All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Oct 12, 2013 22:29:41

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Oct 12, 2013 23:12:59

Missed pretension points by referring to Apocalypse Now rather than Heart of Darkness. He's also wrong about WWI. The parties had theories about how they would win, but I don't think you'd call them reasonable.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 00:05:45

Robert Costa ‏@robertcostaNRO 21s
There is a growing acceptance in Hill GOP that regardless of how this ends, it'll end badly, and Rs who back it will be blamed for caving

Who could have foreseen this?

by **td11** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:54:35

this was a few days ago but,

@AriFleischer
If John Boehner changed his 1st name from "Speaker" to "Mullah", Pres O wld b eager 2negotiate w him. I'll be on @FoxNews @seanhannity 2nite

by **td11** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 14:47:55

a good read on all the troubles with healthcare.gov so far

can't help but wonder what the rollout would have been like in a universe without

Politics made things worse. To avoid giving ammunition to Republicans opposed to the project, the administration put off issuing several major rules until after last November’s elections. The Republican-controlled House blocked funds. More than 30 states refused to set up their own exchanges, requiring the federal government to vastly expand its project in unexpected ways.

The stakes rose even higher when Congressional opponents forced a government shutdown in the latest fight over the health care law, which will require most Americans to have health insurance. Administration officials dug in their heels, repeatedly insisting that the project was on track despite evidence to the contrary.

by **Bucky** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 15:17:06

Wow. The arrogance is breathtaking. (with apologies to mvpsoft).

by **pacino** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 16:25:31

Ted Cruz protests the government shutdown. Seriously.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 20:12:14

Jersey, have you been hearing anything about Trunk vs Sweeney?

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 20:18:49

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Jersey, have you been hearing anything about Trunk vs Sweeney?

No, but I don't really know anyone in the state GOP

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 20:21:56

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:Jersey, have you been hearing anything about Trunk vs Sweeney?

No, but I don't really know anyone in the state GOP

She's running ads prime time all week, I don't understand where this money is coming from.

by **traderdave** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 20:22:50

td11 wrote:this was a few days ago but,

@AriFleischer
If John Boehner changed his 1st name from "Speaker" to "Mullah", Pres O wld b eager 2negotiate w him. I'll be on @FoxNews @seanhannity 2nite

Putting aside for a second the fact that John Boehner's first name is actually "John" and not "Speaker", this Obama=Muslim bit the fringe keeps rolling out is really fucking old. Use your tiny little brains to come up with something new.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 20:37:20

traderdave wrote:
td11 wrote:this was a few days ago but,

@AriFleischer
If John Boehner changed his 1st name from "Speaker" to "Mullah", Pres O wld b eager 2negotiate w him. I'll be on @FoxNews @seanhannity 2nite

Putting aside for a second the fact that John Boehner's first name is actually "John" and not "Speaker", this Obama=Muslim bit the fringe keeps rolling out is really fucking old. Use your tiny little brains to come up with something new.

Well, Ari Fleisher isn't really fringe. On the other hand, he's not accusing Obama of being a Muslim, he's commenting on the fact that Obama was willing to negotiate with Iran's new President but not Congressional Republicans. It's stupid, to be sure, but then again, it's twitter.

by **Youseff** » Sun Oct 13, 2013 22:17:08

Bucky wrote:Wow. The arrogance is breathtaking. (with apologies to mvpsoft).

I'm in a rage about this. Fuck the modern GOP.

by **thephan** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 07:28:51

Where i think that closing things like open air memorials such as WWII, vista pull offs at Rushmore, etc. are silly, how does one pick and choose? There are safety and security concerns at plenty of federal lands that are concerning (Great Falls N.P. where drownings are all to common already). So, aside frmo PR options, shutting it down really should mean shutting down anything that does not pay for itself (you know, like the ACA is a money maker).

If people want to make a point, the house and senate offices should be closed and the protest should move up the street to the office complexes. Clog up the entrances and shut those buildings down. The unemployed due to sequestration, shutdown and the general legislative threat on the recovery should gather and have sit ins in front of the office doors of the elected. its our property, lets go use it for something productive.

by **thephan** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 07:53:20

At risk of being redundant, last week's Bloomberg had a lengthy article about how the new GOP is not the party of business, but the party of anti-governemnt. Its most vocal members are obsessed with hating the governemnt and seem hell bent on its complete destruction. Nothing matters to these reciently elected or reciently converted aside from ideology, including the needs of thier constituents or, appearently, a complete lack of the ability to comprehend the larger ramifications of thier actions.

I have to think that the digression to a colition goverment is around the corner as the factions are so stark and polorized that there will be a recognize split in negotiations soon. Crazies from the left, Tea Party, old line democrats, business concerned repblicans and come type of moderate. Perhaps there is some religious leaning, but that is harder to define in the US, and might be extremely hard to find votes for as a declared, specific affiliation.

by **traderdave** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 08:50:36

Youseff wrote:
Bucky wrote:Wow. The arrogance is breathtaking. (with apologies to mvpsoft).

I'm in a rage about this. #$!&@ the modern GOP.

http://imgur.com/T4BrSwO

Sorry, I didn't know how else to post this but I think it captures the situation well. HR 368 seems to do nothing but strip the minority of its ability to overcome obstructionism being perpetrated by the majority. How did seven Ds bring themselves to vote in favor of such a resolution? Just in case anybody here is rep'd by these folks, I thought I would post their names:

Ron Barber - AZ; John Barrow - GA; Sean Maloney - NY; Jim Matheson - UT; Mike McIntyre - NC; Collin Peterson - MN; Daniel Maffei - NY

OTOH, a Thank You is in order for the Rs that had the stones to vote in favor of Democracy:

Frank LoBiondo - NJ; Walter Jones - NC; Peter King - NY; Frank Wolf - VA; Charles Dent - PA; Paul Broun - GA; Michael Grimm - NY; Thomas Massie - KY; Kerry Bentivolio - MI

Jon Runyan voted YEA. He must have thought they were reaffirming the Dred Scott decision. Jersey, are we missing something here or is this situation pretty much exactly how it looks? That is meant to be a legitimate question.

by **dajafi** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 09:37:58

Krugman suggests one way out of this mess:

For a long time, starting as early as 1938, Democrats generally controlled Congress on paper, but actual control often rested with an alliance between Republicans and conservative Southerners who were Democrats in name only. You may not like what this alliance did — among other things, it killed universal health insurance, which we might otherwise have had 65 years ago. But at least America had a functioning government, untroubled by the kind of craziness that now afflicts us.

And right now we have all the necessary ingredients for a comparable alliance, with roles reversed. Despite denials from Republican leaders, everyone I talk to believes that it would be easy to pass both a continuing resolution, reopening the government, and an increase in the debt ceiling, averting default, if only such measures were brought to the House floor. How? The answer is, they would get support from just about all Democrats plus some Republicans, mainly relatively moderate non-Southerners. As I said, Dixiecrats in reverse.

The problem is that John Boehner, the speaker of the House, won’t allow such votes, because he’s afraid of the backlash from his party’s radicals. Which points to a broader conclusion: The biggest problem we as a nation face right now is not the extremism of Republican radicals, which is a given, but the cowardice of Republican non-extremists (it would be stretching to call them moderates).

The other thought I had about all this over the weekend is that we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

I'm convinced that a large part of the problem is that a blocking segment of the electorate believes, with maximum conviction, things that are simply untrue. If your only source of information is Fox and right-wing hate radio, you have a ridiculously distorted idea of what the Affordable Care Act is and does. If you're an elected official whose voting public is comprised mostly of such people, all your incentives are to vote as if their factually incorrect beliefs are true. (Plus you might be a hate-addled ignoramus yourself. Particularly if you hail from Texas.)

The government can't compel truth in speech, and it's a deeply frightening idea to have it try. (Whose truth, etc.) Nor can it incent truthful speech; the whole business model for FNC and right-wing radio is to keep viewers and listeners in a permanently agitated state. But under the First Amendment it can call for more speech.

Even 2-3 years ago I was against reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. But absent some even bigger change to the system that would marginalize the enraged/misinformed to the point where they can't wreck the country for the rest of us, I think we need it.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 09:57:49

The problem with the fairness doctrine is much of the irrational rage is driven by the internets and it would be impossible to implement, particularly on social media.

by **dajafi** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:39:03

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with the fairness doctrine is much of the irrational rage is driven by the internets and it would be impossible to implement, particularly on social media.

But the internet and social media are still essentially reactive forums, echoing and intensifying narratives generated in traditional media. I would guess this is particularly the case on the far right, where you've got so many older and presumably more technophobic adherents.

It wouldn't fix the whole problem, but over time I think it would really help to lower the volume and at least make the point that "the other side" has some grounding in reality and small-d democratic validity.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:57:36

So, am I correct in anticipating that the likely outlines of deal involve restoring some of the sequester cuts? So, basically, the Republicans are going to get even less than what they would've gotten if they had simply raised the debt ceiling and passed a clean CR?

Archived

All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics

Re: All Your Bash Ar Belong To US - Politics