- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, there were 3 or 4 CRs that funded everything with conditions relating to Presidentcare...
Then that's not "funding the government," no matter how much the right wing liars claim it is. If I go out for a meal and pay for my beverage, my side dish and my salad, that's not paying for my meal, is it?
Except for, you know, actually implementing the law. If there was a clean CR that funded everything without anymore delays and obstruction, it would be signed in 30 seconds.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I'm justifying nothing and your question is absurd framing in action.
Yep, but if your main course is so bad you can't stomach it you don't pay for that part do you?
were republicans afraid that the democrats intended to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the continuing resolution, knowing that the senate version had enough votes to pass if it ever came to the floor for a vote?
One has to pass the House first, and I'm not so sure you could expect 17 Repubs to cross their caucus...
If I eat it, I do.
Given how much the right wing has consistently lied its fool ass off for my entire life, I don't take them or their sycophants at face value when they tell me what a horrible awful horrible disaster the ACA will be, and then use bogus, skewed, incomplete and/or sloppy statistics to "prove" that.
I don't think there's any doubt you could.
CR stands for "Clean Resolution".
Interesting, it isn't just the GOP saying it. How do your fellow libertarians come out on Obamacare?
No, there were 3 or 4 CRs that funded everything with conditions relating to Presidentcare...
first off i never mentioned anything about my personal life in this thread, so why bring it up.
secondly, i want to know why you are not bothered by the house republicans adding language to a rule that is meant to be available for members of both parties, a rule which allow's for any motion from any member to proceed if the house and senate are gridlocked, that only the house majority leader can decide what motions make it to the floor.
how is denying the house democrats the ability to propose a motion if both the senate and house are deadlocked justified? were republicans afraid that the democrats intended to motion for a vote on the senate's version of the continuing resolution, knowing that the senate version had enough votes to pass if it ever came to the floor for a vote?
and the senate rejected each one of them. and when the latest version of the CR was rejected by the senate, there was a rule that allowed for any member to make a motion to vote on the senates version of the continuing resolution. according to the house democrats, such a motion would have been considered "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full house.
why did the republican house leadership insert language into the rule stating that such motions can only be offered by the house majority leader?
Well, we'll never know. The current majority is doing nothing more to stifle the minority than Pelosi as she made the model for oppressing the minority in the House...
so much for the notion that the house of representives is the peoples house.
Depends on the libertarian. The right-leaning Reason types are against it; the left-leaning types are generally against it (I don't care for it, particularly), but there's exceptions.
My personal streak of libertarianism is along the lines of this: Left-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't like the idea of an individual mandate without a public option.
Wow, it's been a while since I've explored libertarianism, but there's no way any part of Obamacare fits with their base philosophy. Has it really changed that much?
OMG! Really? That was an often used example of the type of framing you used to torture the question as you did.
I'm not bothered because it's a rule change I would expect and I'm only surprised Pelosi didn't think of it first when she was speaker. It's justified because it gives the house majority sovereignty over the house rather than being controlled by the senate majority.
no it gives power's to the house majority leader, a power that rightfully belongs to all members of the house, regardless of party.
and maybe pelosi did not think of this rule change because she knew it was wrong.
Piecemeal, and except of course for the part that they don't like.
GOP shutdown. Own it.
The majority elected a Repub House majority to put some brakes on the Dems...
Wow, maybe you should bone up on how the house and senate work and the function of majority and minority leaders in each.
And the bit about Pelosi - funniest comment ever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?