I know I am but what are you?
No wait, I meant to say, I know you are but what am I?
Oh man, I should'a said.
Nobody was obsessed at all, not one single bit, until your Party went from the droning single line message that all drones drone at once, all across the land, the exact same wording all at once, and you have no idea how irritating this is, every drone droning the precise phrase, "Our healthcare system is broken and must be fixed" because that phrase cannot be improved by any single unimaginative drone, droning out all conversation, all of it, and the situation cannot be improved either by any careful measure, no cautious steps are acceptable so those are droned out, "Republicans have no ideas for fixing our healthcare system at all" I cannot recall how many times I've read that in comments, because you actually honestly cannot hear anything like "check reckless malpractice suits, and make policies transportable across states to name only two Republican suggestions unheard by drones, to come from that to your Party busting your anxious moves on ushering socialized healthcare, federalizing healthcare, the Party's aim all along, that you even faced the opposition you caused, and knew you would cause. And don't give me this sterling crap about providing 30 million Americans with health care insurance, you know, I know, everybody knows this bill does no such thing. Your craptastic bill is taller than I am, and if you think of one millisecond that is acceptable then you are quite mad. Obsessed, I must say. The downs check the acrosses. Busting your emotional moves on 2nd amendment constitutional rights, (reasonable, yes, you have an answer for every little nibble), Buying out ammo, stockpiling all government Departments. Fast and Furious. Early issuing terrorism warnings about right-wing groups. And now great effort to prove you don't have resources to bar citizens from their own parks, fitting the pattern of using Public resources for Party ends, These citizens wanted to be left alone to their own thing, their homes their families are their interest, they say so, politics is not their interest, not their desire, but no, they would not be left in their comfort zone, that is stated outright, that with this administration you will not be left alone as democratic republics are intended. We do see you strongly prefer disruption at all points. Do you really think all those tea partiers types are as excited about politics as you and your drones? Believe me, they are not. The obsession is yours. Observe: strange sinister crackpot Senator who gets government process backwards, especially regarding committee bills and budgets, your obsession is checked.
But what came out instead was, "Oh yeah?"
17 comments:
DOMA was? the law of the land...
On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement regarding lawsuits challenging DOMA Section 3. He wrote:
After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.
If Obama, thought the means of his chief executive authority, can say I'm not going to enforce a law... just like that...
Why shouldn't the congress, thought its constitutional authority over the purse, not be able to say, well, we aren't going to finance this law given a number of factors, including a documented history of waivers, the systematic discrimination, classifications based on political orientation.
The Congress has concluded that Obamacare fails to meet that standard of fairness, equality, for all Americans and is therefore unconstitutional.
What does it mean when people say...
Two can play that game...
Two to tango, would it not apply here?
The phrase is conventionally used for situations in which one person is being blamed, but two are actually at fault.
Although, maybe this is closer to tit for tat...
The tit for tat strategy has been detected by analysts in the spontaneous non-violent behaviour, called "live and let live" that arose during trench warfare in the First World War. Troops dug in only a few hundred feet from each other would evolve an unspoken understanding. If a sniper killed a soldier on one side, the other could expect an equal retaliation. Conversely, if no one was killed for a time, the other side would acknowledge this implied "truce" and act accordingly.
Finally One shutdown tit for a whole bunch of tats... a pervasive, insidious pattern of tat. it was abuse.
Lem, you mentioned tango. It's a lover's heated argument, right?
The Abby Dance Studio on tv that shows the girls and their mothers are incorporating more boys than before. They did one dance that reminded me of a tango. I did not expect much, they're too young for it to be so dramatic as grownups can do with tango, I thought, but those little kids surprised the heck out of me. The story was Medusa and Odysseus and they have a struggle similar to tango, they fought and pounded each other across the stage. To end the girl flies across the stage to attack fiercely and menacingly lunges and lands like a spider on his back. The two truly excelled. The audience leapt to their feet.
As to Reid saying that, what a tell, they always to advertise their deepest most sinister darkest motives, at times I'm not so certain is clear to themselves. One of my sisters did that the whole time we were growing up together. I noticed it, and once noticed saw it repeated continuously. It's like playing poker, and the guy reads like a book. I dislike poker because of the antipathy it promotes, but that is a poker tell.
Harry Reid is God's gift to the Republican Party.
When asked why, after castigating Republicans for letting kids with cancer go without treatment because of the shutdown, he wouldn't support a mini-bill to allow just that, Dingy Harry said (are you ready?), "Why would we want to do that?".
Between him and Choom making war on WWII vets, the Demos' image will be in tatters before the weekend.
I meant to say through, not thought.
They look the same after 1 am.
That's my excuse.
"check reckless malpractice suits, and make policies transportable across states "
If these are truly Republican priorities why are they not insisting that legislation be passed to advance these objectives as part of the shutdown negotiations? I am sure they would find many democrats willing to support these 'ideas'.
Lem said ...
Why shouldn't the congress, thought its constitutional authority over the purse, not be able to say, well, we aren't going to finance this law given a number of factors, ...
Very simply because Congress has surrendered its authority to formally budget. We've not had one for going on 5 years now. Do we see a pattern there?
The Continuing Resolution, HJ 59 as amended (yes, I have read all of it) violates common sense, and tries to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act. The PPACA is a-l-r-e-a-d-y fully fund obligated for every damn thing scheduled for execution between now and 15 Dec 2013.
In other words, the fine line between "authorization" and "appropriation" was already crossed for the purpose implied as challenging by Democrats or necessary by Republicans in this CR debate. BOTH were and are full of shit.
There is other blarney in the debate about amending an authorization by a temporary measure like a "continuing" resolution. Hello!...a CR has a start date and an E-N-D and changes nothing already enacted by Congress as authorized by law. Fact is most appropriations, even the normal budgetary kind, have end dates.
The question in my mind is this: Are the Congress and Administration in DC now so ignorant as to not understand this simple fundamental process(or do they intentionally lie to us)...or... has the public at large simply never learned it?
AReasonableMan said...
I am sure they would find many democrats willing to support these 'ideas'.
Really? Neither Democrats nor Republicans supported John Kerry's 2004 proposal that would have effectively accomplished everything the PPACA purports to do, without adding new layers of bureaucracy, in fact utilized an existing agency that has been managing such a program on a limited basis for 44 years at the time, 53 years now.
I was the solitary good idea Kerry had, and mind numbingly simple to see for every single Congressperson and every single member of any administration. You could say It hid in plain sight.
I say it didn't make enough political drama so the pols said fuck it.
dutch - the question is, how many Americans will get the news that Reid said "Why would we want to do that?" about funding cancer treatment for kids, or Obama's barriers against the 90 year old vets at the WW II Memorial? I'm sure the MSM, in CYA mode, gave both stories about thirty seconds air time. But that was it for those stories. One time and out. Those stories, tragically, will barely register register with the Dem's base.
Title 26 of the US Code, section $4980H is also the law of the land. Except Obama claims he has executive authority to change a law passed by Congress without Congressional amendment.
Leland...you illustrate my point precisely. In an autocracy, whatever the administration wants is just done. "Law" devolves in to edict. The entire CR fandango was bullshit, as a CR cannot do what a determined POTUS and administration can do. That includes spending money on the ACA as they see fit under the rules governing CR's, no matter what amendment this or that says....and that in addition to the funds already obligated, which covered everything up to 15 Dec anyway. Just how significant would de-funding the ACA until 15 December 2013 have been? Pure horse shit. How close are we now to a pure aristocracy of a governing party?
What scares me is that I now think the majority in Congress, both parties, have lost sight of what a budget really is...both sides seem happy to call a CR a budget now. Sounds like surrender monkeys all to me.
Aridog,
I understand your point of view, and I certainly have some of the same fears. The CR is certainly not a budget, but that's all the Senate will allow. And you are right, that the CR gives a lot of flexibility to the Administration.
Actually ACA gave lots of leeway for the Administration to determine all sorts of regulation. Regulations that used to be solely established in the domain of the legislation. But sometime ago (before even Obama, don't recall when but Levin mentions when in his new book), Congress decided to give the Executive Branch authority in some cases to write the specifics of law. This was a bad idea for our country.
Obama actually does have leeway in interpreting ACA, which allows him the authority to grant waivers. However, he cannot waive the IRS law on the start date, because that particular date was written into the law by Congress. Pelosi, Reid, and Obama wanted to make sure Obamacare started at that date, so it was written into the law and not given to the discretion of some future Administration.
How close are we now to a pure aristocracy of a governing party?
The "pure" qualifier could mean anything, but I don't think we are close at all. It's been established for some time now.
Leland....back in the days when I had a major war on with the IRS one of the senior revenue officers said outright that Congress passes gibberish and leaves it to senior administration officials to actually write law as regulation. Then expects civil service level people to enforce it all. That facets of any of it make no sense is part of the process. He was disgusted.
Gee, Chip. What a shame that this whole, rambling manifesto of a post of yours only garnered 13 comments.
You just don't get the appreciation that you feel you should, do you?
Here is a late comment for you, R&B: Brilliant, Chip Ahoy.
Brilliant in the sense that Ted Kaczynski is brilliant. But hopefully one more added to an unlucky thirteen will give it just the push it needs.
Well, that and if it were written in blood-stained shoelaces from an imagined prison. But I digress. His dissent won't suppress itself!
Amazing how much the right has come to look just like the left-wing wackos of 2005.
...check reckless malpractice suits...
Non-cost-saving measures that won't increase affordability or increase access don't count.
In any event, Obama offered a truce by allowing for tort protection when going by specialist-endorsed best practices and evidence-based guidelines, but the squawkers of the right-wing balked.
They were never serious. They just want a rambling cause to believe in. And thankfully they have a rambler like Chip to articulate that very cause --- in a manner as inarticulately as only a true believer can render it.
So, there was one potentially cogent point that Chip could actually bring to the table -- shot down for the unserious dribble that it is. And he only had one other.
The rest of it was emotive manifesto-writing, as emptily irrational as they come. Perhaps, being from Colorado, he was hoping for a Red Dawn scenario on behalf of which to feel inspired by, pump his fist in the air, and proclaim righteous certitude.
Post a Comment