Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

I look forward to draining from my savings if this goes on for an extended period, while still not getting time off from work.
It's official, the Government has lost sight of its primary duty, that of being of/by/for the People.

I'm-a give them such a negative review on Yelp, you watch.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Now it's official? Just now eh? Heh.

It's fun to listen to the rhetoric, both sides saying "We've passed X, now if the other guys don't pass, it, it's THEIR fault the government shuts down!" It's gone back and forth, what, 4 times now? And then President Obama goes on camera saying he's "perfectly willing to work with republicans on a budget" and in practically the same breath says they should just pass a 6 week spending bill with no strings attached.

But hey, the senate did take time out to confirm Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to Japan (despite no foreign relations experience or real connection to Japan). So, as long as they're able to appoint cronies to positions of prestige, everything's great, right?
 
Last edited:
Look, I don't think that the Democrats are any *better* than the republicans in general but this is really turning into a petty Tea Party "kick over the toys and whine like babies show". These guys are acting like little bitches just because they can't get their way and honestly, it's only going to damage them in the long run.

EDIT: I'll amend that and say this: I agree with Gas, I hope this happens.


Because then when the next election cycle comes around these sanctimonious dumbasses will get voted out. This is going to backfire on them BIG TIME. It's not going to "save" our country. It's not going to "stop" Obamacare. It's just going to piss people off. Especially people who are looking for a reasonable and decent Republican party that isn't being led around on a leash by the religious extremist, science denying, Grover Cleveland worshiping whack jobs.
 
Last edited:

Zappit

Staff member
Well, we're getting a government shutdown via the Tea Party, with a battle cry of Green Eggs and Ham.

And I fear that it was the last actual book many of those lunatics read. After failing to kill Obamacare over 40 times, it's pretty apparent that they've got a severe learning disability.
 
Honestly, the furloughs and shutdown will suck, but if some temporary financial setbacks in my household means the demise of the Tea Party, it'll be worth it.
 
Well, we're getting a government shutdown via the Tea Party, with a battle cry of Green Eggs and Ham.

And I fear that it was the last actual book many of those lunatics read. After failing to kill Obamacare over 40 times, it's pretty apparent that they've got a severe learning disability.

They're obviously doing something right. They're on the verge of shutting down the government. Belittling their intelligence is a double-edged sword because either the tea party indeed has a 'severe learning disability' and those in power are inept enough to be thwarted by people with a child's intelligence, or they've severely underestimated their abilities and now they're paying for it.
 
"Now's not the right time to be sober, cause the idiots are taking over..." NOFX

Whenever there is a 'shut down', the first wages which suffer should be the assholes in the House and Senate. They might not be stupid, but that doesn't stop them from being self centered, narcissistic jagamuffins. Anyone who thinks they are doing this 'for the people' should pull their heads out of their asses.
 
"Now's not the right time to be sober, cause the idiots are taking over..." NOFX

Whenever there is a 'shut down', the first wages which suffer should be the assholes in the House and Senate. They might not be stupid, but that doesn't stop them from being self centered, narcissistic jagamuffins. Anyone who thinks they are doing this 'for the people' should pull their heads out of their asses.

Agree 100%
 
They're obviously doing something right. They're on the verge of shutting down the government.
The Tea Party members in question are part of the government. Their inability to compromise and lack of understanding of politics is causing them to lose control of the very thing they were elected to manage.

Belittling their intelligence is a double-edged sword because either the tea party indeed has a 'severe learning disability' and those in power are inept enough to be thwarted by people with a child's intelligence, or they've severely underestimated their abilities and now they're paying for it.
They're elected officials. They are people in power. It's people in power vs other people in power, unwilling to compromise. And as much as they worship the founding fathers to a degree that would make Bioshock Infinite characters orgasm enviously, they're probably unaware that they wouldn't have positions of Congress to be elected to if compromises hadn't been made to establish that form of the legislative branch of the U.S. government.[DOUBLEPOST=1380601042,1380600993][/DOUBLEPOST]
"Now's not the right time to be sober, cause the idiots are taking over..." NOFX

Whenever there is a 'shut down', the first wages which suffer should be the assholes in the House and Senate. They might not be stupid, but that doesn't stop them from being self centered, narcissistic jagamuffins. Anyone who thinks they are doing this 'for the people' should pull their heads out of their asses.
Agreed. I don't see why Congress deserves to be paid if they can't do their job.
 
Now there's some irony. Today is apparently the 123rd anniversary of Yosemite National Park... which has just shut down, because of the government shutdown.
 
Yeah, it's happening. Congress's approval rating is at 10%. I wonder how low it will go.

I'd like to stay up later and bitch about this more, but I have to go to bed so I can be up bright and early for a job the government wants done but isn't going to pay for.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Another great obama quote, from his twitter:

"They actually did it. A group of Republicans in the House just forced a government shutdown over Obamacare instead of passing a real budget."

Democrats wouldn't know a "real budget" if it slapped them in the genitals.

And if I had to choose between "stupid" tea partiers and Diet Democrat republicans who provide no real alternative and do nothing other than enable the left to enact more and more of their agenda simply on the hopes that it'll be their turn to steer the leviathan some day, I know which one I'd pick.

Burn, Washington, Burn.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
But they don't want a budget - they want unlimited cash.
Ok, lets stop this particular false premise right now before someone believes it. Republicans are not the party of fiscal conservative anymore, not for a long time. Democrats don't exactly save money either. The only difference between the two parties is who they are giving the money to.

There is no way that this current crop of Republicans will lower the deficit, and the reason is for every dollar they want to take out of social programs and regulatory committees such as SNAP, the Affordable Care Act, the Consumer Protection Bureau, they want two or three dollars to spend on military and private contracting and tax cuts for the super wealthy and for companies. Everything they want to defund is a drop in the bucket of the budget, and you know as well as I do it has nothing to do with budget costs. Oh, it's about money, though, believe me.

As for borrowing to pay for the debt, you're not going to get anywhere until you can curb healthcare costs and social security, and military spending. Until these can be dealt with (and believe me, I don't think they can because these idiots can't even make a budget without having a pissing fight over one bill that passed 3 years ago), that just isn't going to change.
 
Well, the last few times the Democrats swerved first. This is the first they didn't flinch, I suppose they were hoping the Republicans would but this game of chicken turned into a head on crash.

Which is fine.

If the Democrats bothered to pass a budget, the Republicans wouldn't have had this tool to bludgeon them over. The reality is that the Democrats, via the affordable healthcare act have raised taxes (primarily via the healthcare industry - insurance, pharma, medical, etc) but they wanted to spend that to fund the act. However there are so many other programs they aren't willing to cut that we simply don't have the money for.

So by forcing the issue "No, you can't borrow more money to pay for stuff you can't afford" and choosing the healthcare act as a hot button issue, the Republicans get a threefer:

1. Increased revenue due to new healthcare taxes that will go into effect even if the act isn't paid for
2. Decreased spending due to shutdown
3. Damage healthcare act

Honestly, they have not much to lose. The Democrats haven't passed a budget for years. If anything we've been giving them too much rope every few months and by golly they're actually hanging themselves with it.

If they passed a budget, the republicans couldn't use this tool to bludgeon them.

But they don't want a budget - they want unlimited cash.
Good to hear that the Democrats can just pass a budget unilaterally without the republicans having any power to frustrate their attempts. Bet they're kicking themselves for not completely cutting Congress out of the procedure of passing a budget.

as for the threefer that you propose the Republicans get.

1. The act is already paid for and with the government shut down is even now going into effect.
2. The shutdown actually costs the federal government extra money due to decreased revenues.
3. It actually doesn't damage the healthcare act at all. HHS has already spent all the appropriated money and will now be running off the money of HHS.
 
"Maybe we shouldn't keep pumping hot air into this balloon"

"No way it would be terrible, we have to pump even more air faster!"
 
They are, however, more fiscally conservative than the democrats.
Again, no. It's like you've forgotten the last 30 years. You have to actually spend less if you want to be fiscally conservative, not take from social programs to spend money somewhere else.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Ok, lets stop this particular false premise right now before someone believes it. Republicans are not the party of fiscal conservative anymore, not for a long time.
The current crop of "republicans" aren't as fiscally conservative as they should be.

They are, however, more fiscally conservative than the democrats.
I remember how GWB and a republican controlled legislature passed the (up until then) biggest entitlement expansion in history. I have a hard time disputing Krisken on that point. About the only thing the republicans can be counted on for anymore is foreign policy that isn't delusional and incompetent. When it comes to matters fiscal, they like to spend too. "Less than the democrats" is the very definition of damning with faint praise. Budgets never go down. Never. As Milton Friedman said, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.[DOUBLEPOST=1380639779,1380639680][/DOUBLEPOST]
Again, no. It's like you've forgotten the last 30 years. You have to actually spend less if you want to be fiscally conservative, not take from social programs to spend money somewhere else.
Well, that isn't quite accurate either. The debt grew by 400 billion a year under republicans, and 1 trillion a year under democrats. One IS less than the other, but the numbers are still so big as to be a ridiculously ineffective comparison.
 
republicans can be counted on for anymore is foreign policy that isn't delusional and incompetent.
WAIT, WHAT!?!?!?! Ike has been dead a long time, and even he was fucking up the world, by fighting dirty wars for BP and Chiquita Banana.
 
No one is going to win any debate here. People have chosen their sides, the lines have been drawn, and neither group is interested in hearing what the other has to say. This is just incoherent ranting and finger-pointing now.

Much like the public as a whole, actually.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
WAIT, WHAT!?!?!?! Ike has been dead a long time, and even he was fucking up the world, by fighting dirty wars for BP and Chiquita Banana.
And Obama has been exponentially worse.
No one is going to win any debate here. People have chosen their sides, the lines have been drawn, and neither group is interested in hearing what the other has to say. This is just incoherent ranting and finger-pointing now.

Much like the public as a whole, actually.
There's a schism that gets wider every day, that's for sure. It'll be interesting (as in "chinese interesting times curse" interesting) to see what happens first: whether the union collapses of fiscal insolvency, or is torn apart by civil strife.
 
Snark isn't going to win you any debates. Consider whether the Democrats passed a budget when they controlled the white house, the senate, and the house just a few years ago.
Which of course wouldn't be in effect now since they haven't held the house for over 2 years. Budgets are annual.

Thing is that the Democrats have tried to pass budgets. The republicans have refused to negotiate on them.
 
I remember how GWB and a republican controlled legislature passed the (up until then) biggest entitlement expansion in history. I have a hard time disputing Krisken on that point. About the only thing the republicans can be counted on for anymore is foreign policy that isn't delusional and incompetent. When it comes to matters fiscal, they like to spend too. "Less than the democrats" is the very definition of damning with faint praise. Budgets never go down. Never. As Milton Friedman said, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
How do you figure on the foriegn policy portion? Seems to me Republicans lately have been scitzophrenic on Foriegn Policy lately.

Lybia and Syria being insane talking points for the republicans. And with John McCain possible president singing a self written song "bomb Iran"[DOUBLEPOST=1380641331,1380641275][/DOUBLEPOST]
So you are asserting that even though they didn't pass a budget when the controlled everything, they would certainly pass a budget now if those obstructionist republicans weren't around?

Your argument is unconvincing.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...e-passes-budget-with-1-trillion-tax-hike?lite

My argument is right. Doesn't matter if you find it unconvincing.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You can never give Republicans a pass on foreign relations, because they have been terrible at it too, or even worse.
Democrats divided by zero. Forget that trifling "bowing to foreign kings" thing from a quaint 5 years ago, now terrorists are killing our ambassadors to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 (and they couldn't even avoid botching the coverup. Youtube video? Sheesh.), we almost plowed headlong into the Syrian civil war - stumbling so badly it makes Putin look like a peacenik, completely screwed up on Egypt - paving the way for the muslim brotherhood to almost turn a comparative secular ally into yet another islamist theocracy, we're selling guns to mexican drug cartels and then losing track of them in the name of drumming up opposition to the 2nd amendment.... Hell, it's a good day for the Obama administration when they merely have egg on their face, such as for giving idiotic presents to the british prime minister (a set of NTSC DVDs, which won't play on UK DVD players) and the Queen of England (an Ipod full of Obama's speeches. Really?! How narcissistic can you be?)

You might say that Republicans make the US feared and distrusted abroad, but even if it were true, it'd be better than weak, indecisive, incompetent and confused.[DOUBLEPOST=1380641801,1380641575][/DOUBLEPOST]
How do you figure on the foriegn policy portion? Seems to me Republicans lately have been scitzophrenic on Foriegn Policy lately.

Lybia and Syria being insane talking points for the republicans. And with John McCain possible president singing a self written song "bomb Iran"
McCain needs to retire, no doubt, but let's be honest here - there's nothing that could have happened in 2008 to have made the Iranians more frothingly psychopathic toward us. And Libya and Syria are completely valid talking points - more unnecessary involvement in foreign conflicts just on Obama's say-so with no congressional approval.
 
How to be economically and budget minded party
  1. Do nothing about the budget while controlling all parts of Congress
  2. Propose completely ridiculous and impractical budget once your opponents gain control of the House of Representatives
  3. Wait for House to reject ludicrous budget proposal
  4. Accuse opponents of being uncompromising obstructionists who want to see the country fall into ruin
  5. ...
  6. Profit
 
Irrespective of any imperfections it may have, the Affordable Care Act was passed, signed, and ruled constitutional according to the fullest extent of the process. To hold the federal budget hostage until implementation of ACA is revoked or deferred does seem rather out of place.
 
Democrats divided by zero. Forget that trifling "bowing to foreign kings" thing from a quaint 5 years ago, now terrorists are killing our ambassadors to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 (and they couldn't even avoid botching the coverup. Youtube video? Sheesh.), we almost plowed headlong into the Syrian civil war - stumbling so badly it makes Putin look like a peacenik, completely screwed up on Egypt - paving the way for the muslim brotherhood to almost turn a comparative secular ally into yet another islamist theocracy, we're selling guns to mexican drug cartels and then losing track of them in the name of drumming up opposition to the 2nd amendment.... Hell, it's a good day for the Obama administration when they merely have egg on their face, such as for giving idiotic presents to the british prime minister (a set of NTSC DVDs, which won't play on UK DVD players) and the Queen of England (an Ipod full of Obama's speeches. Really?! How narcissistic can you be?)
Reagan: Car bombing a mosque when the target was not in the city, let alone the mosque. Pulling out of Beirut because of the barracks bombing. Selling Weapons to Terrorists. Negotiating with Terrorist. Strong rumor that he had George HW Bush undermining the negotiations with Iran during the hostage crisis/1980 presidential campaign. Funding death squads that raped and murdered 4 nuns in Central America - they did worse but the other victims weren't American.

Bush: Mogadishu, lucky for him he left office after a month and left the mess for somebody else to get blamed. Panama. Vomit.

Bush: Really do I need to list a single thing? But I'll add Groping the German President.
 
McCain needs to retire, no doubt, but let's be honest here - there's nothing that could have happened in 2008 to have made the Iranians more frothingly psychopathic toward us. And Libya and Syria are completely valid talking points - more unnecessary involvement in foreign conflicts just on Obama's say-so with no congressional approval.
Except that the talking heads from the republicans would have had us go in faster and bigger. Republicans were angry about Libya because they thought that the US should have been the ones leading the effort and not letting France pay for the biggest involvement. In Syria they said we should have gotten involved two years ago.

It was really only after Obama started pushing for action in Syria that any republicans came out against bombing Syria.
 
Just because it was passed its opponents should give up?

Its proponents failed to get one passed for decades prior to finally realizing (and only barely when they controlled everything). Are you suggesting that because they failed so many, many times they should have given up on trying to get it done?

Why are you telling opponents they should give up the fight? Why didn't you tell proponents the same thing years ago?
It's the law. It has been appropriately passed, challenged to the fullest extent possible under the legislative process, and it has stood. Opening up a debate on whether an existing law needs to be revoked or amended is one thing, but shutting down the functions of the federal government just because one can't get one's way does seem a tad excessive.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Irrespective of any imperfections it may have, the Affordable Care Act was passed, signed, and ruled constitutional according to the fullest extent of the process. To hold the federal budget hostage until implementation of ACA is revoked or deferred does seem rather out of place.
Passed in the dead of night under cover of darkness after sneaking it by unscrutinized. "We have to pass it so you can learn what is in it." The whole thing has been ramrodded through via procedural gimmick, hook and crook since inception. The entire thing passed on the argument "the mandate penalty is not a tax" and then the one deciding vote in the supreme court suddenly breaks uncharacteristically to the left with the rationalization that "Oh, it IS a tax, and the government is allowed to tax" when all the arguments up to that point had been "it's not a tax, but the government can still do it."


Reagan: Car bombing a mosque when the target was not in the city, let alone the mosque. Pulling out of Beirut because of the barracks bombing. Selling Weapons to Terrorists. Negotiating with Terrorist. Strong rumor that he had George HW Bush undermining the negotiations with Iran during the hostage crisis/1980 presidential campaign. Funding death squads that raped and murdered 4 nuns in Central America - they did worse but the other victims weren't American.

Bush: Mogadishu, lucky for him he left office after a month and left the mess for somebody else to get blamed. Panama. Vomit.

Bush: Really do I need to list a single thing? But I'll add Groping the German President.
You bring me trifles and hearsay. Especially compared to what I rattled off.
 
Top