Posted by: MTF at December 12, 2014 11:00 AM (6um35)
I can only look at things and draw the seemingly right conclusions. Look at the behavior of our party to non establishment candidates before last November. Look at what they just did. Look at the positions of the Chamber of Commerce and the big donors/corporatists. Look at the actions of the Bush administration from 2001-2006 when the GOP controlled the government.
With the exception of the Reagan years, the GOP since Ike has accepted and embraced the New Deal and the notion that we need a big central government.
It's now coming to a head and I sadly have to stick by my assessment.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (CMkNk)
91
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (mf5HN)
Zeus dropped the toilet paper roll?
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (mf5HN)
Zeus dropped the toilet paper roll?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (TIIx5)
92
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:02 AM (YYJjz)
----
Populism is a good place to start building momentum for a 3rd party - according to Andrew Jackson.
----
Populism is a good place to start building momentum for a 3rd party - according to Andrew Jackson.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (gmeXX)
93
Yes.
And when there wasn't a third party option, I simply didn't vote for that position.
I don't regret that since my GOP Congressman voted for this crap.
Sadly he won reelection but at least I didn't subsidize his bullshit.
Posted by: DrewM. at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (8cWgt)Good. As I said upthread, I gave them one more chance, and I meant it. I try not to use the word "hate", but I HATE this crap. As the news dump thread mentioned, the GOP ceded their leverage. I don't understand this strategy. Boner must have threatened( if you can call it that) that the Dims either pass the bill now or risk it with the new Congress in January. Totally fcuked!
And when there wasn't a third party option, I simply didn't vote for that position.
I don't regret that since my GOP Congressman voted for this crap.
Sadly he won reelection but at least I didn't subsidize his bullshit.
Posted by: DrewM. at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (8cWgt)Good. As I said upthread, I gave them one more chance, and I meant it. I try not to use the word "hate", but I HATE this crap. As the news dump thread mentioned, the GOP ceded their leverage. I don't understand this strategy. Boner must have threatened( if you can call it that) that the Dims either pass the bill now or risk it with the new Congress in January. Totally fcuked!
Posted by: hadoop at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (2X7pN)
94
My observation: We avoided a shutdown. It was only avoiding a shutdown of the National Park System and shit like scientists studying variations in whale sperm due to global warming. So, win?
Oh, and, here's NPR's breathless meme: It was BI-PARTISAN!!
Oh, and, here's NPR's breathless meme: It was BI-PARTISAN!!
Posted by: Sports Illustrated Photog During Upton's Bikini Malfunction at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (5buP8)
95
I don't think getting Wall Street to support republicans and fight the warrenistas is a bad thing
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (zOTsN)
96
Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (M1uf/)
Exactly, I feel like an abused spouse, just one more chance...BS
I'm so angry I'm numb.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM (M1uf/)
Exactly, I feel like an abused spouse, just one more chance...BS
I'm so angry I'm numb.
Posted by: spypeach at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (/vbEv)
97
Last week, protesters cheered as four cops were run down by a car.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (XUKZU)
Did it turn out that the driver had a medical emergency?
Last I saw the assumption had changed from targeting to stroke/seizure/heart attack.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:01 AM (XUKZU)
Did it turn out that the driver had a medical emergency?
Last I saw the assumption had changed from targeting to stroke/seizure/heart attack.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (mf5HN)
98
I think we have a de-facto one party system in this country. It's fascistic (economically for now) and anti-constitutional.
It's been that way all my life.
I remember George Wallace saying that you could throw Dims and Repumpkins in a bag, shake it up, spill a few of them out, and there wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference between them.
And history has proven him right about that.
#WASTF
It's been that way all my life.
I remember George Wallace saying that you could throw Dims and Repumpkins in a bag, shake it up, spill a few of them out, and there wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference between them.
And history has proven him right about that.
#WASTF
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (0HooB)
99
Just keep voting for our subsidiary, the GOP.
Posted by: The DNC at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (jasFi)
100
81 I don't have TrueCon cat. If I did, I'd post a link.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (M1uf/)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm disappointed that TruCon cat isn't in the posts.
Let me sum up the thread:
TruCons say this.
RINOs say that.
Everyone yells at each other.
Recriminations.
Boobehs.
Guns.
Boobehs.
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (mf5HN)
Damn. I miss all the good intellectual hate stuff. but I couldn't represent...so theres that. but I have ben called a shitweasel and so I got SOME game.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 10:58 AM (M1uf/)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm disappointed that TruCon cat isn't in the posts.
Let me sum up the thread:
TruCons say this.
RINOs say that.
Everyone yells at each other.
Recriminations.
Boobehs.
Guns.
Boobehs.
Here, have some Art:
http://bit.ly/1t41FCz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (mf5HN)
Damn. I miss all the good intellectual hate stuff. but I couldn't represent...so theres that. but I have ben called a shitweasel and so I got SOME game.
Posted by: Billy Blaze at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (HRo7B)
101
@ 56 - "And America is *not* clamoring for a Tea Party Revival. Don't kid yourselves."
Which is why you focus on the issues that Americans ARE clamoring about.
Duh.
Which is why you focus on the issues that Americans ARE clamoring about.
Duh.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:08 AM (YYJjz)
102
Agreed, but instead of repealing it, the GOP tinkered with it in a way that clearly looks to help major Wall Street.
This.
If you're going to "fix" Dodd-Frank, you do so by repealing it.
Of course, this also proves the lie that big businesses don't like more regulation. They *love* more regulation. They already have their army of lawyers to help them navigate whatever new comes down the pipe, and the new regs force some smaller firms to sell out (often to said big businesses) and prevents new ones from opening in the first place.
This.
If you're going to "fix" Dodd-Frank, you do so by repealing it.
Of course, this also proves the lie that big businesses don't like more regulation. They *love* more regulation. They already have their army of lawyers to help them navigate whatever new comes down the pipe, and the new regs force some smaller firms to sell out (often to said big businesses) and prevents new ones from opening in the first place.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:08 AM (M1uf/)
103
The good news is that with this latest - and let's face it, most blatant - sellout to date, that information cascade is starting to form. The bad news is that acting on that information cascade still requires people to act with boldness and initiative, which unfortunately are in short supply among most Americans today.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
There's a reason why the left is polite to Ralph Nader, and then tune him out near election time. And fight him in court to keep him off ballots.
There's a reason why EVERYBODY flipped a shit on the tea party groups.
The most common result of any third party is to split the vote that you want, and thus hand victory to the guy most opposed to you (Perot enabled Clinton).
In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt wanted a leftward alternative to Taft, and enabled Wilson. At least he got it to go in the direction he intended.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
There's a reason why the left is polite to Ralph Nader, and then tune him out near election time. And fight him in court to keep him off ballots.
There's a reason why EVERYBODY flipped a shit on the tea party groups.
The most common result of any third party is to split the vote that you want, and thus hand victory to the guy most opposed to you (Perot enabled Clinton).
In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt wanted a leftward alternative to Taft, and enabled Wilson. At least he got it to go in the direction he intended.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 12, 2014 11:08 AM (Spluw)
104
Kate Upton Photographer sock off
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at December 12, 2014 11:09 AM (5buP8)
105
I'm not one to say there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats, that's silly.
I'll say it then.
I'll say it then.
Posted by: Citizen X at December 12, 2014 11:09 AM (7ObY1)
106
Re the last paragraph.
Maybe this is a generation or income gap thing...,
but not voting is not an option for responsible citizens. If there is a third party candidate worthy of my vote - or even a Sane Democrat - I will vote accordingly. Otherwise, I will just work to toss bad incumbents.
Maybe this is a generation or income gap thing...,
but not voting is not an option for responsible citizens. If there is a third party candidate worthy of my vote - or even a Sane Democrat - I will vote accordingly. Otherwise, I will just work to toss bad incumbents.
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at December 12, 2014 11:09 AM (9BRsg)
107
96 Exactly, I feel like an abused spouse, just one more chance...BS
I'm so angry I'm numb.
Posted by: spypeach at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (/vbEv)
Are we back to Hilary country songs?
I'm so angry I'm numb.
Posted by: spypeach at December 12, 2014 11:07 AM (/vbEv)
Are we back to Hilary country songs?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:09 AM (CMkNk)
108
So, being a PIV voter, is a Cruz Warren alliance good or bad?
Posted by: Penfold at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Fbt5B)
109
IFyoudontsupporttheGOPyoumightaswellkill
babiesyourselvesbecause thirdpartyvoting
eatschildrenandjailsChristians andCONSIDERTHEALTERNATIVE youmustloveObama
ifyouhatetheGOPsojustopenwidetheshitsandwichis
actuallychocolateygoodness smearedwithGOPloveandkisses
andifyoudisagreeevenalittle bittheworldwillend.
babiesyourselvesbecause thirdpartyvoting
eatschildrenandjailsChristians andCONSIDERTHEALTERNATIVE youmustloveObama
ifyouhatetheGOPsojustopenwidetheshitsandwichis
actuallychocolateygoodness smearedwithGOPloveandkisses
andifyoudisagreeevenalittle bittheworldwillend.
Posted by: GOPologists aka 'TheDNC' at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Qgr71)
110
I don't think getting Wall Street to support republicans and fight the warrenistas is a bad thing
Posted by: ThunderB
Obama got more sweet Wall Street money than McCain did in 2008. Go figure.
Posted by: ThunderB
Obama got more sweet Wall Street money than McCain did in 2008. Go figure.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Spluw)
111
I would prefer to talk about the Dali painting.
Posted by: NotCoach at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (rsudF)
112
Democrats are not worse than Republicans.
They are just two sides of the same coin.
One side pushes the USA towards Socialism and the other side pretends to oppose what the other side is doing.
Stop being afraid of Democrats.
They are just two sides of the same coin.
One side pushes the USA towards Socialism and the other side pretends to oppose what the other side is doing.
Stop being afraid of Democrats.
Posted by: eman at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (MQEz6)
113
Well they won't now. Not with Warren running
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (zOTsN)
114
So, being a PIV voter, is a Cruz Warren alliance good or bad?
----
In general, I will support anyone who advocates for the shut-down of government (though as Kevin Williamson noted today on the corner - government is never actually shut down).
----
In general, I will support anyone who advocates for the shut-down of government (though as Kevin Williamson noted today on the corner - government is never actually shut down).
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (gmeXX)
115
I thank AtC for posting art
I am going to protest the stomping of the art thread by posting Monet:
http://tinyurl.com/k35yqlq
I am going to protest the stomping of the art thread by posting Monet:
http://tinyurl.com/k35yqlq
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (Dj3AB)
116
109 Posted by: GOPologists aka 'TheDNC' at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Qgr71)
Space bar you much.
Space bar you much.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (CMkNk)
117
Obama got more sweet Wall Street money than McCain did in 2008. Go figure.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Spluw)
----
Almost as if Wall Street will support whoever may be in charge of government.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 12, 2014 11:10 AM (Spluw)
----
Almost as if Wall Street will support whoever may be in charge of government.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (Dj3AB)
119
And two years from now, this budget will be history and we'll be on to the next squirrel.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (oOlEN)
It's not a budget.
There hasn't been an actual budget passed since, what, 2009? I've lost track.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 11:04 AM (oOlEN)
It's not a budget.
There hasn't been an actual budget passed since, what, 2009? I've lost track.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (mf5HN)
120
Federalism is the only answer. That, or moving or waiting for SMOD.
Posted by: Furious George at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (UlJ3l)
121
In general, I will support anyone who advocates for the shut-down of government
Yep.
And the more often, the better. The more people realize that a "shut down" just stops the National gov't from doing things it doesn't need to be doing anyway, the faster we can start moving back to sanity.
Yep.
And the more often, the better. The more people realize that a "shut down" just stops the National gov't from doing things it doesn't need to be doing anyway, the faster we can start moving back to sanity.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (M1uf/)
122
Prediction: Cons swearing oaths today will be back in the fold by Nov 2016. Everybody knows it.
For whatever reason, Cons have become a strangely passive bunch, willing to be taken again and again.
For whatever reason, Cons have become a strangely passive bunch, willing to be taken again and again.
Posted by: Porky Rove, GOPe Genius at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (hKyl0)
123
Here is how I see things at this point. Cromnibus was passed, and Boehner knows the base is furious. Jackstraw argues forcefully that the CR was the best deal JB could get, and
maybe it was, but it still stinks. As a result, Boehner now has to
produce, and not just a fig leaf, but something real and substantive to oppose amnesty and spending, or he can kiss '16 goodbye. Subterfuge won't cut it. The base is paying very close attention, and will know fake, cosmetic moves when they see them.
I hate that our fate relies on us trusting that he means what he says about fighting tooth and nail, but that's where we are. He needs to either produce on this, or retire. Lack of results will be fatal to the GOP in '16.
maybe it was, but it still stinks. As a result, Boehner now has to
produce, and not just a fig leaf, but something real and substantive to oppose amnesty and spending, or he can kiss '16 goodbye. Subterfuge won't cut it. The base is paying very close attention, and will know fake, cosmetic moves when they see them.
I hate that our fate relies on us trusting that he means what he says about fighting tooth and nail, but that's where we are. He needs to either produce on this, or retire. Lack of results will be fatal to the GOP in '16.
Posted by: pep at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (YXmuI)
124
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: alex
----------------------------
I move that we consolidate the topics. Might as well. Was the Cromnibus bill rape-rape, or consensual?
Posted by: alex
----------------------------
I move that we consolidate the topics. Might as well. Was the Cromnibus bill rape-rape, or consensual?
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (l1zOH)
125
SPACE BAR YOU MUCH?
Posted by: Al Sharpton at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (Jwwj/)
126
getting Wall Street to oppose the dems is a bad thing. My bad
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (zOTsN)
127
If you call yourself a Republican, but you are in favor of a smaller, less corrupt government, I've got news for you-
You're the RINO.
You're the RINO.
Posted by: Mikesixes at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (FXvYa)
Posted by: GOPologists at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (Qgr71)
129
And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care.
And if I am elected
I promise the formation of a new party
A third party, the Wild Party!
I know we have problems,
We got problems right here in Central City,
We have problems on the North, South, East and West,
New York City, Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles,
Detroit, Chicago,
Everybody has problems,
And personally, I don't care.
Posted by: Alice Cooper at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (W5DcG)
130
There hasn't been an actual budget passed since, what, 2009? I've lost track.
Err... 2008, I think (though I've also lost track). I don't recall the SCOAMT ever signing an actual budget. It's all been CRs and "emergency spending measures."
Err... 2008, I think (though I've also lost track). I don't recall the SCOAMT ever signing an actual budget. It's all been CRs and "emergency spending measures."
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (M1uf/)
131
I think there will be a third (UKIP type) party rising sooner or later. But, until that happens, we don't have many choices.
I voted mostly for Republicans, but skipped the one local Republican who was a squish. My blank ballet didn't change a thing. He's on his way to Washington as our new Senator.
I voted mostly for Republicans, but skipped the one local Republican who was a squish. My blank ballet didn't change a thing. He's on his way to Washington as our new Senator.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (VRc/p)
132
ithinkmyspacebarisbroken
Posted by: Mr.KnowItAll at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (uJK1E)
133
Waiting for Louie Gohmert or someone to publicly blast Boner and McCocksickle on the floor of the House or Senate and start the GOP civil war. Call them out and let the people know whose side you're on.
Take it back or take it down.
Waiting for Louie Gohmert or someone to publicly blast Boner and McCocksickle on the floor of the House or Senate and start the GOP civil war. Call them out and let the people know whose side you're on.
Take it back or take it down.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (CMkNk)
134
Has Gowdy explained voting for the rule but against the bill?
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (9BRsg)
135
I am going to protest the stomping of the art thread by posting Monet:
http://tinyurl.com/k35yqlq
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (Dj3AB)
I see your Monet and raise you Fragonard.
http://bit.ly/1sXRfDz
http://tinyurl.com/k35yqlq
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 11:11 AM (Dj3AB)
I see your Monet and raise you Fragonard.
http://bit.ly/1sXRfDz
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (mf5HN)
136
Odds the R's pass a budget next year?
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (o2Jt2)
137
>>>You build a new one, what do you think? If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it in 2014?
WE NEED MEXICANS TO DO THE JOB AMERICANS JUST WON'T DO
WE NEED MEXICANS TO DO THE JOB AMERICANS JUST WON'T DO
Posted by: Bigby's Outfielder's Glove at December 12, 2014 11:15 AM (3ZtZW)
138
Off, thou loud, portly, sock!
Posted by: Al Shabbah at December 12, 2014 11:15 AM (Jwwj/)
139
a new GOP president would be another Obama by another name!
Posted by: J Stours at December 12, 2014 11:15 AM (Hshi5)
140
129 Posted by: Alice Cooper at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (W5DcG)
Billion Dollar Babies. Make that TRILLION Dollar Babies, Mr. Furnier.
Billion Dollar Babies. Make that TRILLION Dollar Babies, Mr. Furnier.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:15 AM (CMkNk)
141
Posted by: Mikesixes at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (FXvYa)
This.
Boehner and McConnel are the "real" Republicans. Any Republican who opposes government growth, let alone wants to shrink government- they're the RINOs.
This.
Boehner and McConnel are the "real" Republicans. Any Republican who opposes government growth, let alone wants to shrink government- they're the RINOs.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (M1uf/)
142
C'mon if we're going to circular firing squad all day, and we are, at least we should have TruCon cat.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM
No link handy, but f*ck this Congress in particular.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 10:56 AM
No link handy, but f*ck this Congress in particular.
Posted by: RedMindBlueState at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (knoK7)
143
134
Has Gowdy explained voting for the rule but against the bill?
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (9BRsg)
The cya story one 'disappointed' congressman said leadership lied to them.
Has Gowdy explained voting for the rule but against the bill?
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (9BRsg)
The cya story one 'disappointed' congressman said leadership lied to them.
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (o2Jt2)
144
SPACE BAR YOU MUCH?
Posted by: Al Sharpton at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (Jwwj/)
Dammit.
Tea. Everywhere.
Posted by: Al Sharpton at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (Jwwj/)
Dammit.
Tea. Everywhere.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (mf5HN)
145
"120
Federalism is the only answer. That, or moving or waiting for SMOD.
Posted by: Furious George at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (UlJ3l)"
Word.
We will never fix the federal government, only manage the ever evolving disaster. Federalism is the only reason we have remained free, and it will be the only reason we will continue to be free.
Federalism is the only answer. That, or moving or waiting for SMOD.
Posted by: Furious George at December 12, 2014 11:12 AM (UlJ3l)"
Word.
We will never fix the federal government, only manage the ever evolving disaster. Federalism is the only reason we have remained free, and it will be the only reason we will continue to be free.
Posted by: NotCoach at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (rsudF)
146
Both parties are just statists out for money and power, that's it. Not sure how we fix that att this point.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:17 AM (Tj+s6)
147
126 getting Wall Street to oppose the dems is a bad thing. My bad
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (zOTsN)
You do realize that Wall Street these days by and large leans Democrat?
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:13 AM (zOTsN)
You do realize that Wall Street these days by and large leans Democrat?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:17 AM (CMkNk)
148
AllenG: "Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?"
That's where I'm at buddy. I'll pull the lever for Cruz, but in the last election I voted against Cronyism in the primary and DID NOT vote for him in the general. I know a bunch of people who did exactly that at my urging. If there gets to be enough disparity between total votes cast and the number these assholes receive, a message will be sent. Eventually, maybe they'll get run out of office.
That's where I'm at buddy. I'll pull the lever for Cruz, but in the last election I voted against Cronyism in the primary and DID NOT vote for him in the general. I know a bunch of people who did exactly that at my urging. If there gets to be enough disparity between total votes cast and the number these assholes receive, a message will be sent. Eventually, maybe they'll get run out of office.
Posted by: Bayou City at December 12, 2014 11:17 AM (AJrbR)
149
That's where I'm at buddy. I'll pull the lever for Cruz, but in the last election I voted against Cronyism in the primary and DID NOT vote for him in the general. I know a bunch of people who did exactly that at my urging. If there gets to be enough disparity between total votes cast and the number these assholes receive, a message will be sent. Eventually, maybe they'll get run out of office.
----
Same here. And I urged others to do the same.
----
Same here. And I urged others to do the same.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:17 AM (gmeXX)
150
I still prefer the Repubs. I don't take this as a great betrayal. Meh.
America hasn't died today. There won't be 3rd party. Or an article V convention. Repubs just won their largest majority in modern history. And it wasn't because of us.
People here have been mostly screaming and saying the same things for a decade. The country's voting behavior is not linked to our outrage.
We hated the hard-Left when Obama won huge in 08 and 2012. We hated the hard-Left when Repubs won huge in 2010 and 2014.
We're the froth on a tidal wave arguing about where we should land.
America hasn't died today. There won't be 3rd party. Or an article V convention. Repubs just won their largest majority in modern history. And it wasn't because of us.
People here have been mostly screaming and saying the same things for a decade. The country's voting behavior is not linked to our outrage.
We hated the hard-Left when Obama won huge in 08 and 2012. We hated the hard-Left when Repubs won huge in 2010 and 2014.
We're the froth on a tidal wave arguing about where we should land.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (ZPrif)
151
145 Word.
We will never fix the federal government, only manage the ever evolving disaster. Federalism is the only reason we have remained free, and it will be the only reason we will continue to be free.
Posted by: NotCoach at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (rsudF)
But we're NOT free. The 9th and 10 amendments are gone and the 17th put a torpedo in State supremacy.
Article V is the only Constitutional way to wrest power from DC. It's in the hands of, and the duty of, state legislators to move ahead now at flank speed.
We will never fix the federal government, only manage the ever evolving disaster. Federalism is the only reason we have remained free, and it will be the only reason we will continue to be free.
Posted by: NotCoach at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM (rsudF)
But we're NOT free. The 9th and 10 amendments are gone and the 17th put a torpedo in State supremacy.
Article V is the only Constitutional way to wrest power from DC. It's in the hands of, and the duty of, state legislators to move ahead now at flank speed.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (CMkNk)
152
Dammit. Tea. Everywhere.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM
Okay, who had 11:16 in the 'AtC is moist' category? Please collect your winnings.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:16 AM
Okay, who had 11:16 in the 'AtC is moist' category? Please collect your winnings.
Posted by: suicidal Moron at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (Spluw)
153
136 Odds the R's pass a budget next year?
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (o2Jt2)
I'm going to predict about 99%.
The problem is they'll pass a bill that should be "veto-proof", which means there will be some stuff we don't like since that will require serious compromise to get Dem support.
On the upside, they WILL look like they are "governing".
On the downside, most of us are sick of being governed.
Posted by: A dude in MI at December 12, 2014 11:14 AM (o2Jt2)
I'm going to predict about 99%.
The problem is they'll pass a bill that should be "veto-proof", which means there will be some stuff we don't like since that will require serious compromise to get Dem support.
On the upside, they WILL look like they are "governing".
On the downside, most of us are sick of being governed.
Posted by: jwb7605 at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (ZALPg)
154
Odds the R's pass a budget next year?
If the CR passes the Senate? 0. Cronybus goes through September next year, and then they'll pass another CR to get through the rest of the year.
If the CR doesn't pass the senate? Still slim-to-none. Boehner and McConnell love the CRs. If they didn't, we'd already have a budget.
If the CR passes the Senate? 0. Cronybus goes through September next year, and then they'll pass another CR to get through the rest of the year.
If the CR doesn't pass the senate? Still slim-to-none. Boehner and McConnell love the CRs. If they didn't, we'd already have a budget.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (M1uf/)
155
"I voted mostly for Republicans, but skipped the one local Republican who was a squish. My blank ballet didn't change a thing. He's on his way to Washington as our new Senator."
I forgot to add: he's pro-establishment all the way, and he's replacing Tom Coburn. Congress is about to get slightly less conservative, despite the recent GOP landslide.
I forgot to add: he's pro-establishment all the way, and he's replacing Tom Coburn. Congress is about to get slightly less conservative, despite the recent GOP landslide.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (VRc/p)
156
Yes I know JJ. Very well. But they will not support Warren because they like their jobs. Obama got in bed with banks.m Warren want to go to war with them. Let her
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (zOTsN)
157
Apart from its likely ineffectiveness, moreover, the orderly resolution process in the act impairs the current insolvency system and will raise the cost of credit for all financial institutions.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
Thanks for the info. Additionally, in briefly googling through some sites, not only was E.Warren on the warpath about this yesterday, along with a bunch of other liberals(giving me perked ears, if they are aghast at something being repealed, it's likely something I like), Barney Frank was contacted about this reform and said that it was a stealth way to begin to unwind the entire legislation, which he fears will begin when the Rep. Senate is seated next month.
In other words, repeal.....
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (ZPrif)
Thanks for the info. Additionally, in briefly googling through some sites, not only was E.Warren on the warpath about this yesterday, along with a bunch of other liberals(giving me perked ears, if they are aghast at something being repealed, it's likely something I like), Barney Frank was contacted about this reform and said that it was a stealth way to begin to unwind the entire legislation, which he fears will begin when the Rep. Senate is seated next month.
In other words, repeal.....
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 11:19 AM (oOlEN)
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at December 12, 2014 11:19 AM (RZzX3)
159
The question should be, "why do we support current incumbent GOP members?".
The GOP in its current incarnation can be changed.
We can replace members in primaries.
Primaries are an opportunity to make a change when a better option is available. In the general election, there is no better alternative.
Conservatives need to learn from Eric Cantor's defeat and target House leadership (including committee chairmen) for primary challenges.
Pete Sessions should be a prime target.
The GOP in its current incarnation can be changed.
We can replace members in primaries.
Primaries are an opportunity to make a change when a better option is available. In the general election, there is no better alternative.
Conservatives need to learn from Eric Cantor's defeat and target House leadership (including committee chairmen) for primary challenges.
Pete Sessions should be a prime target.
Posted by: Jose at December 12, 2014 11:19 AM (zc/sw)
160
From teh dead thread:
My Rep, Martha Roby, voted for CRomnibus.
Welp. Time to practice what I preach. Enjoy the next two years, Rep. Roby, 'cause if I have anything to do with it, that's all you have left in Congress.
And CRomnibus was rape by fraud.
My Rep, Martha Roby, voted for CRomnibus.
Welp. Time to practice what I preach. Enjoy the next two years, Rep. Roby, 'cause if I have anything to do with it, that's all you have left in Congress.
And CRomnibus was rape by fraud.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at December 12, 2014 11:19 AM (DT3rQ)
161
@ 137 - "WE NEED MEXICANS TO DO THE JOB AMERICANS JUST WON'T DO"
Whether you intended it or not, that was an awesome oblique historical reference.
I like the cut of your jib.
Whether you intended it or not, that was an awesome oblique historical reference.
I like the cut of your jib.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (YYJjz)
162
"Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why
you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any
different this time."
It's not that I thought they would be any different, it's that the chance they would be different is preferable to a shooting war.
you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any
different this time."
It's not that I thought they would be any different, it's that the chance they would be different is preferable to a shooting war.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (6fyGz)
163
I think we have the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Diane Feinkenstein says that that no useful information can be obtained by torture. Let's torture the hell out of Feinkenstein, Lerner, Holder, Cummings and see if sewe obtain any useful information on the IRS, Fast and Furious, and sundry other topics.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (XUKZU)
164
I honestly do not feel like voting anymore. Every year it's voting against someone rather than for them. It shouldn't have to be like this.
The good news is "true conservatives" like Hewitt and Medved are very pleased today.
The good news is "true conservatives" like Hewitt and Medved are very pleased today.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (Agn5J)
165
Has Gowdy explained voting for the rule but against the bill?
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
Anyone in either house of Congress should be automatically disqualified. It's the very heart of the problem; it needs to be cleared like Iwo Jima, flamethrowers and all. (And will be about as hard and nasty to do.)
I'm glad I dropped him from the candidate series.
Anyone in either house of Congress should be automatically disqualified. It's the very heart of the problem; it needs to be cleared like Iwo Jima, flamethrowers and all. (And will be about as hard and nasty to do.)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (DT3rQ)
166
Okay, who had 11:16 in the 'AtC is moist' category? Please collect your winnings.
Posted by: suicidal Moron at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (Spluw)
Everyone gaze on the glory of the hash.
Posted by: suicidal Moron at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (Spluw)
Everyone gaze on the glory of the hash.
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (mf5HN)
167
As a political junkie, my dream is that in 2016 Ted Cruz leads a conservative insurgency all the way to the convention force the establishment to abandon Mitt Romney in favor of Walker or Perry.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (gmeXX)
168
We're the froth on a tidal wave arguing about where we should land.
Posted by: Costanza Defense
So,we're the sprinkles on a crappacino then?
Posted by: Costanza Defense
So,we're the sprinkles on a crappacino then?
Posted by: Moron with the worst analogies at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (Spluw)
169
Funny.... prior to the election... and last primaries... when I PREDICTED THIS WOULD HAPPEN I was told to shut up....
Some however, have the battered wife syndrome going on with the GOPe....
Some however, have the battered wife syndrome going on with the GOPe....
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:21 AM (f0pWu)
170
156 Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (zOTsN)
Yup. Just like the damn insurance companies got in bed to support National Ill Health, and SCOAMF turned around and targeted them for termination.
Much as I hate the cocksuckers, I'd actually support giving them a tax holiday to reconstruct the health insurance industry IF (please G-d) Justice Julia Roberts does the right thing next June.
Yup. Just like the damn insurance companies got in bed to support National Ill Health, and SCOAMF turned around and targeted them for termination.
Much as I hate the cocksuckers, I'd actually support giving them a tax holiday to reconstruct the health insurance industry IF (please G-d) Justice Julia Roberts does the right thing next June.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:21 AM (CMkNk)
171
@18 What is the point of these posts if there is no other party to support? Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?
Worked for me since May 2011. Kept me sober, at least.
Worked for me since May 2011. Kept me sober, at least.
Posted by: DocJ at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (zrsn3)
172
The squealing from the left is that their money trough is being taken away
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (zOTsN)
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (Qgr71)
174
We're the froth on a tidal wave arguing about where we should land.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (ZPrif)
-----
Someone brought their A game for prose today.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:18 AM (ZPrif)
-----
Someone brought their A game for prose today.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (gmeXX)
175
That's where I'm at buddy. I'll pull the lever for Cruz, but in the last election I voted against Cronyism in the primary and DID NOT vote for him in the general. I know a bunch of people who did exactly that at my urging. If there gets to be enough disparity between total votes cast and the number these assholes receive, a message will be sent. Eventually, maybe they'll get run out of office.
Yeah, and after this Cruz has about 4 years to turn something around to convince me to vote for him again.
I'm sorry to say that, because Cruz has been as good a Senator as I could have hoped (boy does that particular crow taste good). But the National GOP gets NO SUPPORT from me until they at least make some moves to return to where I am. "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me" as it were.
I'll vote R in State-wide elections (for the moment- as I said, they're on thin ice as long as Joe Strauss is Speaker of the House), but not again in a national election.
Yeah, and after this Cruz has about 4 years to turn something around to convince me to vote for him again.
I'm sorry to say that, because Cruz has been as good a Senator as I could have hoped (boy does that particular crow taste good). But the National GOP gets NO SUPPORT from me until they at least make some moves to return to where I am. "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me" as it were.
I'll vote R in State-wide elections (for the moment- as I said, they're on thin ice as long as Joe Strauss is Speaker of the House), but not again in a national election.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:23 AM (M1uf/)
176
173 How's that tea taste, fellas?
*nyuk nyuk*
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (Qgr71)
Sort of like this banana that I used on your wife.
*nyuk nyuk*
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (Qgr71)
Sort of like this banana that I used on your wife.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:23 AM (CMkNk)
177
If the establishment GOP is truly the problem, the only real way to cut them down at the knees is for everyone on the right that posts on blogs like this, etc. to get active and take over the party infrastructure from the bottom up. Starting a new party or voting 3rd party will only split the right and center and allow the Dems to win every major election moving forward.
Also, want to get a lot on money and corruption out of the process? Figure out how to get rid of the 17th Amendment and get it back to the States.
Also, want to get a lot on money and corruption out of the process? Figure out how to get rid of the 17th Amendment and get it back to the States.
Posted by: Pete at December 12, 2014 11:23 AM (729fV)
178
I love how establishment pols and talk show hosts say this is not the hill to die on. Well, they always say that. When is that hill coming? And don't say when we control the Senate, House and the Presidency, because the GOP doesn't fight for us at those times, either.
But no, Boehner, McConnell, and their establishment talking heads keep repeating, "Elect more Republicans." Why? You always screw us!
But no, Boehner, McConnell, and their establishment talking heads keep repeating, "Elect more Republicans." Why? You always screw us!
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 12, 2014 11:23 AM (Agn5J)
179
I'll vote R in State-wide elections (for the moment- as I said, they're on thin ice as long as Joe Strauss is Speaker of the House), but not again in a national election.
----
Strauss is a problem, but the Texas GOP has done a fairly good job. If they could eliminate the franchise tax and do true property tax reform, that will be icing on the cake.
----
Strauss is a problem, but the Texas GOP has done a fairly good job. If they could eliminate the franchise tax and do true property tax reform, that will be icing on the cake.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:24 AM (gmeXX)
180
What motivates a congressperson to take a certain action?
(In no particular order)
1. Sense of right and wrong (honor/integrity)
2. Sense of obligation to constituents
3. Personal greed for money or power
4. Beholden to an individual or group
5. Partisan loyalty
6. Desire to not be ridiculed
7. Peer pressure
Of these, which can I as an individual change or influence?
Can I ridicule? Yes, but only within my own small circle. I don't have a pulpit or an audience for effective ridicule (present company excepted).
Can I influence my congressperson as a constituent? Not so much in this day and age. This is, IMO, the key breakdown in representative government once integrity has been stripped out. When a represenstative has 750,000 constituents, individual voices have no access, much less influence.
The whole system is predicated on who has the ear of the representatives. As long as it is big money, or political cronies, or high profile "big name" celebrities, the republic is a fiction.
(In no particular order)
1. Sense of right and wrong (honor/integrity)
2. Sense of obligation to constituents
3. Personal greed for money or power
4. Beholden to an individual or group
5. Partisan loyalty
6. Desire to not be ridiculed
7. Peer pressure
Of these, which can I as an individual change or influence?
Can I ridicule? Yes, but only within my own small circle. I don't have a pulpit or an audience for effective ridicule (present company excepted).
Can I influence my congressperson as a constituent? Not so much in this day and age. This is, IMO, the key breakdown in representative government once integrity has been stripped out. When a represenstative has 750,000 constituents, individual voices have no access, much less influence.
The whole system is predicated on who has the ear of the representatives. As long as it is big money, or political cronies, or high profile "big name" celebrities, the republic is a fiction.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon, a solid man at December 12, 2014 11:24 AM (NeFrd)
181
I am a little sick of the jack-assery that comes from people who not only don't understand how Congress works to pass legislation, but have almost zero tangible ideas which could actually become law.
Just to be clear, this is probably the worst leadership team Republicans have ever had. If aliens kidnapped them tomorrow, I would not miss them or care. But what's becoming a bigger problem are people in the party bereft of a cogent idea, addicted to making pathos arguments and promising action which would never pass or become law under just about any circumstance. But "stick to principle" or something. Hardy-ha-ha.
Do we need to take a different direction come January? Maybe I can rephrase that: is there any buffoon that does not want to use the new majority to completely change direction? To put smoking pieces of legislation on Obama's desk the American people actually want and dare him to sign it? You need a lobotomy if you answer in the negative.
But what options do we have now to pass a spending bill (pass being the operative word)? Do we make a big stink now 4 weeks before a new majority takes over or do we move past this the best we can. Yeah let me think.
Abject stupidity abounds.
Just to be clear, this is probably the worst leadership team Republicans have ever had. If aliens kidnapped them tomorrow, I would not miss them or care. But what's becoming a bigger problem are people in the party bereft of a cogent idea, addicted to making pathos arguments and promising action which would never pass or become law under just about any circumstance. But "stick to principle" or something. Hardy-ha-ha.
Do we need to take a different direction come January? Maybe I can rephrase that: is there any buffoon that does not want to use the new majority to completely change direction? To put smoking pieces of legislation on Obama's desk the American people actually want and dare him to sign it? You need a lobotomy if you answer in the negative.
But what options do we have now to pass a spending bill (pass being the operative word)? Do we make a big stink now 4 weeks before a new majority takes over or do we move past this the best we can. Yeah let me think.
Abject stupidity abounds.
Posted by: Lamentations from Sanity at December 12, 2014 11:24 AM (GGCsk)
182
Did it turn out that the driver had a medical emergency?
Last I saw the assumption had changed from targeting to stroke/seizure/heart attack.
-
That story died so I really don't know.
Did it turn out that the driver had a medical emergency?
Last I saw the assumption had changed from targeting to stroke/seizure/heart attack.
-
That story died so I really don't know.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:24 AM (XUKZU)
183
177 Posted by: Pete at December 12, 2014 11:23 AM (729fV)
THIS. All of it.
Article V is the only way to do that. DC and those in it will never reform themselves.
It's in our own hands.
THIS. All of it.
Article V is the only way to do that. DC and those in it will never reform themselves.
It's in our own hands.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:25 AM (CMkNk)
184
176
173 How's that tea taste, fellas?
*nyuk nyuk*
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (Qgr71)
Sort of like this banana that I used on your wife.
Si , se puede!
173 How's that tea taste, fellas?
*nyuk nyuk*
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:22 AM (Qgr71)
Sort of like this banana that I used on your wife.
Si , se puede!
Posted by: Jeb 2016! at December 12, 2014 11:25 AM (Qgr71)
185
Anyone have a link to the yeas/nays by individual?
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at December 12, 2014 11:26 AM (l1zOH)
186
If they could do it in 1854, why can't we do it
in 2014? Money, and the rules making it nearly
impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
It can be done, but it's a bitch and a half.
Posted by: zombie Teddy Roosevelt
Give it to my ex-wife.
in 2014? Money, and the rules making it nearly
impossible for a 3rd party to get on the ballot.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon
It can be done, but it's a bitch and a half.
Posted by: zombie Teddy Roosevelt
Give it to my ex-wife.
Posted by: rickb223 - FMJP at December 12, 2014 11:26 AM (AkoTV)
187
Strauss is a problem, but the Texas GOP has done a fairly good job. If they could eliminate the franchise tax and do true property tax reform, that will be icing on the cake.
Like I said- they've got my vote for the moment. I'll even allow them to keep Strauss as long as they keep doing good things for the State.
But Strauss is a burr under the saddle, and it's really starting to irritate.
Like I said- they've got my vote for the moment. I'll even allow them to keep Strauss as long as they keep doing good things for the State.
But Strauss is a burr under the saddle, and it's really starting to irritate.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:27 AM (M1uf/)
188
Yeah well the only party challenging the status quo in DC is the conservative branch of the Republican party, so I'll stick with them. Their mere presence threatened Boehner enough to openly betray his own party.
GOP leadership can't hide who they really are anymore. This will not be forgotten in 2016, with or without the tea party.
GOP leadership can't hide who they really are anymore. This will not be forgotten in 2016, with or without the tea party.
Posted by: joanne at December 12, 2014 11:27 AM (s/quq)
189
but have almost zero tangible ideas which could actually become law.
----
I think people have several tangible ideas. One tangible idea is this. The goal of Congress should not be to just make law. It should be to make law that the country wants. That may mean it will get messy. There is nothing wrong with messy. My goodness, this country fought a civil war in which 600,000 people died over an issue. All we are asking is to shut-down the government (in which nothing actually gets shut down) for a period to force the defunding of a program or two that 60% of the country is against.
----
I think people have several tangible ideas. One tangible idea is this. The goal of Congress should not be to just make law. It should be to make law that the country wants. That may mean it will get messy. There is nothing wrong with messy. My goodness, this country fought a civil war in which 600,000 people died over an issue. All we are asking is to shut-down the government (in which nothing actually gets shut down) for a period to force the defunding of a program or two that 60% of the country is against.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:28 AM (gmeXX)
190
Some however, have the battered wife syndrome going on with the GOPe....
Word. What makes youladies voters bitchez think the next time will ever be different?
Definition of insanity, folks, definition of insanity.
Word. What makes you
Definition of insanity, folks, definition of insanity.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at December 12, 2014 11:28 AM (DT3rQ)
191
"Because the alternative is worse (if only marginally), and I'm not sure we did think it would be different."
Yes. This is why i vote republican.
Staying home gets you Obama. Best to work for good candidates through the primaries.
"Because the alternative is worse (if only marginally), and I'm not sure we did think it would be different."
Yes. This is why i vote republican.
Staying home gets you Obama. Best to work for good candidates through the primaries.
Posted by: The South at December 12, 2014 11:28 AM (lIU4e)
192
>>It's time to repeal and replace the Republican Party.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
<<
Sure. One month before they take a majority in Congress for the first time in years.
Give me a break.
Let's see what they can do in a few months. Even I am willing to give them a chance at this point.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 12, 2014 10:55 AM (YYJjz)
<<
Sure. One month before they take a majority in Congress for the first time in years.
Give me a break.
Let's see what they can do in a few months. Even I am willing to give them a chance at this point.
Posted by: Lamentations from Sanity at December 12, 2014 11:29 AM (GGCsk)
193
"I think this is missing the real story. "
No, it's not.
There are two major groups in American politics today
1) those in favor of a greater/larger Federal State
2) those in favor of a lesser Federal State
That's pretty much it.
No, it's not.
There are two major groups in American politics today
1) those in favor of a greater/larger Federal State
2) those in favor of a lesser Federal State
That's pretty much it.
Posted by: anon a mouse at December 12, 2014 11:29 AM (/jpU8)
194
It's not that I thought they would be any different, it's that the chance they would be different is preferable to a shooting war.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (6fyGz)
Damn, how I hate having to agree with that statement!
On the bright side, it took the progressives almost 150 years to get the dismantling of a functioning Constitutional Republic under way. Ben Franklin would be proud that it lasted that long!
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 12, 2014 11:20 AM (6fyGz)
Damn, how I hate having to agree with that statement!
On the bright side, it took the progressives almost 150 years to get the dismantling of a functioning Constitutional Republic under way. Ben Franklin would be proud that it lasted that long!
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (fL/7/)
195
Article V Convention
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (Tj+s6)
196
What most of the GOPe defenders don't see...
Is that this locked in spending for the majority of government for next year.
The new Congress could pass stuff... but Obama would veto the bill... leaving THIS monstrosity in place.
Thus, with Democrat help... Bonehead and McConnel just ceded the power of the Purse, of the NEXT Congress... for a year.
When they could have just passed a 4 month clean bill... then hit things hard in the first 3 months of the NEW Congress..
Is that this locked in spending for the majority of government for next year.
The new Congress could pass stuff... but Obama would veto the bill... leaving THIS monstrosity in place.
Thus, with Democrat help... Bonehead and McConnel just ceded the power of the Purse, of the NEXT Congress... for a year.
When they could have just passed a 4 month clean bill... then hit things hard in the first 3 months of the NEW Congress..
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (f0pWu)
197
I imagine some people here are not too keen on Michele Bachmann, but I am sorry to see her leave. She actually had character, stood up to the Muzzies and Tardisil aside, she would probably have made a decent president.
I hope that out of DC, she might be someone who can somehow rally/organize the base against the GOP who frankly stabbed her in the back, especially during the Muslim Brotherhood/Hilary/SCOAMF connection investigation.
Good luck to her.
I imagine some people here are not too keen on Michele Bachmann, but I am sorry to see her leave. She actually had character, stood up to the Muzzies and Tardisil aside, she would probably have made a decent president.
I hope that out of DC, she might be someone who can somehow rally/organize the base against the GOP who frankly stabbed her in the back, especially during the Muslim Brotherhood/Hilary/SCOAMF connection investigation.
Good luck to her.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:31 AM (CMkNk)
198
Yes. This is why i vote republican.
Staying home gets you Obama.
Um, I voted Republican and got Obama anyway.
Try again.
Staying home gets you Obama.
Um, I voted Republican and got Obama anyway.
Try again.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at December 12, 2014 11:31 AM (DT3rQ)
199
Some dude on tv was saying Congress will use 2015 to go thru the appropriations committees etc to have a 2016 budget ready at the usual schedule they used to have pre-2007.
By some dude I mean Karl Rove, btw.
By some dude I mean Karl Rove, btw.
Posted by: @votermom at December 12, 2014 11:31 AM (cbfNE)
Posted by: Saint Trey The Coiffe at December 12, 2014 11:32 AM (XzRw1)
201
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 11:06 AM (TIIx5)
I think that's the soap he's groping for.
I think that's the soap he's groping for.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at December 12, 2014 11:32 AM (RZzX3)
202
Article V Convention
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
-----
You simply do not know this.
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
-----
You simply do not know this.
Posted by: SH at December 12, 2014 11:32 AM (gmeXX)
203
Quit bitching people. Time to face reality, and reality sucks ass.
Conservatives are a minority of the minority party. After two 'landslide' elections we still don't even control half of the Republican Party and absolutely none of the control apparatus. Yes it is true the Republicans will be a numerical majority come January it won't matter a bit because the Republicans see their duty as the 'loyal opposition' and thus have no real idea what to actually DO. If they take the White House in '16 and 'have it all' they will be the proverbial dog who caught the car.
So look into that abyss and despair. Then suck it up and get back to work, if we are to avoid the burn (and the progs have been planning it for a century.. hint: they plan to win) and divert America into a slow decline we have little time for a pity party. We have to seize political machinery up and down the line. We have to turn Republican control of State legislatures into Conservative control and then USE it. Drive the progs out of local government everywhere the density of hippies and 'vibrant diversity' makes it numerically possible. And USE it. Change the facts on the ground. And keep pushing Congress until a majority of Repubs are Conservative and then USE it. Force the RINOs to play ball to keep their committee assignments, etc.
Conservatives are a minority of the minority party. After two 'landslide' elections we still don't even control half of the Republican Party and absolutely none of the control apparatus. Yes it is true the Republicans will be a numerical majority come January it won't matter a bit because the Republicans see their duty as the 'loyal opposition' and thus have no real idea what to actually DO. If they take the White House in '16 and 'have it all' they will be the proverbial dog who caught the car.
So look into that abyss and despair. Then suck it up and get back to work, if we are to avoid the burn (and the progs have been planning it for a century.. hint: they plan to win) and divert America into a slow decline we have little time for a pity party. We have to seize political machinery up and down the line. We have to turn Republican control of State legislatures into Conservative control and then USE it. Drive the progs out of local government everywhere the density of hippies and 'vibrant diversity' makes it numerically possible. And USE it. Change the facts on the ground. And keep pushing Congress until a majority of Repubs are Conservative and then USE it. Force the RINOs to play ball to keep their committee assignments, etc.
Posted by: John Morris at December 12, 2014 11:32 AM (YhRJW)
204
We need a turd party.
Posted by: wth at December 12, 2014 11:32 AM (wAQA5)
205
When they could have just passed a 4 month clean bill... then hit things hard in the first 3 months of the NEW Congress..
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf
yeah. Ya notice that suddenly, there were no calls for a clean bill? What was any of that shit doing in this thing?
Who cares if a dem inserted the revision that Citigroup wanted? Princess running joke was given a pass by the MFM for doing a 180 on a shutdown. Does anyone think that the MFM will note that a dem did it, or ask why it was there?
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf
yeah. Ya notice that suddenly, there were no calls for a clean bill? What was any of that shit doing in this thing?
Who cares if a dem inserted the revision that Citigroup wanted? Princess running joke was given a pass by the MFM for doing a 180 on a shutdown. Does anyone think that the MFM will note that a dem did it, or ask why it was there?
Posted by: Moron with the worst analogies at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (Spluw)
206
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (Tj+s6)
that is the only thing that scares me; we'd find out how many squishes there are at the local level, masquerading as conservatives.
that is the only thing that scares me; we'd find out how many squishes there are at the local level, masquerading as conservatives.
Posted by: Pete at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (729fV)
207
195 Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (Tj+s6)
No, I don't think so. Too many safeguards agains that kind of shit. Besides, an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment will not take 2000 pages to write.
No, I don't think so. Too many safeguards agains that kind of shit. Besides, an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment will not take 2000 pages to write.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (CMkNk)
208
Article V Convention
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
-
The other major problem with an article V convention is that it misses the point. There is no real problem with the constitution as written. the problem is that judges and politicians ignore the constitution. What will an article V convention add? "And this time we really, really mean it"?
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
-
The other major problem with an article V convention is that it misses the point. There is no real problem with the constitution as written. the problem is that judges and politicians ignore the constitution. What will an article V convention add? "And this time we really, really mean it"?
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (XUKZU)
209
My two previous Dem congressman gave us Obamacare. That has lasting implications.
Until somebody gets me a better alternative I will continue to vote against that.
My two previous Dem congressman gave us Obamacare. That has lasting implications.
Until somebody gets me a better alternative I will continue to vote against that.
Posted by: Lea at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (lIU4e)
210
"Do we make a big stink now 4 weeks before a new majority takes over or do we move past this the best we can. Yeah let me think."
There was nothing preventing the Republicans from voting for a very short term CR until the new congress. Instead, the greedy lil piggies voted for the Crom that goes all the way thru September, at which time the excuse to punt again will be the rapidly approaching new fiscal year and can't make waves because of the next year's election. We have seen this movie before.
"Abject stupidity abounds."
Got that, right....
"Do we make a big stink now 4 weeks before a new majority takes over or do we move past this the best we can. Yeah let me think."
There was nothing preventing the Republicans from voting for a very short term CR until the new congress. Instead, the greedy lil piggies voted for the Crom that goes all the way thru September, at which time the excuse to punt again will be the rapidly approaching new fiscal year and can't make waves because of the next year's election. We have seen this movie before.
"Abject stupidity abounds."
Got that, right....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (kdS6q)
211
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (Tj+s6)
No... because even with an Article 5 Convention, the changes must be ratified by the States... the States must adopt.
An Article 5 convention PROPOSES changes... it does not MAKE changes...
And there are MORE Governments controlled by Republicans, than Democrats, in pure numbers...
Remember.... this is one of those situation where each STATE essentially gets a single vote...
No... because even with an Article 5 Convention, the changes must be ratified by the States... the States must adopt.
An Article 5 convention PROPOSES changes... it does not MAKE changes...
And there are MORE Governments controlled by Republicans, than Democrats, in pure numbers...
Remember.... this is one of those situation where each STATE essentially gets a single vote...
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (f0pWu)
212
Let's see what they can do in a few months. Even I am willing to give them a chance at this point.
Why? They just showed you what they intend to do with that majority. That is: to screw you sideways.
The problem that we TrueCons have with Cronybus is not that we thought Boehner should have repealed ObamaCare (or even Dodd-Frank) in this CR. Our problem is that they had every opportunity to do another short-term CR through the end of January or February, and then let the new Congress write a real budget.
By passing a CR that supposed to go through September of next year (huh... right through Labor Day, when people start paying attention again. Timing must be coincidence), they lock in spending and for ObamaCare and for TFG's illegal amnesty for basically a year.
Then, when it expires, they'll have to rush through another CR "or risk a shut down," which will just continue all the same spending.
If Boehner and McConnell had any intention of doing something useful with their new majorities, they would have played for the short-term CR. They didn't. They're not on our side, they're on the side of the Democrats.
Why? They just showed you what they intend to do with that majority. That is: to screw you sideways.
The problem that we TrueCons have with Cronybus is not that we thought Boehner should have repealed ObamaCare (or even Dodd-Frank) in this CR. Our problem is that they had every opportunity to do another short-term CR through the end of January or February, and then let the new Congress write a real budget.
By passing a CR that supposed to go through September of next year (huh... right through Labor Day, when people start paying attention again. Timing must be coincidence), they lock in spending and for ObamaCare and for TFG's illegal amnesty for basically a year.
Then, when it expires, they'll have to rush through another CR "or risk a shut down," which will just continue all the same spending.
If Boehner and McConnell had any intention of doing something useful with their new majorities, they would have played for the short-term CR. They didn't. They're not on our side, they're on the side of the Democrats.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:34 AM (M1uf/)
213
Some dude on tv was saying Congress will use 2015 to go thru the appropriations committees etc to have a 2016 budget ready at the usual schedule they used to have pre-2007. By some dude I mean Karl Rove, btw.
Posted by: @votermom
Shit is blowing up in the ME. pres boyfriend will do something stupid, claim that rethugs are holding back money, and it will die.
The Senate foreign relations committee passed the blank check authorization of force, after making noise about it being a blank check.
Posted by: @votermom
Shit is blowing up in the ME. pres boyfriend will do something stupid, claim that rethugs are holding back money, and it will die.
The Senate foreign relations committee passed the blank check authorization of force, after making noise about it being a blank check.
Posted by: Moron with the worst analogies at December 12, 2014 11:35 AM (Spluw)
214
"Um, I voted Republican and got Obama anyway."
In 2012, people stayed home. Because they wanted to let it burn.
"Um, I voted Republican and got Obama anyway."
In 2012, people stayed home. Because they wanted to let it burn.
Posted by: Lea at December 12, 2014 11:35 AM (lIU4e)
215
Are we back to Hilary country songs?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton
......................................
I hope so, I could use some laughs.
Are we back to Hilary country songs?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton
......................................
I hope so, I could use some laughs.
Posted by: wth at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (wAQA5)
Posted by: John Boehner at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (XzRw1)
217
209
My two previous Dem congressman gave us Obamacare. That has lasting implications.
So does funding it, which the GOP just helped happen.
My two previous Dem congressman gave us Obamacare. That has lasting implications.
So does funding it, which the GOP just helped happen.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (Agn5J)
218
In Drew's world, decreasing the limitations on freedom of speech is bad, if it might further empower the people/causes he doesn't like.
How...progressive of him.
How...progressive of him.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (kNw9i)
219
208 The other major problem with an article V convention is that it misses the point. There is no real problem with the constitution as written. the problem is that judges and politicians ignore the constitution. What will an article V convention add? "And this time we really, really mean it"?
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (XUKZU)
The idea here is to propose amendments that RESTORES power back to the states.
Term limits for everyone including justices,
Repeal of the 17th amendment
Repeal of the 16th amendment and dissolving of the IRS
Sunsetting of all federal agencies every 5 years.
Read Levin's book. It has very good ideas, but it's a starting point.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at December 12, 2014 11:33 AM (XUKZU)
The idea here is to propose amendments that RESTORES power back to the states.
Term limits for everyone including justices,
Repeal of the 17th amendment
Repeal of the 16th amendment and dissolving of the IRS
Sunsetting of all federal agencies every 5 years.
Read Levin's book. It has very good ideas, but it's a starting point.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (CMkNk)
220
Article V Convention
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
As others have pointed out... no. Each state gets 1 vote. There are more Red States than Blue States. And it is the *States* (that is, the Legislatures) who appoint the representatives.
So worst case is nothing changes. Best case is we get some needed changes.
What you want:
reigning in the Commerce Clause
reigning in the Executive
maybe a repeal of the 17th amendment
What you'll get:
healthcare as a right
gay marriage as a right
wi-fi as a right
who knows what else
As others have pointed out... no. Each state gets 1 vote. There are more Red States than Blue States. And it is the *States* (that is, the Legislatures) who appoint the representatives.
So worst case is nothing changes. Best case is we get some needed changes.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:37 AM (M1uf/)
221
AtC. I see your Frangonard and raise you a Vermeer. He's one of my favorites:
http://tinyurl.com/l4ro4ou
I actually like some of Frangonards landscapes but the peachy pink people in swings and pushing swings doesn't do it for me:
My protest is over. I must get lunch
http://tinyurl.com/l4ro4ou
I actually like some of Frangonards landscapes but the peachy pink people in swings and pushing swings doesn't do it for me:
My protest is over. I must get lunch
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at December 12, 2014 11:37 AM (Dj3AB)
222
Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why you continue to support them
You'll please excuse me as I don't mean anything personal by it, but..........
Da fuck am I supposed to do? Vote for the Marxists?
Ain't happenin'. No fucking way.
You'll please excuse me as I don't mean anything personal by it, but..........
Da fuck am I supposed to do? Vote for the Marxists?
Ain't happenin'. No fucking way.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizarro World at December 12, 2014 11:38 AM (UtwNa)
223
When they could have just passed a 4 month clean bill... then hit things hard in the first 3 months of the NEW Congress..
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (f0pWu)
No that was the point. This way they have effectively neutered any chance for conservatives in the NEW Congress to plot any budget modifications for 2015 or slow the trough feeding of the entrenched political establishment. Then when the 2016 budget comes up, the establishment will join hands and declare this is not a hill to die on because elections are just around the corner and Benedict Boehner and Lord Haw-Haw McConnell will craft a CR to ensure that no perturbation of thegraft funding occurs before the 2016 elections.
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:30 AM (f0pWu)
No that was the point. This way they have effectively neutered any chance for conservatives in the NEW Congress to plot any budget modifications for 2015 or slow the trough feeding of the entrenched political establishment. Then when the 2016 budget comes up, the establishment will join hands and declare this is not a hill to die on because elections are just around the corner and Benedict Boehner and Lord Haw-Haw McConnell will craft a CR to ensure that no perturbation of the
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:38 AM (fL/7/)
224
218 In Drew's world, decreasing the limitations on freedom of speech is bad, if it might further empower the people/causes he doesn't like.
How...progressive of him.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (kNw9i)
Nope... this is not decreasing the limits on free speech... this is telling people where they MAY use their speech... this is all about directing money to the 2 major Political Parties.
How...progressive of him.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 12, 2014 11:36 AM (kNw9i)
Nope... this is not decreasing the limits on free speech... this is telling people where they MAY use their speech... this is all about directing money to the 2 major Political Parties.
Posted by: THE Big Bad Wolf at December 12, 2014 11:38 AM (f0pWu)
225
If Boehner and McConnell had any intention of doing something useful
with their new majorities, they would have played for the short-term CR.
They didn't.
Read that a couple of times and let it sink-in, folks. That's pretty much all you need to know how the next 2-years are going to go. Hint: it's not going to be pretty. Hence, burning times.
with their new majorities, they would have played for the short-term CR.
They didn't.
Read that a couple of times and let it sink-in, folks. That's pretty much all you need to know how the next 2-years are going to go. Hint: it's not going to be pretty. Hence, burning times.
Posted by: DocJ at December 12, 2014 11:38 AM (zrsn3)
226
October
--
Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year
freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-skipped-62-5-percent-of-intelligence-briefings-this-year/
Today
---
Obama: 'I Spend Most of My Time Watching ESPN in the Morning'
freebeacon.com/politics/obama-i-spend-most-of-my-time-watching-espn-in-the-morning/
--
Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year
freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-skipped-62-5-percent-of-intelligence-briefings-this-year/
Today
---
Obama: 'I Spend Most of My Time Watching ESPN in the Morning'
freebeacon.com/politics/obama-i-spend-most-of-my-time-watching-espn-in-the-morning/
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:38 AM (ZPrif)
227
SH: "Same here. And I urged others to do the same."
Actually, the most important messages is sent to those who give Cronyism money: His support is... meager.
No money, no office. Simple.
Actually, the most important messages is sent to those who give Cronyism money: His support is... meager.
No money, no office. Simple.
Posted by: Bayou City at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (AJrbR)
228
In 2012, people stayed home. Because they wanted to let it burn.
Square that with the fact Mitt Romney received more votes than John McCain.
Please show your work.
And re: that thing the Republicans promise not to do in my mouth? Yeah, I'm thinking I'll be going Don Lemon at this point.
Square that with the fact Mitt Romney received more votes than John McCain.
Please show your work.
And re: that thing the Republicans promise not to do in my mouth? Yeah, I'm thinking I'll be going Don Lemon at this point.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (M1uf/)
229
Someone tell me how a short term CR would have passed
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (zOTsN)
230
Amendments can also be ratified by state-ratifying conventions called specifically for that purpose. Which anyone can openly run for. Open season for LIVs and the MSM to jump on board with left-wing amendments proposed at the convention by blue states, and get them ratified even in red states.
Or I'm just a huge pessimist.
Or I'm just a huge pessimist.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (Tj+s6)
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid at December 12, 2014 11:40 AM (uSAVP)
232
They're not on our side, they're on the side of the Democrats.
Yet another thing I just don't understand.
#WASTF
...by people who're supposed to be on our side.
Yet another thing I just don't understand.
#WASTF
...by people who're supposed to be on our side.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (0HooB)
233
I think Boner & Co. are terrified that the Tea Party might follow the successful strategy of the radical left in taking over the Democratic party. It took a generation for them. Its going to take time for us too. But it can be done. Rememver it took over a century of progressivism to get to the mess we're in today. It can't be reversed overnight (peacefully). We're just going to have to keep focusing on state party apparatus and build our majority from the ground up. And I think there's reason for optimism there.
Posted by: Iblis at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (U0ndG)
234
230 Or I'm just a huge pessimist.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (Tj+s6)
Please. Put yourself some knowledge and read "The Liberty Amendments" if for no other reason than to learn the history of Article V and how/why it became part of our Constitution?
Please?
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:39 AM (Tj+s6)
Please. Put yourself some knowledge and read "The Liberty Amendments" if for no other reason than to learn the history of Article V and how/why it became part of our Constitution?
Please?
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (CMkNk)
235
As someone as smart as Gowdy is and so passionate about the rule of law, it's hard to imagine how he can explain voting yea on the rule.
Don't much care that he voted against the bill. By voting for the rule, he essentially denied the incoming freshman their right to vote.
Don't much care that he voted against the bill. By voting for the rule, he essentially denied the incoming freshman their right to vote.
Posted by: joanne at December 12, 2014 11:42 AM (s/quq)
236
Who says a short term CR would have passed?
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:42 AM (zOTsN)
237
233 And I think there's reason for optimism there.
Posted by: Iblis at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (U0ndG)
The idea of a GOP that is the polar opposite of what it is today - 100% Louie Gohmerts and Mike Lees - just lifted my spirits.
Your mouth to G-d's ears.
Posted by: Iblis at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (U0ndG)
The idea of a GOP that is the polar opposite of what it is today - 100% Louie Gohmerts and Mike Lees - just lifted my spirits.
Your mouth to G-d's ears.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (CMkNk)
238
SH @ 202 bleated "What you want ....
What you'll get" about an Article V Convention
Dude, if you really think 3/4 of State Legislatures will ratify any of that progtard zaniness then stop wasting everyone's posting and spend you time working on stocking your bunker because IT. IS. OVER.
What you'll get" about an Article V Convention
Dude, if you really think 3/4 of State Legislatures will ratify any of that progtard zaniness then stop wasting everyone's posting and spend you time working on stocking your bunker because IT. IS. OVER.
Posted by: John Morris at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (YhRJW)
239
Please. Put yourself some knowledge and read "The Liberty Amendments" if for no other reason than to learn the history of Article V and how/why it became part of our Constitution?
Please?
please indeed
you really don't think anything else would get through the convention? only nobly-intended federalist amendments with the scrutiny of the whole nation focused on it?
Please. Put yourself some knowledge and read "The Liberty Amendments" if for no other reason than to learn the history of Article V and how/why it became part of our Constitution?
Please?
please indeed
you really don't think anything else would get through the convention? only nobly-intended federalist amendments with the scrutiny of the whole nation focused on it?
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (Tj+s6)
Posted by: Mammon at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (Qgr71)
Posted by: maddogg at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (xWW96)
Posted by: FITP at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (jBxoT)
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (l1zOH)
244
The problem is the "good conservatives" of OH and KY just luvs them that sweet sweet pork.
Doesn't matter what the rest of the country wants or needs, it's up to those voters to fix those two.
Doesn't matter what the rest of the country wants or needs, it's up to those voters to fix those two.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at December 12, 2014 11:44 AM (XO6WW)
245
Sunsetting of all federal agencies every 5 years.
I'd like all federal laws to have a sunset provision after 5 years.
I'd like all federal laws to have a sunset provision after 5 years.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at December 12, 2014 11:44 AM (0HooB)
246
That's right. UVA has a strict honor code system.
You are supposed to be expelled if caught lying or stealing or cheating. No matter how small the infraction.
James @JHH_24 12h
@TheDailyBail I've been asking for a week when someone will bring her up on honor code violations. If that happens, internet will explode.
You are supposed to be expelled if caught lying or stealing or cheating. No matter how small the infraction.
James @JHH_24 12h
@TheDailyBail I've been asking for a week when someone will bring her up on honor code violations. If that happens, internet will explode.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at December 12, 2014 11:44 AM (ZPrif)
247
239 Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (Tj+s6)
Okay. Then how about you tell us what the solution is. I'm ready to go.
Okay. Then how about you tell us what the solution is. I'm ready to go.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:44 AM (CMkNk)
248
If Boehner and McConnell had any intention of doing something useful with their new majorities, they would have played for the short-term CR. They didn't. They're not on our side, they're on the side of the Democrats.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:34 AM (M1uf/)
Spot on Allen, they were handed a Constitutionally sanctioned opportunity to use the "power of the purse" constructively and they chose to violate their oaths and betray us. And, the full extent of the betrayal is an unknown, because NO ONE has had a chance to read 1774 pages of the crap legislation deliberately written and crafted to obfuscate as much as possible so the sheep don't have a chance to get upset.
I can hardly wait for bi-partisan gun control legislation to be fast-tracked
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:34 AM (M1uf/)
Spot on Allen, they were handed a Constitutionally sanctioned opportunity to use the "power of the purse" constructively and they chose to violate their oaths and betray us. And, the full extent of the betrayal is an unknown, because NO ONE has had a chance to read 1774 pages of the crap legislation deliberately written and crafted to obfuscate as much as possible so the sheep don't have a chance to get upset.
I can hardly wait for bi-partisan gun control legislation to be fast-tracked
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:44 AM (fL/7/)
249
Someone tell me how a short term CR would have passed
First off, no one had something like this on their radar until Boehner brought it up. So I think a short-term CR would have passed fairly easily.
But here's how *I* would have played that. A CR through the end of February with everything the Democrats want. All of it.
If that gets rejected, then you submit a CR through the end of March that has been trimmed.
if that gets rejected, you submit a CR through the end of April that trims yet more.
At every point, you declare loudly that this is going to "cause a shutdown" and that you're "doing your best to reach across the aisle, but that the new Congress must be allowed to act on the decision of the voters."
And eventually you either shut it down (complete with righteous indignation) or they agree to a CR.
But they didn't even *try* anything like that. Boehner went immediately to "long term CR that bakes in all the spending."
First off, no one had something like this on their radar until Boehner brought it up. So I think a short-term CR would have passed fairly easily.
But here's how *I* would have played that. A CR through the end of February with everything the Democrats want. All of it.
If that gets rejected, then you submit a CR through the end of March that has been trimmed.
if that gets rejected, you submit a CR through the end of April that trims yet more.
At every point, you declare loudly that this is going to "cause a shutdown" and that you're "doing your best to reach across the aisle, but that the new Congress must be allowed to act on the decision of the voters."
And eventually you either shut it down (complete with righteous indignation) or they agree to a CR.
But they didn't even *try* anything like that. Boehner went immediately to "long term CR that bakes in all the spending."
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:45 AM (M1uf/)
250
From the sidebar re Sabrina Erdley:
When Stephen Glass thinks you're an agenda driven fabulist, you might have a problem.
When Stephen Glass thinks you're an agenda driven fabulist, you might have a problem.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at December 12, 2014 11:45 AM (RZzX3)
251
Still have to shop for Christmas??
You're in luck!!
THIS JUST IN: Tamir Rice autopsy report released
According to the medical examiner, Thomas P. Gilson, the 12-year-old, who weighed 195 lbs., died of a gunshot wound to the torso with injuries of major vessel, intestines and pelvis.
His death has been ruled a homicide.
http://tinyurl.com/nw2c8yo
WTF though. All I have seen were pics of him he was tiny. Seriously, that is the first time I have seen that he was a 200lb 12-year old.
You're in luck!!
THIS JUST IN: Tamir Rice autopsy report released
According to the medical examiner, Thomas P. Gilson, the 12-year-old, who weighed 195 lbs., died of a gunshot wound to the torso with injuries of major vessel, intestines and pelvis.
His death has been ruled a homicide.
http://tinyurl.com/nw2c8yo
WTF though. All I have seen were pics of him he was tiny. Seriously, that is the first time I have seen that he was a 200lb 12-year old.
Posted by: RWC -All I want for Christmas is 1,000,000,000,000.00 at December 12, 2014 11:45 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (NtzGn)
253
@247
I thought this was the doom and gloom thread. Wish I had a solution. And I do agree, it's worth a shot. We're on the same page, I just don't have any faith in the system once we start re-writing the constitution.
I thought this was the doom and gloom thread. Wish I had a solution. And I do agree, it's worth a shot. We're on the same page, I just don't have any faith in the system once we start re-writing the constitution.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (Tj+s6)
254
Posted by: Iblis at December 12, 2014 11:41 AM (U0ndG)
I'm very optimistic at this point. I think Boehner & Co. just gave us an incredible gift.
Now let's see how McConnell handles all those senators up for reelection in 2016.
I'm very optimistic at this point. I think Boehner & Co. just gave us an incredible gift.
Now let's see how McConnell handles all those senators up for reelection in 2016.
Posted by: joanne at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (s/quq)
255
James @JHH_24 12h
Mr Jefferson's University had a rigorous honor code once, but that only worked back when people understood the concept of honor!
Mr Jefferson's University had a rigorous honor code once, but that only worked back when people understood the concept of honor!
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (fL/7/)
256
Are we supposed to just wash our hands of politics?
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez
Hmmmmmmmmmm....the peace of mind WOULD be nice.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez
Hmmmmmmmmmm....the peace of mind WOULD be nice.
Posted by: FITP at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (jBxoT)
257
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at December 12, 2014 11:43 AM (l1zOH)
You're Google broke?
there's a list of who voted against.
You're Google broke?
there's a list of who voted against.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (RZzX3)
258
236 Who says a short term CR would have passed?
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:42 AM (zOTsN)
Not me. I don't think it would have.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:42 AM (zOTsN)
Not me. I don't think it would have.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Suntanning in Bizarro World at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (UtwNa)
259
If Boehner remains, there will never be another Republican president. Of course, that may not be such a bad thing. Time to bring back the Whigs.
Posted by: Nathan Hale at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (FoHWP)
260
Allen with all due respect they barely passed this. A short term CR would never have passed. The proggiest progs are screaming like stuck pigs over this. They have been shoved out of the Wall Street money trough and they know it
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (zOTsN)
261
We're on the same page, I just don't have any faith in the system once we start re-writing the constitution.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (Tj+s6)
Since the Constitution as written is largely ignored, it is hard to see how Art V can make things worse.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (Tj+s6)
Since the Constitution as written is largely ignored, it is hard to see how Art V can make things worse.
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (fL/7/)
262
253 We're on the same page, I just don't have any faith in the system once we start re-writing the constitution.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (Tj+s6)
See, here's the problem. No one is rewriting the Constitution. What we're doing is proposing amendments to add to the Constitution that restore Federalism.
By the way, what Obama and the Federal government have been doing now for at least the past 6 years amounts to re-writing the Constitution on a daily basis. Re-writing, trashing or ignoring.
Posted by: brak at December 12, 2014 11:46 AM (Tj+s6)
See, here's the problem. No one is rewriting the Constitution. What we're doing is proposing amendments to add to the Constitution that restore Federalism.
By the way, what Obama and the Federal government have been doing now for at least the past 6 years amounts to re-writing the Constitution on a daily basis. Re-writing, trashing or ignoring.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:49 AM (CMkNk)
263
>>By passing a CR that supposed to go through September of next year (huh... right through Labor Day, when people start paying attention again. Timing must be coincidence), they lock in spending and for ObamaCare and for TFG's illegal amnesty for basically a year.
Nope. There is a short term CR for DHS that expires at the end of February in the Crom. That's where the new Congress has the opportunity to attack the illegal issue.
The CR is a shitty deal but it's also not a surprise and I don't think they were going to do much better in this session. If anyone remembers, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray did a budget compromise of sorts in December of 2013. That deal called for the lifting of sequestration caps in exchange for a 2 year budget deal. The budget for 2015? $1.014 trillion.
I would have liked a short term CR like the rest of you but I don't see why Reid or Obama would have accepted it. They may be assholes but they aren't stupid and they know they lose leverage on January 1.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the deal was made to fund most stuff in exchange for a short term CR for DHS. Not ideal, would have liked to see more, but I'm still willing to keep my powder dry until we see what happens with the new Congress.
Nope. There is a short term CR for DHS that expires at the end of February in the Crom. That's where the new Congress has the opportunity to attack the illegal issue.
The CR is a shitty deal but it's also not a surprise and I don't think they were going to do much better in this session. If anyone remembers, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray did a budget compromise of sorts in December of 2013. That deal called for the lifting of sequestration caps in exchange for a 2 year budget deal. The budget for 2015? $1.014 trillion.
I would have liked a short term CR like the rest of you but I don't see why Reid or Obama would have accepted it. They may be assholes but they aren't stupid and they know they lose leverage on January 1.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the deal was made to fund most stuff in exchange for a short term CR for DHS. Not ideal, would have liked to see more, but I'm still willing to keep my powder dry until we see what happens with the new Congress.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 12, 2014 11:50 AM (g1DWB)
264
An addition to what would be a good article V convention change.
All federal Agencies, the houses of the Congress, Senate and White house shall be moved to Towner North Dakota. And FEMA trailers will be the mandatory housing for same.
All federal Agencies, the houses of the Congress, Senate and White house shall be moved to Towner North Dakota. And FEMA trailers will be the mandatory housing for same.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 12, 2014 11:50 AM (Mxs5H)
265
261 Since the Constitution as written is largely ignored, it is hard to see how Art V can make things worse.
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (fL/7/)
Zack-lee my pernt.
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:48 AM (fL/7/)
Zack-lee my pernt.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 12, 2014 11:50 AM (CMkNk)
266
Allen with all due respect they barely passed this. A short term CR would never have passed. The proggiest progs are screaming like stuck pigs over this. They have been shoved out of the Wall Street money trough and they know it
And? My plan addresses that.
Even the prog media (at least HuffPo) is saying that a shut down at this point would be the Dem's fault.
The Republicans just won a landslide election. It wouldn't be that hard to parley that into a "hey, we're willing to keep this up through the beginning of next year, but then our new majority gets their say." And if the Dem's aren't willing to accept that, they have to accept the "blame" (though it would be so short term, even the Republicans shouldn't be scared of a shutdown over Christmas) for any shut down.
And? My plan addresses that.
Even the prog media (at least HuffPo) is saying that a shut down at this point would be the Dem's fault.
The Republicans just won a landslide election. It wouldn't be that hard to parley that into a "hey, we're willing to keep this up through the beginning of next year, but then our new majority gets their say." And if the Dem's aren't willing to accept that, they have to accept the "blame" (though it would be so short term, even the Republicans shouldn't be scared of a shutdown over Christmas) for any shut down.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:52 AM (M1uf/)
267
wasn't there supposed to be a hastert rule? Crominbus is basically the lame duck congress getting in their last licks of pork before I suppose the scarier mean conservatives come to town.
can we get rid of boehner?
can we get rid of boehner?
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at December 12, 2014 11:52 AM (itUWa)
268
In 2006 Republicans revolted over Bush 43's attempted amnesty.
In 2008 they voted for Amnesty proponent John McCain.
In 2010 Republicans demanded that Obamacare be repealed.
In 2012 they voted for Mitt Romneycare.
Right now the Republican party believes it can vote for anything and still get your support in the next election because that is what Republican voters have done for the last decade. So given the choice between getting rich off Leviathan or voting the way they promise you they will, what do you think they are going to do?
When Mitt Romneycare won the nomination for 2012 I said that he can't win and that we need to take this as a opportunity to teach the R's a lesson. 10-20% of the Republican vote going to Constitution/Libertarian/etc candidates would have taught them a lesson.
Most here and in the conservative movement argued that "this election is too important to throw away your vote"...and so here we are.
I no longer vote for leftists whether they have an R or a D by there name.
I would suggest you follow suit and let the Republican party know.
Until the R's believe that they can be voted out over such votes, they won't stop.
In 2008 they voted for Amnesty proponent John McCain.
In 2010 Republicans demanded that Obamacare be repealed.
In 2012 they voted for Mitt Romneycare.
Right now the Republican party believes it can vote for anything and still get your support in the next election because that is what Republican voters have done for the last decade. So given the choice between getting rich off Leviathan or voting the way they promise you they will, what do you think they are going to do?
When Mitt Romneycare won the nomination for 2012 I said that he can't win and that we need to take this as a opportunity to teach the R's a lesson. 10-20% of the Republican vote going to Constitution/Libertarian/etc candidates would have taught them a lesson.
Most here and in the conservative movement argued that "this election is too important to throw away your vote"...and so here we are.
I no longer vote for leftists whether they have an R or a D by there name.
I would suggest you follow suit and let the Republican party know.
Until the R's believe that they can be voted out over such votes, they won't stop.
Posted by: 18-1 at December 12, 2014 11:53 AM (78TbK)
269
Who says a short term CR would havepassed?
Posted by: ThunderB
Not me. I don't think it would have.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC
Then you keep submitting until A, the government shuts down, or B, the new congress is seated in January.
Posted by: ThunderB
Not me. I don't think it would have.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC
Then you keep submitting until A, the government shuts down, or B, the new congress is seated in January.
Posted by: rickb223 - FMJP at December 12, 2014 11:55 AM (AkoTV)
270
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:34 AM (M1uf/)
They've never been on our side, Allen. Resign yourself to it and start taking names. The senate's up next and we will see a lot of kabuki theater there as well.
We should all get out the popcorn, sit back and watch how they think they're going to fool us into believing that they're doing all they can do.
I'm past the point of anger. I want to get even.
They've never been on our side, Allen. Resign yourself to it and start taking names. The senate's up next and we will see a lot of kabuki theater there as well.
We should all get out the popcorn, sit back and watch how they think they're going to fool us into believing that they're doing all they can do.
I'm past the point of anger. I want to get even.
Posted by: joanne at December 12, 2014 11:55 AM (s/quq)
271
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:52 AM (M1uf/)
Benedict Boehner's got a lot of really good booze back home (courtesy of unknown entities) and he really wants to get back and drink all of it during the Yuletide holidays.
Benedict Boehner's got a lot of really good booze back home (courtesy of unknown entities) and he really wants to get back and drink all of it during the Yuletide holidays.
Posted by: Hrothgar at December 12, 2014 11:55 AM (fL/7/)
272
The proggiest progs are screaming like stuck pigs over this. They have been shoved out of the Wall Street money trough and they know it
First person who tries to sell this as a victory for us can go leap into a woodchipper.
First person who tries to sell this as a victory for us can go leap into a woodchipper.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented at December 12, 2014 11:56 AM (DT3rQ)
273
can we get rid of boehner?
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at December 12, 2014 11:52 AM (itUWa)
In two years if you convince the good folks of Southwestern Ohio to drop him. Or convince the House of Reps. to remove Boehner as speaker, whom they reelected when he ran unapposed a week after the Nov. election returned him to the House.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at December 12, 2014 11:52 AM (itUWa)
In two years if you convince the good folks of Southwestern Ohio to drop him. Or convince the House of Reps. to remove Boehner as speaker, whom they reelected when he ran unapposed a week after the Nov. election returned him to the House.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 11:56 AM (oOlEN)
Posted by: Capt Jack at December 12, 2014 11:56 AM (Wa9nw)
275
A short term CR would never have passed.
***
So?
Pass a short term CR and go home.
If Obama wants to "shut down the government" let him.
Even the LIVs aren't going to buy the media line about long term vs short term CRs...
***
So?
Pass a short term CR and go home.
If Obama wants to "shut down the government" let him.
Even the LIVs aren't going to buy the media line about long term vs short term CRs...
Posted by: 18-1 at December 12, 2014 11:56 AM (78TbK)
276
I would have liked a short term CR like the rest of you but I don't see why Reid or Obama would have accepted it. They may be assholes but they aren't stupid and they know they lose leverage on January 1.
So let it shut down.
This is not the height of vacation season when people are visiting national monuments. This is Christmas when people are home.
Beyond that, any "damage" to occur from a shutdown would be so far in the past by November 2016 that we may as well not talk about it.
I don't care what *reason* they have for doing that thing in my mouth. They promised not to, and did anyway. F*ck them. They sided with Democrats to neuter the new congress- there is no reason good enough for that.
And if you think they'll stop the DHS stuff next year, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. If they're too cowardly to do what's right now, I see no reason they would suddenly have balls in several months when the MFM starts pointing out that DHS is responsible for anti-terrorism and starts pointing out (yes, hypocritically- so?) that allowing DHS to shut down will harm anti-terrorism activities and make us less safe.
So let it shut down.
This is not the height of vacation season when people are visiting national monuments. This is Christmas when people are home.
Beyond that, any "damage" to occur from a shutdown would be so far in the past by November 2016 that we may as well not talk about it.
I don't care what *reason* they have for doing that thing in my mouth. They promised not to, and did anyway. F*ck them. They sided with Democrats to neuter the new congress- there is no reason good enough for that.
And if you think they'll stop the DHS stuff next year, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. If they're too cowardly to do what's right now, I see no reason they would suddenly have balls in several months when the MFM starts pointing out that DHS is responsible for anti-terrorism and starts pointing out (yes, hypocritically- so?) that allowing DHS to shut down will harm anti-terrorism activities and make us less safe.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at December 12, 2014 11:56 AM (M1uf/)
277
Since the Constitution as written is largely ignored, it is hard to see how Art V can make things worse.
This!
Any Art V con should just put some teeth into it.
I'd like to see something along the lines of an "The Constitution as written will be the sole basis of all SCOTUS rulings" instead of precedent. That would eliminate that ridiculous "anchor babies" shit right now.
Then the 5-Year Sunset Provision for all Federal law followed by a Balanced Budget Amendment with jail time for anyone proposing one cent more for anything, except during a declared war with open hostilities. Then, a Flat Tax of no more than 10% that abolishes the IRS.
There are ways to fix this bullshit that's been forced on us by our enemies. Of course, restoring Truth, Empathy and Common Sense to our political process would be the best way, but I don't see that happening any more than I see a sensible Art V con.
This!
Any Art V con should just put some teeth into it.
I'd like to see something along the lines of an "The Constitution as written will be the sole basis of all SCOTUS rulings" instead of precedent. That would eliminate that ridiculous "anchor babies" shit right now.
Then the 5-Year Sunset Provision for all Federal law followed by a Balanced Budget Amendment with jail time for anyone proposing one cent more for anything, except during a declared war with open hostilities. Then, a Flat Tax of no more than 10% that abolishes the IRS.
There are ways to fix this bullshit that's been forced on us by our enemies. Of course, restoring Truth, Empathy and Common Sense to our political process would be the best way, but I don't see that happening any more than I see a sensible Art V con.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, Curmudgeon Extraordinaire at December 12, 2014 11:57 AM (0HooB)
278
Federalism is the only answer. That, or moving or waiting for SMOD.
Posted by: Furious George
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too late in the game for that.
Posted by: Furious George
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too late in the game for that.
Posted by: FITP at December 12, 2014 11:58 AM (jBxoT)
279
Ok. Let's say they put in a short term CR. They don't pass it. Government shuts down. They still hold the levers of government. What gets shut down. Who gets hurt. Granted it's a tiny portion of the government but I remember "shut down theater". I remember sequestration. I know this psycho hate the country and especially the military.
I don't assume a shut down imposed by this treasonous asshole would be "painless" or without terrible consequence.
I don't assume a shut down imposed by this treasonous asshole would be "painless" or without terrible consequence.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:00 PM (zOTsN)
280
>>And if you think they'll stop the DHS stuff next year, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. If they're too cowardly to do what's right now, I see no reason they would suddenly have balls in several months when the MFM starts pointing out that DHS is responsible for anti-terrorism and starts pointing out (yes, hypocritically- so?) that allowing DHS to shut down will harm anti-terrorism activities and make us less safe.
I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks.
We'll also see if they keep their promise to go back to regular order and start doing actual budgets and appropriations bills.
I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks.
We'll also see if they keep their promise to go back to regular order and start doing actual budgets and appropriations bills.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 12, 2014 12:00 PM (g1DWB)
281
The only thing they will understand is losing elections. We are no better off with these dirtbags in office than Grimes et al. The upside just isn't there for Unity. Let it burn. Start a new party from scratch, build up locally, stay out of the national races but for a House seat if it's strongly possible, aim for a Senate seat in a number of years. FiCons would have more power as a dissident minority party than they do as shock troops and duped serfs in today's GOP.
My party has left me and it's not coming back, They will sink the ship before they let go of the wheel. Time to hit the lifeboats.
My party has left me and it's not coming back, They will sink the ship before they let go of the wheel. Time to hit the lifeboats.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blane at December 12, 2014 12:03 PM (QKIQb)
282
Is this the RINO-calling thread? We haven't had one of those in awhile, like at least 12 hours.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 11:03 AM (TIIx5)
Is BCochran here?
And did I see someone mention boobehs?
what were we talking about again?
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 12, 2014 11:03 AM (TIIx5)
Is BCochran here?
And did I see someone mention boobehs?
what were we talking about again?
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 12, 2014 12:05 PM (6fyGz)
283
nood open.
Posted by: rickb223 - FMJP at December 12, 2014 12:05 PM (AkoTV)
284
Let's assume a short term CR. It doesn't pass. The new congress is seated. They send up a clean CR with everything you want. He vetos it. The government remains shut down. The shut down is monitored by this traitorous asshole
You keep saying they will get blamed for the shut down. So what. It didn't hurt the pubs and it won't hurt them either.
It might hurt the military terribly
You keep saying they will get blamed for the shut down. So what. It didn't hurt the pubs and it won't hurt them either.
It might hurt the military terribly
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:06 PM (zOTsN)
285
Drew,
I too have given up on the GoP, at least under its current Chamber-of-Commerce-shill "leadership". But for many others, the GoP is the only viable option to the significantly more repulsive Dems.
What 3rd option do you have in mind?
I too have given up on the GoP, at least under its current Chamber-of-Commerce-shill "leadership". But for many others, the GoP is the only viable option to the significantly more repulsive Dems.
What 3rd option do you have in mind?
Posted by: ToursLepantoVienna at December 12, 2014 12:07 PM (/8qpd)
286
"I'm not one to say there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats, that's silly."
what's silly about it?
what are these differences, list them and I and many others while rip them to shreds in minutes.
what's silly about it?
what are these differences, list them and I and many others while rip them to shreds in minutes.
Posted by: Shoey at December 12, 2014 12:08 PM (Y7jCH)
287
I don't assume a shut down imposed by this treasonous asshole would be "painless" or without terrible consequence.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:00 PM (zOTsN)
I have a friend whose husband is a contractor to the military who sat at home without pay during the last shutdown. It wasn't funny to them nor inconsequential.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:00 PM (zOTsN)
I have a friend whose husband is a contractor to the military who sat at home without pay during the last shutdown. It wasn't funny to them nor inconsequential.
Posted by: Jen the original at December 12, 2014 12:08 PM (oOlEN)
288
"I don't assume a shut down imposed by this treasonous asshole would be "painless" or without terrible consequence."
I agree - but you can't let him hold us hostage with that. We are never going to break out of the downward spiral of debt and corruption painlessly. Just numbing or avoiding the pain doesn't stop the disease that's killing us. They're not leaving power without making it hurt but if we don't get rid of them, they're going to suck us dry anyway.
I agree - but you can't let him hold us hostage with that. We are never going to break out of the downward spiral of debt and corruption painlessly. Just numbing or avoiding the pain doesn't stop the disease that's killing us. They're not leaving power without making it hurt but if we don't get rid of them, they're going to suck us dry anyway.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blane at December 12, 2014 12:09 PM (QKIQb)
289
Those breezily (or diffidently) saying a clean short-term CR had no chance may have been wrong on the substance, but certainly are wrong on the strategic value of that proposition.
There was plenty of pre-Christmas time here to sweat the various people you're trying to sweat. A stopgap or series thereofs (2-3 day CRs) could have been passed while the drama played out. (this was not uncommon in the 80s and 90s when CRs were almost strictly very short term stopgaps).
So you propose a "clean" CR that only straight-lines all appropriations until March 1 (incl. lawless amnesty spending). Oh - but Reid and the WH will not accept this? OK. You send this to the Senate.
And then, FFS, you engage in POLITICS, for once. You push the correct and already widely perceived idea that it is the Dems/WH risking a "shut down" - not the GOP House. You actually go out and make your case, and aggressively demolish the standard distortions the press will attempt. Takes more than one news conference. Requires a little "work".
And you keep it up, and you pass 2-3 day CRs until the pressure builds towards end of December. And you NEVER stop laying out the situation - the country voted for a change of direction in an historic landslide, action to change direction starts now, those blocking this are defying the people and damaging the country.
And, contrary to the shallow contention that you are "doomed to lose this fight", in the end, even if you are forced to go with the CR combo we ended up with, you've shaped the framework of public discussion, established real terms of reference. Because the fight will only resume in January. "Winning" doesn't just mean getting 100% of your specific agenda, this week. It means winning over time, part of which is setting the framework of debate (in this era, that actually means constantly and forcefully and vituperatively dismantling media distortion). You know, POLITICS.
The GOP leadership doesn't really do politics. They drift along and respond minimally to obvious national needs and even to obvious national imperatives and landslide elections.
We will see. But the illiterate or disingenuous slogan that you "cannot win this kind of fight" is merely an excuse for inaction. You don't win in a day, it may take time, but you don't win ever if you don't START doing something, and that includes making the two sides stake out their positions and shaping public discussion.
There was plenty of pre-Christmas time here to sweat the various people you're trying to sweat. A stopgap or series thereofs (2-3 day CRs) could have been passed while the drama played out. (this was not uncommon in the 80s and 90s when CRs were almost strictly very short term stopgaps).
So you propose a "clean" CR that only straight-lines all appropriations until March 1 (incl. lawless amnesty spending). Oh - but Reid and the WH will not accept this? OK. You send this to the Senate.
And then, FFS, you engage in POLITICS, for once. You push the correct and already widely perceived idea that it is the Dems/WH risking a "shut down" - not the GOP House. You actually go out and make your case, and aggressively demolish the standard distortions the press will attempt. Takes more than one news conference. Requires a little "work".
And you keep it up, and you pass 2-3 day CRs until the pressure builds towards end of December. And you NEVER stop laying out the situation - the country voted for a change of direction in an historic landslide, action to change direction starts now, those blocking this are defying the people and damaging the country.
And, contrary to the shallow contention that you are "doomed to lose this fight", in the end, even if you are forced to go with the CR combo we ended up with, you've shaped the framework of public discussion, established real terms of reference. Because the fight will only resume in January. "Winning" doesn't just mean getting 100% of your specific agenda, this week. It means winning over time, part of which is setting the framework of debate (in this era, that actually means constantly and forcefully and vituperatively dismantling media distortion). You know, POLITICS.
The GOP leadership doesn't really do politics. They drift along and respond minimally to obvious national needs and even to obvious national imperatives and landslide elections.
We will see. But the illiterate or disingenuous slogan that you "cannot win this kind of fight" is merely an excuse for inaction. You don't win in a day, it may take time, but you don't win ever if you don't START doing something, and that includes making the two sides stake out their positions and shaping public discussion.
Posted by: rhomboid at December 12, 2014 12:13 PM (afQnV)
290
I am not saying this is a "win". I am saying this tells us more about the left that the right.
I am not adverse to shutdowns. I can't think of any other president who didn't try to make shut downs painless as possible
Except this one. He wants to make is painful as possible.
I am not adverse to shutdowns. I can't think of any other president who didn't try to make shut downs painless as possible
Except this one. He wants to make is painful as possible.
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:14 PM (zOTsN)
291
Since 2001, Republicans in Name Only have been conservatives and Rove, Bush, McCain, et al. reminded you of this constantly.
Suckahs.
Suckahs.
Posted by: Valiant at December 12, 2014 12:18 PM (4rlxS)
292
So what you are saying for both sides is either take what the main party (and their employers, the big money people) or marginalize yourself and your somewhat allies for decades to come. Meanwhile, our former allies will just ride the coattails of their true friends, the establishment for as long as possible, while we lose more of our rights or the left loses their meal ticket. I don't see anyone taking that Mexican standoff.
Posted by: crazywalt77 at December 12, 2014 12:18 PM (way4n)
293
I never said we cannot win this kind of fight, at least eventually. I am saying that a short term CR would not pass. To say otherwise is wish casting.
And I do not say these thing "breezily" or "shallowly" and I do not think the fight is "doomed". I said a short term CR would not have passed
And I do not say these thing "breezily" or "shallowly" and I do not think the fight is "doomed". I said a short term CR would not have passed
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:19 PM (zOTsN)
294
Rush just told us how this really went down...
the GOP Leadership lied to one particular conservative Rep., they told him that if he would vote yes on the rule, they would pull the bill and replace it with a short term CR that the conservs would be happier with.
he changed his vote and then the Leadership did exactly what they said they wouldn't
they vote the bill on the floor for a full vote.
Boehner and his people are nothing but slimy liars.
the GOP Leadership lied to one particular conservative Rep., they told him that if he would vote yes on the rule, they would pull the bill and replace it with a short term CR that the conservs would be happier with.
he changed his vote and then the Leadership did exactly what they said they wouldn't
they vote the bill on the floor for a full vote.
Boehner and his people are nothing but slimy liars.
Posted by: Shoey at December 12, 2014 12:19 PM (jdOk/)
295
"Lots of people are having fun with the idea that Ted Cruz and Warren have become mirror images and wondering what this might portend for the GOP."
Ted Cruz vs Liz Warren in 2016 for President would be a clarifying election.
A choice not an echo!
Ted Cruz vs Liz Warren in 2016 for President would be a clarifying election.
A choice not an echo!
Posted by: Hugh G Rection at December 12, 2014 12:20 PM (wT9UL)
296
Sounds like Gowdy
Posted by: ThunderB at December 12, 2014 12:21 PM (zOTsN)
297
"167
As a political junkie, my dream is that in 2016 Ted Cruz leads a
conservative insurgency all the way to the convention force the
establishment to abandon Mitt Romney in favor of Walker or Perry."
Works for me. It's about time we showed the GOPe how to NEGOTIATE!
As a political junkie, my dream is that in 2016 Ted Cruz leads a
conservative insurgency all the way to the convention force the
establishment to abandon Mitt Romney in favor of Walker or Perry."
Works for me. It's about time we showed the GOPe how to NEGOTIATE!
Posted by: Hugh G Rection at December 12, 2014 12:21 PM (wT9UL)
298
"48
You know what I'm livid about? Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF
I don't see why. She's lying her ass off. She's not going after dems. She's grandstanding.
This item shouldn't have been there. Neither she or pres boyfriend called for a 'clean' bill."
SO TRUE.
She doesnt object to earmarks, pork, junk, special favors, or 1800 page bills. Heck she voted for some. What she objects to is that its not her flavor of junk.
You know what I'm livid about? Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Posted by: alexthechick - RTFBYMFMF
I don't see why. She's lying her ass off. She's not going after dems. She's grandstanding.
This item shouldn't have been there. Neither she or pres boyfriend called for a 'clean' bill."
SO TRUE.
She doesnt object to earmarks, pork, junk, special favors, or 1800 page bills. Heck she voted for some. What she objects to is that its not her flavor of junk.
Posted by: Hugh G Rection at December 12, 2014 12:22 PM (wT9UL)
299
Wait, I thought limiting campaign donations was regarded as limiting free speech? Are we on the anti-Citizens United bandwagon now?
Posted by: Paul at December 12, 2014 12:23 PM (9qDRl)
300
We smaller government, limit-its-powers, Charlie Browns forever trust big-government Republican Lucys -- over and over and over and over and over again. Do we have an alternative, any alternative? Big money speaks. Obama is in office because of Saudi big money and leftist big money (fascistic Soros and Agenda 21 types) and financiers (paying to permit debt to be pawned off as equity), and IT new money, those who pride themselves on their superior intellects and "morality", all of whom have been responsible for buying the media and academia and attempting to destroy middle-class America of every color and ethnic background. Big-government Republicans are part of this -- beginning with the Bushes relationship with the Saudiis, financial shenanigans, etc.
What can we do about it? I like Ace's idea of all of "us" getting together and primarying all of them. However, keeping us "independent-freedom loving" types together is like herding cats. We remain mostly "wild" (cats have hardly been domesticated), "free". That is our best attribute -- and has led to our most significant weakness.
The despicable debacle of last the presidential round of the so-called "conservative" flavor of the month -- if it lasted that long -- must be stopped early. We must choose one of our governors and begin filling in in every way to protect that person from the forces of subtle scorning, shaming, and disintegrating of the governor's integrity. "Perception is everything."We must develop depth in protection, after we all hold one part of our noses, and choose together. National rage against Obama and his destruction of this country in every way possible, and against sugar-teat-sucking, big-government Republicans, might just give us the lift we need to succeed.
Ace of Spades blog is doing its part.
What can we do about it? I like Ace's idea of all of "us" getting together and primarying all of them. However, keeping us "independent-freedom loving" types together is like herding cats. We remain mostly "wild" (cats have hardly been domesticated), "free". That is our best attribute -- and has led to our most significant weakness.
The despicable debacle of last the presidential round of the so-called "conservative" flavor of the month -- if it lasted that long -- must be stopped early. We must choose one of our governors and begin filling in in every way to protect that person from the forces of subtle scorning, shaming, and disintegrating of the governor's integrity. "Perception is everything."We must develop depth in protection, after we all hold one part of our noses, and choose together. National rage against Obama and his destruction of this country in every way possible, and against sugar-teat-sucking, big-government Republicans, might just give us the lift we need to succeed.
Ace of Spades blog is doing its part.
Posted by: pyromancer76 at December 12, 2014 12:27 PM (zvcr8)
301
"263
>>By passing a CR that supposed to go through September of next
year (huh... right through Labor Day, when people start paying attention
again. Timing must be coincidence), they lock in spending and for
ObamaCare and for TFG's illegal amnesty for basically a year.
Nope. There is a short term CR for DHS that expires at the end of
February in the Crom. That's where the new Congress has the opportunity
to attack the illegal issue."
Rep Gohmert had a great point... so we are going to threaten Obama that if he doesnt sign off on killing his executive amnesty, we will kill funding ... for the Border Patrol? Yeah, that'll fly.
Also, the hidden story is how they DID NOT DEFUND OBAMACARE and have rendered themselves in no position to do so.
>>By passing a CR that supposed to go through September of next
year (huh... right through Labor Day, when people start paying attention
again. Timing must be coincidence), they lock in spending and for
ObamaCare and for TFG's illegal amnesty for basically a year.
Nope. There is a short term CR for DHS that expires at the end of
February in the Crom. That's where the new Congress has the opportunity
to attack the illegal issue."
Rep Gohmert had a great point... so we are going to threaten Obama that if he doesnt sign off on killing his executive amnesty, we will kill funding ... for the Border Patrol? Yeah, that'll fly.
Also, the hidden story is how they DID NOT DEFUND OBAMACARE and have rendered themselves in no position to do so.
Posted by: Hugh G Rection at December 12, 2014 12:28 PM (wT9UL)
302
The way in which the parties are identical is the commitment to cronyism, i.e.; the willingness to do the bidding of their important donors.
Posted by: steve walsh at December 12, 2014 12:28 PM (9TS9J)
303
You know what I'm livid about? Boehner, et al, have made me agree with Elizabeth Warren about something. UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Posted by: alexthechick
------------------
As someone pointed out last night, Warren has provided herself with valuable campaign footage.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. It is a bit like discovering that Barney Frank enjoys the same Scotch that I do.
Posted by: alexthechick
------------------
As someone pointed out last night, Warren has provided herself with valuable campaign footage.
Nonetheless, I agree with you. It is a bit like discovering that Barney Frank enjoys the same Scotch that I do.
Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at December 12, 2014 12:30 PM (vPh3W)
304
ThunderB, I am uncertain about a true short term CR, but more certain that there is value to playing this out to "differentiate" and shape the discussion for the ongoing fight.
And I am comfortable characterizing dead-certain predictions that a short term CR would never pass as "breezy". Because while the incomprehensibly stupid move of the GOP leadership to declare before-hand that they would not "shut down" the govt. certainly tips the scales the wrong way, there actually can be surprising dynamics emerge in Congress, when things are actually in play (as they are in a lame duck, following a landslide and an impending Senate shift).
Point is, there is absolutely zero cost to playing things out. Yet not even a head-fake is made at a true confrontation. And it's only effing Dec. 12. Equivalent to the middle of the third quarter in a football game, and the GOP ran a 2-minute offense in order to kick a field goal, while down by 10 .....
And I am comfortable characterizing dead-certain predictions that a short term CR would never pass as "breezy". Because while the incomprehensibly stupid move of the GOP leadership to declare before-hand that they would not "shut down" the govt. certainly tips the scales the wrong way, there actually can be surprising dynamics emerge in Congress, when things are actually in play (as they are in a lame duck, following a landslide and an impending Senate shift).
Point is, there is absolutely zero cost to playing things out. Yet not even a head-fake is made at a true confrontation. And it's only effing Dec. 12. Equivalent to the middle of the third quarter in a football game, and the GOP ran a 2-minute offense in order to kick a field goal, while down by 10 .....
Posted by: rhomboid at December 12, 2014 12:30 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: John Boehner via Karl Rove at December 12, 2014 12:38 PM (XzRw1)
306
>>Rep Gohmert had a great point... so we are going to threaten Obama that if he doesnt sign off on killing his executive amnesty, we will kill funding ... for the Border Patrol? Yeah, that'll fly.
So what possible difference would it have made if they did it last night or next year? Had they done it last night it would have died in the Senate. If they do it next year it will pass and Obama will be forced to veto it as a stand alone item instead of a piece of an omnibus deal.
>>Also, the hidden story is how they DID NOT DEFUND OBAMACARE and have rendered themselves in no position to do so.
Not hidden at all. In addition to voting to defund it over 40 times in House in the last Congress it was the source of the shutdown last year. Same thing would have happened this year, dead in the Senate.
The real win for the Dems started in 2009 when Reid refused to follow regular order and forced this omnibus shit on us. Everything has been an all or nothing since then. Getting back to regular order and doing appropriations bills one at a time is the first step to getting back some sense of control. That would be an enormous change.
Republicans will still disappoint. All politicians do. But this has been a rigged game for years with Reid bastardizing the rules to tip the balance. Hopefully, we can start to make some inroads in January.
So what possible difference would it have made if they did it last night or next year? Had they done it last night it would have died in the Senate. If they do it next year it will pass and Obama will be forced to veto it as a stand alone item instead of a piece of an omnibus deal.
>>Also, the hidden story is how they DID NOT DEFUND OBAMACARE and have rendered themselves in no position to do so.
Not hidden at all. In addition to voting to defund it over 40 times in House in the last Congress it was the source of the shutdown last year. Same thing would have happened this year, dead in the Senate.
The real win for the Dems started in 2009 when Reid refused to follow regular order and forced this omnibus shit on us. Everything has been an all or nothing since then. Getting back to regular order and doing appropriations bills one at a time is the first step to getting back some sense of control. That would be an enormous change.
Republicans will still disappoint. All politicians do. But this has been a rigged game for years with Reid bastardizing the rules to tip the balance. Hopefully, we can start to make some inroads in January.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 12, 2014 12:39 PM (g1DWB)
307
"Rep Gohmert had a great point... so we are going to threaten Obama that
if he doesnt sign off on killing his executive amnesty, we will kill
funding ... for the Border Patrol? Yeah, that'll fly."
I'm a Gohmert guy but he's sidestepping. I'm only receptive to the "tactical disagreement" line of reasoning if I trust it's not cover for not wanting to fight or worse, wanting the same thing the enemy does. If Gohmert were Speaker, I'd be more inclined to buy into the idea that they have a plan and we need to let them operate. And Big Government is now like advanced cancer - you can't always fight it in a nuanced and surgical fashion without seeming contradictions. Shutting down DHS short-term seems illogical, but then so does chemotherapy. And Gohmert's smart enough to know that. He's water-carrying to some extent. Good guy by comparison to the rest, but still a politician. The fact is, this leadership has promised to fight repeatedly and given me no reason to trust them anymore. If Gohmert wants to lend his cred to that outfit, they'll use him as a FiCon human shield just like Ryan until he's used up.
if he doesnt sign off on killing his executive amnesty, we will kill
funding ... for the Border Patrol? Yeah, that'll fly."
I'm a Gohmert guy but he's sidestepping. I'm only receptive to the "tactical disagreement" line of reasoning if I trust it's not cover for not wanting to fight or worse, wanting the same thing the enemy does. If Gohmert were Speaker, I'd be more inclined to buy into the idea that they have a plan and we need to let them operate. And Big Government is now like advanced cancer - you can't always fight it in a nuanced and surgical fashion without seeming contradictions. Shutting down DHS short-term seems illogical, but then so does chemotherapy. And Gohmert's smart enough to know that. He's water-carrying to some extent. Good guy by comparison to the rest, but still a politician. The fact is, this leadership has promised to fight repeatedly and given me no reason to trust them anymore. If Gohmert wants to lend his cred to that outfit, they'll use him as a FiCon human shield just like Ryan until he's used up.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blane at December 12, 2014 12:42 PM (QKIQb)
308
"284
Let's assume a short term CR. It doesn't pass. The new congress is
seated. They send up a clean CR with everything you want. He vetos it.
The government remains shut down. The shut down is monitored by this
traitorous asshole
You keep saying they will get blamed for the shut down. So what. It didn't hurt the pubs and it won't hurt them either.
It might hurt the military terribly"
Actually, you do the 2 months CR and then in January you send PROPER Appropriations Bills for different areas, typically 13.
Each bill will have different riders.
HHS would have 'defund Obamacare'
DHS would strip out the amnesty.
DOD would have AUMF for killing ISIS dudes.
etc.
Obama then never gets to shut down the whole government, just vetoes some appropriations.
Then we negotiate... if we had conservative leaders instead of a turtle and a dove, we would push him to the wall.
Let's assume a short term CR. It doesn't pass. The new congress is
seated. They send up a clean CR with everything you want. He vetos it.
The government remains shut down. The shut down is monitored by this
traitorous asshole
You keep saying they will get blamed for the shut down. So what. It didn't hurt the pubs and it won't hurt them either.
It might hurt the military terribly"
Actually, you do the 2 months CR and then in January you send PROPER Appropriations Bills for different areas, typically 13.
Each bill will have different riders.
HHS would have 'defund Obamacare'
DHS would strip out the amnesty.
DOD would have AUMF for killing ISIS dudes.
etc.
Obama then never gets to shut down the whole government, just vetoes some appropriations.
Then we negotiate... if we had conservative leaders instead of a turtle and a dove, we would push him to the wall.
Posted by: Hugh G Rection at December 12, 2014 12:46 PM (wT9UL)
309
Where the fuck is SMOD when you really need him......
Posted by: Hill Country Texan at December 12, 2014 12:55 PM (YSIVw)
310
Feb. 1854 GOP started...1861 Abraham Lincoln 1st GOP President....7 years is all it took.
Posted by: Paladin at December 12, 2014 12:58 PM (QGbEp)
311
Boehner's whole strategy is to draw a line in the sand, and then tell the Democrats that they can pay him to walk back. If he generates a lot of anger and hollering about holding the line, he can demand more to walk back. But that's all the Republican wave means to him. He will not hold the line against Obama. It's not his goal. His goal is to continually get "the best deal possible".
He is also a great fundraiser, he cultivates Republican candidates and ties them directly into the national fundraising network and materially assists them in getting elected. On the other hand, he is ruthless and petty against any Republican who opposes him.
At this point I do not blame John Boehner. I blame the Republicans in the House who are so timid, so lacking in initiative and integrity, that they fall into machine politics rather than actually represent their constituents. Without their cowardice, John Boehner would be another crackpot on Capitol Hill.
He is also a great fundraiser, he cultivates Republican candidates and ties them directly into the national fundraising network and materially assists them in getting elected. On the other hand, he is ruthless and petty against any Republican who opposes him.
At this point I do not blame John Boehner. I blame the Republicans in the House who are so timid, so lacking in initiative and integrity, that they fall into machine politics rather than actually represent their constituents. Without their cowardice, John Boehner would be another crackpot on Capitol Hill.
Posted by: Chris Balsz at December 12, 2014 01:04 PM (8rRE+)
312
The GOPe plans to sell America downriver. January 2017 won't mean a damn thing.
Posted by: Erowmero at December 12, 2014 01:08 PM (go5uR)
313
312 I think the GOP is setting up the Democrats to run against Washington DC in 2016, like they did in 1976. I think they'll have some neophyte from outside Washington preaching about "our values" and agreeing with the Republican that the last 8 years were disappointing. They'll pledge all the hype about Hope, and they'll blame the Republicans for doing nothing to fix any problem. And there's nothing the Republicans can say to that. "We were against it before we voted for it"? "We're the lesser of two evils"?
Posted by: Chris Balsz at December 12, 2014 01:13 PM (8rRE+)
314
Q: "...ask yourself why you continue to support them..."
A: I'm not sure what you mean by "support" the Republicans. I've never sent the GOP money. I voted for a Republican for Senator, because the alternative was Kay Hagan, a commie parasite.
Q: "...why you thought it would be any different this time..."
A: What makes you think I thought that?
A: I'm not sure what you mean by "support" the Republicans. I've never sent the GOP money. I voted for a Republican for Senator, because the alternative was Kay Hagan, a commie parasite.
Q: "...why you thought it would be any different this time..."
A: What makes you think I thought that?
Posted by: Steve in Greensboro at December 12, 2014 01:16 PM (jj+6/)
315
My jerk congressman, who voted for this trash, just sent me a fund raising letter for 2016.
Posted by: Lily at December 12, 2014 01:42 PM (RTEyx)
316
That was one helluva party. Damn, I hurt today.
Posted by: John Boehner's Liver at December 12, 2014 02:15 PM (FoHWP)
317
Why do we continue to vote for the pub scumbags??? Because the dims are worse.
Posted by: drolmorg at December 12, 2014 02:23 PM (R1voE)
318
317: are you sure the dims are worse? Seems the result is the same regardless of the party.
Posted by: Lily at December 12, 2014 02:34 PM (RTEyx)
319
Ok, I understand that the Republicans won't impeach Obama...but can we then impeach Boehner instead? Please?
At this point I'd be glad to settle for that.
At this point I'd be glad to settle for that.
Posted by: LGoPs at December 12, 2014 02:57 PM (57By+)
320
"Instead of railing about sellouts leading the party, ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time."
This is exactly why I changed my registration to "Independent" and NEVER contribute to the GOP: the two political parties are both socialist/corporatist, who only distinguish themselves at the margin.
This is exactly why I changed my registration to "Independent" and NEVER contribute to the GOP: the two political parties are both socialist/corporatist, who only distinguish themselves at the margin.
Posted by: Jeff P at December 12, 2014 05:12 PM (qD7M5)
321
Escort girls http://REGMODELS.RU
Posted by: Tina at December 12, 2014 05:21 PM (DyZIK)
322
All you have to do is follow the money. All either side wants is more money and more power. Hang them all then we can have a trial after to clean up the details.
Posted by: Rob in Katy at December 12, 2014 06:19 PM (PiTBB)
323
November was, indeed, a hollow victory.
Posted by: CommonSenseMom at December 12, 2014 06:32 PM (SNcvB)
324
How much longer do we have to pay attention to the folks preaching at us to vote for "electable" Republicans ???? (Because, "Once the R's have a majority, THEN we can pressure any "moderates" into moving to the right.") (Yeahhhh, mmm-hmm, you betcha.)
Yes, I know, the new guys haven't been sworn in yet. But in case you didn't see the Drudge photo of Boehner and OBummer yucking it up (how much cuddlier could those two have *gotten* without kicking off the NSFW warning, anyway?) it seems the upper echelon of the Gutless Old Prevaricators is quite simpatico with Caliph Hussein.
Our Republican Beltway Betters have no fear of our "little temper tantrums": They *KNOW* that their conservative base won't vote Democrat. They've got another year-and-a-half to swap Other People's Money for power and prestige. Then they'll put their "serious" faces back on, and tell the yokels back home how important it is to elect MORE Republicans, so we have "enough votes in Congress to put a stop to the Democrat orgy of spending" that they (the R's) rolled over and gave the D's a blank check for.
Sans a miracle candidate from the Republican Party in 2016 (-and just how likely is THAT?), I'm going to vote non-D, non-R. Constitution Party? Libertarian? I'll find somebody. BUT -just to emphasize- I have NO intention of giving the R's my vote ever again.
Yes, I know, the new guys haven't been sworn in yet. But in case you didn't see the Drudge photo of Boehner and OBummer yucking it up (how much cuddlier could those two have *gotten* without kicking off the NSFW warning, anyway?) it seems the upper echelon of the Gutless Old Prevaricators is quite simpatico with Caliph Hussein.
Our Republican Beltway Betters have no fear of our "little temper tantrums": They *KNOW* that their conservative base won't vote Democrat. They've got another year-and-a-half to swap Other People's Money for power and prestige. Then they'll put their "serious" faces back on, and tell the yokels back home how important it is to elect MORE Republicans, so we have "enough votes in Congress to put a stop to the Democrat orgy of spending" that they (the R's) rolled over and gave the D's a blank check for.
Sans a miracle candidate from the Republican Party in 2016 (-and just how likely is THAT?), I'm going to vote non-D, non-R. Constitution Party? Libertarian? I'll find somebody. BUT -just to emphasize- I have NO intention of giving the R's my vote ever again.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at December 12, 2014 09:50 PM (ifELp)
325
ask yourself why you continue to support them and why you thought it would be any different this time.
Grrrrr.
Don't look at me, Buddy. I do not support them and did not think it would be any different this time.
Grrrr, markgle mrufnnniig grrrrgrowl grrrr.
Grrrrr.
Don't look at me, Buddy. I do not support them and did not think it would be any different this time.
Grrrr, markgle mrufnnniig grrrrgrowl grrrr.
Posted by: bour3 at December 13, 2014 12:16 AM (5x3+2)
326
I'm not changing my voter reg from Republican because I'M NOT THE ONE STRAYING FROM THE PLATFORM, FakeTan and Mitch are. I think my congressman is pretty pissed with Boehner, and i'm pretty sure my senators are giving McConnell the stink eye as i type.
Posted by: hurricane567 at December 13, 2014 04:12 AM (NkipT)
327
Drew, I hope you find another country somewhere else that you give a shit enough not to want to let it burn.
Posted by: FU DrewM at December 15, 2014 09:37 AM (Htev2)
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0454 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0165 seconds, 336 records returned.
Page size 206 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat