Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Government 2.0: Digital Boogaloo

12357101

Posts

  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Silmaril wrote: »
    Worst case is this could mark the beginning of America losing its status as top of the pile of superpowers, as has happened to every superpower throughout history eventually.

    Would have been nice if it happened because liberalization and less need to militarily interfere everywhere on the face of the planet.

    and not because some chucklefucks don't like what the black guy did so everythings bad, forever, until a white guy can do it.

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    valhalla130
  • Bluedude152Bluedude152 Registered User regular
    turtleant wrote: »
    Weaver wrote: »
    Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.

    Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.

    Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).

    Then just keep talking about it in that thread till they join you

    p0a2ody6sqnt.jpg
    Enc
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    Enc on
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Silmaril wrote: »
    Worst case is this could mark the beginning of America losing its status as top of the pile of superpowers, as has happened to every superpower throughout history eventually.

    Would have been nice if it happened because liberalization and less need to militarily interfere everywhere on the face of the planet.

    and not because some chucklefucks don't like what the black guy did so everythings bad, forever, until a white guy can do it.

    Okay, I think this is going overboard. That's a pretty specific statement that would be really hard to prove.

    Now, if you could come up with a situation in the same country where a white dude did pretty much the same exact same thing and it was fine, then you'd have a ca-

    Oh wait, nevermind. Carry on!

    El Skid on
    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    Silmaril wrote: »
    turtleant wrote: »
    Weaver wrote: »
    Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.

    Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.

    Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).

    I'll tell you what cake isn't delicious.

    Brussels Sprout cake.

    Why is that a thing that exists?

    X22wmuF.jpg
    Kaplar
  • WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    Countdown to Fox claiming that the salmonella outbreak in chicken is a failure by Obama to support his key demo.

    hCpR4ri.jpg
    Steam: weavermatic xbox: weavermatico
  • SilmarilSilmaril Mr Ha Ha Hapless. Registered User regular
    turtleant wrote: »
    Silmaril wrote: »
    turtleant wrote: »
    Weaver wrote: »
    Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.

    Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.

    Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).

    I'll tell you what cake isn't delicious.

    Brussels Sprout cake.

    Why is that a thing that exists?

    Because there is no god.

    twispandcatsbysigsmall.jpg
    TheStigturtleantSkeithDarth WaiterBYToady
  • TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Weaver wrote: »
    Countdown to Fox claiming that the salmonella outbreak in chicken is a failure by Obama to support his key demo.

    countdown to a "black people love chicken" joke coming up on Fox and Friends.

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStigCFN: Stiggles
  • UrielUriel Registered User regular
    Man having a government would be nice right guys?

    Perhaps one with with a not totally toxic atmosphere of political discourse.

    Matev
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    Don't hold back, PotatoNinja, tell us how you really feel.

    Actually, wait, don't. I'd like to be able to sleep tonight, and that's already in jeopardy.

    I hope the inherent insanity of the situation makes it easier to ignore and keeps markets a little more stable.

    I worry that the inherent insanity of the situation makes the U.S. less credible, which exacerbates the situation.

    If its any comfort, I think the situation will probably resolve in a somewhat sane manner. How many destroyed political careers and ruined egos are required to get there is up in the air.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Big Red TieBig Red Tie beautiful clydesdale style feet too hot to trotRegistered User regular
    owned some faux news watching repub in class 8-)

    3926 4292 8829
    Beasteh wrote: »
    *おなら*
    Agahnim
  • WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    four-hours-cooking.gif

    hCpR4ri.jpg
    Steam: weavermatic xbox: weavermatico
  • ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    owned some faux news watching repub in class 8-)

    Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • SnowbeatSnowbeat i need something to kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered User regular
    good joke post

    Q1e6oi8.gif
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    owned some faux news watching repub in class 8-)

    Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?

    Well, when you're right...

    Oh god, it's catching.

  • Big Red TieBig Red Tie beautiful clydesdale style feet too hot to trotRegistered User regular
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    good joke post

    3926 4292 8829
    Beasteh wrote: »
    *おなら*
  • SnowbeatSnowbeat i need something to kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered User regular
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    good joke post

    Q1e6oi8.gif
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    good joke post

    post good jokes

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    poo'd joke ghost

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • YoSoyTheWalrusYoSoyTheWalrus Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    Snowbeat wrote: »
    good joke post

    post good jokes

    in this economy??

    tumblr_mvlywyLVys1qigwg9o1_250.png
    I Win SwordfightsTheodore FlooseveltSkeithShortyOdinSlacker71
  • WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular
    owned some faux news watching repub in class 8-)

    Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?

    You mean fox hosts, right? Sit there for hours on end, straight up lying through their teeth and and insulting and berating anyone that is not them, and then, boo-hoo libs are so mean cause they don't suck our dicks

    Those are the ones that claim things like liberal hate and smugness. And well, they deserve it. Those are horrible people who should not be on TV.

    hCpR4ri.jpg
    Steam: weavermatic xbox: weavermatico
    Agahnimchrishallett83DirtyDirtyVagrant
  • SnowbeatSnowbeat i need something to kick this thing's ass over the lineRegistered User regular
    we have to save every joke we can for the post-apocalyptic wasteland soon to come, where it's every stand-up for himself

    the roaming bands of monstrous cannibals are vicious audiences

    Q1e6oi8.gif
  • ChincymcchillaChincymcchilla Registered User regular
    Weaver wrote: »
    owned some faux news watching repub in class 8-)

    Know how one of the things conservatives don't like about liberals is smugness?

    You mean fox hosts, right? Sit there for hours on end, straight up lying through their teeth and and insulting and berating anyone that is not them, and then, boo-hoo libs are so mean cause they don't suck our dicks

    Those are the ones that claim things like liberal hate and smugness. And well, they deserve it. Those are horrible people who should not be on TV.

    No, I mean normal people who vote republican

    But you can straw man if you want I guess

    I have a podcast about Power Rangers:Teenagers With Attitude | TWA Facebook Group
  • zerzhulzerzhul Registered User, Moderator mod
    I wasn't aware that anyone particularly enjoyed smugness, except those being smug. It's kind of a shitty quality.

    MaximumA Dabble Of TheloniusYoSoyTheWalrusgtrmptynicAlucard6986chrishallett83
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.

    Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.

    And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.

    And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted

  • NoisymunkNoisymunk Registered User regular
    turtleant wrote: »
    Weaver wrote: »
    Hey dudes I'm pretty sure there is a real food thread.

    Yeah but the real food thread is full of folks talking about ethical fish to eat, and super complicated and expensive recipes, and weird restaurants and shit.

    Sometimes a dude just wants to complain about how horrible this spaghetti in a can is (so horrible) and what kind of cake is the most delicious (whatever cake has the most different kinds of chocolate).

    Most of the time the food thread is about helping people on a budget learn to cook for themselves with cheap, easy recipes and then talking about delicious desserts. So, come hang.

    It's also about Stale destroying our cholesterol levels with his potato salad recipe.

    brDe918.jpg
    tyniccabsy
  • PeenPeen tw1tch0rz occasionallyRegistered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.

    Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.

    And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.

    And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted

    That's all well and good and an actual budget is a good goal but do you honestly think this was the best way to go about doing it? Letting the left say "they're shutting down WIC and Veterans' benefits just because they hate Obamacare" isn't exactly controlling the discussion and maybe if Boehner just said that he wanted a real budget for once things would calm down a little bit?

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    There's no way to have a good faith budget debate when "blow up the economy" is on the table.

    It can't happen. Even if Republicans proposed changes that Democrats wanted (they won't), the Democrats cannot validate the debt limit as a lever for negotiations. No party interested in anything resembling a functional legislature can, really.

    If Republicans can threaten to default in order to get a new budget, the Democrats can too. $20 minimum wage or we default. Since Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency, their threat would actually be much more credible as well.

    "Credible" in the way that threatening to burn yourself alive is more credible if you have two canisters of gasoline instead of just one.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    PeenHacksawArdol
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I wonder if the US political system and culture will be really affected by this if it doesn't go over the edge

    Like, lets say that the debt ceiling gets raised (the most likely occurance), what will be the outcome of that? Will there be a lasting change as a result of the economic brinkmanship of the Republicans? Have they just destroyed themselves? Will we see a restructuring of the world's biggest economy? How will other countries react to the immediate knowledge that they are tied to the US government's economic choices?

    I think these are the more important questions than "how fucked will we be if the US defaults." We'll be fucked to a greater or lesser extent around the world, but nobody really knows to what extent, the depth of it, the length of recovery, what the recovery will be etc. It's an impossible question to really answer. But assuming that things don't explode, we can guess as to the potential changes.

    Oghulk
  • rhylithrhylith Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.

    Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.

    And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.

    And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted

    Are you aware that the senate did pass a budget this year and senate republicans blocked their requests to go to committee 19 times?

    Rhylith - <Shambler Milk> Horde Chogall
    chrishallett83cabsy
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Peen wrote: »
    That's all well and good and an actual budget is a good goal but do you honestly think this was the best way to go about doing it? Letting the left say "they're shutting down WIC and Veterans' benefits just because they hate Obamacare" isn't exactly controlling the discussion and maybe if Boehner just said that he wanted a real budget for once things would calm down a little bit?

    Boehner doesn't want a real budget.

    Well, maybe Boehner does, but what Boehner does or does not want at this point is kind of moot.

    The GOP wants to eliminate Obamacare. The Democrats will not budge on this issue.

    A negotiation would be something like:

    Republicans: "If you delay the mandate for two years, we'll agree to raise the minimum wage to $10 and give you an extra $200 billion in stimulus."

    Democrats: "We'll delay the mandate for one year in exchange for $12 an hour and $300 in stimulus."

    Republicans: "18 months, $11 an hour and we get to designate how $50 billion of the stimulus is spent."

    That's two parties attempting to offer enticements to each other in an effort to reach an agreeable path forward.

    "Eliminate Obamacare or we destroy the United States Government" is not a negotiation, its a threat.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    HacksawShortyDarth WaiterArdolchrishallett83MatevForar
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    Boehner can't make any budget offers because he's vulnerable and could lose his position as Speaker.

    So even if Boehner would like to offer a higher minimum wage or more stimulus or whatever in exchange for things the Republican Party ostensibly wants, he can't.

    If he ever made even a modest offer of compromise, he'd be out of power almost immediately.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    rhylith wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.

    Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.

    And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.

    And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted

    Are you aware that the senate did pass a budget this year and senate republicans blocked their requests to go to committee 19 times?

    Of course he is, but that doesn't fit his talking points.

    Agahnim
  • NeoTomaNeoToma Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    minirhyder wrote: »
    minirhyder wrote: »
    Do cakes have buttery, flaky crusts?
    I don't think so.
    They just have mushy bread.

    I will never understand in all my years why flaky is ever a positive

    It just gets everywhere

    Also, I'm allergic to like half of pies, so they are the far more discriminatory foodstuff

    A cream pie.
    twd-banana-cream-pie.jpg

    My personal favorite ;)


    NeoToma on
    Kadithautono-wally, erotibot300Slacker71
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    God damn I love a good banana cream pie.

    ZonugalSlacker71
  • minirhyderminirhyder BerlinRegistered User regular
    NeoToma wrote: »
    minirhyder wrote: »
    minirhyder wrote: »
    Do cakes have buttery, flaky crusts?
    I don't think so.
    They just have mushy bread.

    I will never understand in all my years why flaky is ever a positive

    It just gets everywhere

    Also, I'm allergic to like half of pies, so they are the far more discriminatory foodstuff

    A cream pie.
    twd-banana-cream-pie.jpg

    My personal favorite ;)


    See I was hoping it wouldn't go there, but really what was I thinking

  • WeaverWeaver Who are you? What do you want?Registered User regular

    hCpR4ri.jpg
    Steam: weavermatic xbox: weavermatico
  • YoSoyTheWalrusYoSoyTheWalrus Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Jasc,

    If you are still about, I'd like you to follow up on a question I asked on page two:

    And this is the other side of things. Correct and legal governance would be gaining enough seats to further your agenda in 2014 and 2016, first with the Senate and then the Presidency. That is the actual, written and established means of passing, repealing, and modifying law. The only reasons this isn't the norm at present are if:

    1) The party against the law doesn't believe it can or will ever gain sufficient political seating to do so
    2) The party against the law doesn't believe it will maintain political mood to retain an anti-law stance with their constituency long term.
    3) The party against the law believes there is a clear and eminent danger to the United States inherent in the law and cannot possibly wait the usual time frame for repeal or modification (re-next two to four years).

    Options 1 and 2 are what the left is claiming is the case, option 3 is what the right is claiming is the case. If option 3 is correct, then there would need to be a clear and definable reason why the following is true:

    A) What is the danger?
    B) What about this danger is specifically time sensitive over the next two to four years?
    C) What about this danger over that time frame is sufficient that the regular rules of order in congress should be ignored?
    D) What about this danger is greater than the economic and infrastructure damages and uncertainty of a government shutdown and a potential default?

    Keeping in mind that the Supreme Court already answered part of this, I'd be interested in seeing a serious response to A-D if this is the argument presented by why House Republicans must, right now, repeal the ACA in part or entirety.

    I'm genuinely curious about why you feel this is the main time and place for this discussion. Help me understand your position.

    I don't think that #3 is the only option that envelopes the entire realm of conservative thought, and while members of the Tea Party are still on that horse and it did trigger the shutdown, I don't think that's the reason this shutdown is going to last three or four weeks.

    Ted Cruz and the tea party are a fall guy for Boehner's actual agenda, which is an actual budget (not a CR) that makes the sequester permanent.

    And I think an actual budget is a noble ambition and I think if the Senate actually passed budgets in cooperation with the House, and Obama actually signed them, the GOP would be more than happy to raise the debt limit on a regular basis.

    And yes I know the House only passes mickey mouse budgets that defund all zoos and daycares and give 800 billion dollars to the Koch Brothers, but that's a lot more than the Senate does, so things never end up going to conference for a real budget to be drafted

    - Boehner's actual agenda is to stay Speaker for as long as possible. Maybe passing a sequester-level budget helps with that but he's got it locked up for the foreseeable future either way. So what he wants is kind of moot.
    - The TPers are nobody's fall guy. Ted Cruz honestly, legitimately thinks he can be President, which is why he stood up for 21 hours "filibustering" nothing. They are safe in their districts and as such are acting pretty much however they want. They are certainly not beholden to anybody to the extent that they could be a fall guy.
    - An actual budget would be fine, even at sequester levels, except as you say the House only passes insane budgets and the Republicans in the Senate have blocked 19 straight attempts to go to conference. It's often Mitch McConnell personally blocking it, so if you are looking for someone to get out of the way for a real budget you need to be staring at him. And his turkey neck.
    - Meanwhile we are decimating consumer confidence to Lehman-failure levels in the name of fiscal austerity even though the deficit is being steadily reduced anyway. It's insane.

    YoSoyTheWalrus on
    tumblr_mvlywyLVys1qigwg9o1_250.png
    chrishallett83
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular
    As a Non-Us-Citizen looking in on this thread for just trying to figure out how this is a thing that can even happen. ( Also for tips on pies and butts)

    Am I missing something in that this is starting to feel like the angry kid at the playground ready to smash all his toys so no one else can play with them, no matter the cost to himself?

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell CharlottesvilleRegistered User regular
    you know how you can pop blood vessels on the surface of your eyeball if your blood pressure goes too high.

    i think i'm nearing that point: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&hp

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
    autono-wally, erotibot300
This discussion has been closed.