Because this dude believes that the immoral action is taken by the government: disbursing a particular benefit.
He makes no judgement on the morality of the individual receiving the benefit.
So what is the moral argument against government offering welfare that doesn't cast moral judgement on the people accepting welfare?
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
It seems to be the jist of all his objections to government programs.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
Anti-redistribution arguments are typically based on the idea that poor people don't deserve any help or that poor people need to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, which casts a moral judgement on the recipients.
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
Anti-redistribution arguments are typically based on the idea that poor people don't deserve any help or that poor people need to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, which casts a moral judgement on the recipients.
And if you can find a quote from Greg Collett wherein he supports that argument, I will gladly call him a hypocrite alongside you.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
I never understood citing scripture as evidence for saying voluntary private charity should be the only form of charity or welfare. The Jewish law is pretty clear about people being mandated to give shit to the poor through mandatory gleaning and would have been enforced through the state like any other Jewish law. The New Testament books are clear that giving to the poor is mandated as well. Pretty much as soon as Christianity began to control a country, use of tax money was used to act as welfare. Even fucking medieval iceland had laws designed to act as welfare.
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
Anti-redistribution arguments are typically based on the idea that poor people don't deserve any help or that poor people need to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, which casts a moral judgement on the recipients.
And if you can find a quote from Greg Collett wherein he supports that argument, I will gladly call him a hypocrite alongside you.
That's like asking a direct quote from every intelligent design advocate saying that he's primarily motivated by the bible to push Christianity in the classroom.
The mainstream republican position is that social welfare programs are bad because they reward undeserving people, or they teach people to be lazy. So when I see a republican calling for an end of social welfare programs, my default assumption is that he's relying on the same reasoning as republicans at large.
Now, maybe Collett's position is more nuanced than that. But the fact that you can't tell me what his more nuanced position actually is, even as a hypothetical, means I have no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here is Collett's position:
If government is properly left out of the equation, individuals are to take responsibility for their own situations. If they cannot meet their obligations, they should turn to their families for support. If families are not able to help, they should go to churches or other charitable organizations for assistance. Government should not be involved, period.
So he's against the government, because he believes that people should turn to family and churches.
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
Anti-redistribution arguments are typically based on the idea that poor people don't deserve any help or that poor people need to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, which casts a moral judgement on the recipients.
And if you can find a quote from Greg Collett wherein he supports that argument, I will gladly call him a hypocrite alongside you.
That's like asking a direct quote from every intelligent design advocate saying that he's primarily motivated by the bible to push Christianity in the classroom.
The mainstream republican position is that social welfare programs are bad because they reward undeserving people, or they teach people to be lazy. So when I see a republican calling for an end of social welfare programs, my default assumption is that he's relying on the same reasoning as republicans at large.
Now, maybe Collett's position is more nuanced than that. But the fact that you can't tell me what his more nuanced position actually is, even as a hypothetical, means I have no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here is Collett's position:
If government is properly left out of the equation, individuals are to take responsibility for their own situations. If they cannot meet their obligations, they should turn to their families for support. If families are not able to help, they should go to churches or other charitable organizations for assistance. Government should not be involved, period.
So he's against the government, because he believes that people should turn to family and churches.
So... why doesn't he do that right now?
Bolded the reason why. Government is currently not "properly left out of the equation." It's collecting his tax money regardless, and using it to pay for programs. He probably figures that as long as he's paying into Medicaid, it's not hypocritical to tap into it for his eleventy-one kids. The money is already spent, and it's only rational to get as much utility out of it as he can under the current system. He probably figures that if government weren't involved, and weren't taxing everyone to pay for programs, that everyone would voluntarily give that money up to churches and charities for no net negative effect.
He'd be totally fucking wrong, but he seems to believe that the moral evil is on the government's part for taking his money and giving it to others, instead of the recipient's part for accepting it.
He even flat-out says exactly that:
I am not against anyone who utilizes the programs put in place by the government, whether they do so by choice or compulsion. I would never begrudge someone because they take a job with the government in order to provide for themselves even though the job may involve such programs. However, I am against those politicians who put such policies in place or support their continued existence, and I am against those who vote for said politicians for that purpose. I do see a problem with those who vote in such a way as to provide themselves or others with benefits that violate the proper role of government.
The guy is a loon for myriad reasons, but hypocrisy is not one of them.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Bolded the reason why. Government is currently not "properly left out of the equation."
If government made abortion illegal, then unwanted pregnancies would be turned over for adoption.
Therefore, as long as abortion is not illegal, it is not hypocritical for a pro-lifer to get an abortion.
It's collecting his tax money regardless, and using it to pay for programs. He probably figures that as long as he's paying into Medicaid, it's not hypocritical to tap into it for his eleventy-one kids.
Stores charge me extra money in order to offset the cost of shoplifters.
I think shoplifting is wrong. However, as long as stores continue to charge me extra, I will respond by continuing to shoplift.
Is this hypocritical?
The money is already spent, and it's only rational to get as much utility out of it as he can under the current system. He probably figures that if government weren't involved, and weren't taxing everyone to pay for programs, that everyone would voluntarily give that money up to churches and charities for no net negative effect.
If stores stopped charging me extra to cover the cost of shoplifting, then I figure that I wouldn't need to shoplift anymore.
I am not against anyone who utilizes the programs put in place by the government, whether they do so by choice or compulsion. I would never begrudge someone because they take a job with the government in order to provide for themselves even though the job may involve such programs. However, I am against those politicians who put such policies in place or support their continued existence, and I am against those who vote for said politicians for that purpose. I do see a problem with those who vote in such a way as to provide themselves or others with benefits that violate the proper role of government.
The guy is a loon for myriad reasons, but hypocrisy is not one of them.
So charging extra to cover the cost of shoplifting is bad, but I don't begrudge the people who shoplift.
By the 1820s, states were already getting involved in the welfare of the poor by requiring counties to establish poorhouses. Philadelphia itself had a welfare system in the early 19th century that provided public funds to a good deal of poor people.
Like many idyllic pasts, the past where only private charities existed with nothing done by the government is a fiction. The focus on "earned" entitlements from the government by conservatives both in Congress and outside of it is still as fucking old as time itself, though. People like the Tea Party congressmen never got the message that poorhouses fucking sucked at doing what they were supposed to do.
Basically, Collet's position is that it's immoral for government to spend money on poor people, but not immoral for poor people to accept that money. Which requires a special kind of mental gymnastics.
It's like insisting that it's immoral to pay for drugs, but not immoral to sell them.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
How about I don't call him a hypocrite, but I do call him a self-serving doucheweasel?
1) The Government, which is redistributing wealth through welfare programs
2) The Recipient, who accepts that welfare
Collett's position is that The Government's action is immoral. The Recipient's action is not immoral. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in Collett accepting welfare from the government.
In your abortion example, it would always be hypocritical for a pro-lifer to get an abortion, because they believe that abortion is immoral. The government's inaction in outlawing abortion has no bearing on the individual's decision to elect for the procedure.
Your shoplifting example is off the mark because Collett's argument is predicated on the institutionalized redistribution of property by the government. Taxes to pay for programs beyond what he considers the bare minimum are wrong, because they forcibly remove individuals' property and give it to others. But since those programs already exist, he sees no moral failing in taking advantage of the programs, only in voting to perpetuate them. In order for this analogy to match up, you'd have to believe that shoplifting was not wrong, and thus obviously there would be no hypocrisy in shoplifting.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
How about I don't call him a hypocrite, but I do call him a self-serving doucheweasel?
Yeah. That has a better ring to it anyway.
I read the entirety of the doucheweasel's manifesto and it really hearkens back to a time when everybody lived on a big plot of land in the country with a plump wife and a dozen kids and raised animals and grew crops and was self-sufficient and paid cash for everything and got by with true grit and determination and didn't need no taxman comin by and takin his tithe.
Unfortunately the year is not 1813, it is 2013 and not everybody lives that way anymore.
Also his opinions on health insurance are fucking loco.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
How about I don't call him a hypocrite, but I do call him a self-serving doucheweasel?
Yeah. That has a better ring to it anyway.
I read the entirety of the doucheweasel's manifesto and it really hearkens back to a time when everybody lived on a big plot of land in the country with a plump wife and a dozen kids and raised animals and grew crops and was self-sufficient and paid cash for everything and got by with true grit and determination and didn't need no taxman comin by and takin his tithe.
Unfortunately the year is not 1813, it is 2013 and not everybody lives that way anymore.
Also his opinions on health insurance are fucking loco.
So, shouldn't he be a libertarian then?
I am half tempted to cross post this in the libertarian thread and see how long it takes for the "no true Scotsman's" to pop back out of the woodwork...
1) The Government, which is redistributing wealth through welfare programs
2) The Recipient, who accepts that welfare
Collett's position is that The Government's action is immoral. The Recipient's action is not immoral. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in Collett accepting welfare from the government.
In this case, government is only giving him medicaid benefits because he specifically asked them to do it, when he filled out the application.
So asking the government to do something immoral isn't immoral?
If I say stealing is wrong and then I hire a thief to steal for me, is that immoral?
In your abortion example, it would always be hypocritical for a pro-lifer to get an abortion, because they believe that abortion is immoral.
Technically, they're only the recipient of the abortion. The doctor is the one who actually performs it.
According to the above logic, these are two separate actions. Ergo, it's immoral to perform an abortion, but not immoral to receive one.
Your shoplifting example is off the mark because Collett's argument is predicated on the institutionalized redistribution of property by the government. Taxes to pay for programs beyond what he considers the bare minimum are wrong, because they forcibly remove individuals' property and give it to others. But since those programs already exist, he sees no moral failing in taking advantage of the programs, only in voting to perpetuate them. In order for this analogy to match up, you'd have to believe that shoplifting was not wrong, and thus obviously there would be no hypocrisy in shoplifting.
It is hypocritical when the thing you support (shoplifting) requires the thing you don't support (higher prices). You can't have the first without the second. So praising the first while criticizing the second makes you a hypocrite.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
@MillAlex Sink says she's "very interested" in running for that seat. I would expect it to be a done deal, quite honestly. Especially if Crist campaigns for her (Pinellas County being one of the few places that are unabashedly "Crist Country").
So as someone who considers themselves something of an expert on Florida, and particularly Tampa Bay Area politics, I'm not really worried at all.
That's good to hear. I know it's not much, but if that goes as you say it does, that just means one more vote, in the House, that will be locked in for sanity.
In this case, government is only giving him medicaid benefits because he specifically asked them to do it, when he filled out the application.
So asking the government to do something immoral isn't immoral?
If I say stealing is wrong and then I hire a thief to steal for me, is that immoral?
According to him, the immorality was in the government's taking. Applying for the benefits is not immoral, because whether or not he applied, the money would already be taken. Your second example is wrong because action on your part initiated the thievery and it would not have occurred without your action, whereas with Medicaid the funds would have been taken before he ever applied, and will continue to be taken until and unless the program is eliminated, whether or not he gets his benefits.
It does make me wonder what Collett's opinions on receiving stolen property would be, though.
Technically, they're only the recipient of the abortion. The doctor is the one who actually performs it.
According to the above logic, these are two separate actions. Ergo, it's immoral to perform an abortion, but not immoral to receive one.
No, because both the patient and the doctor have agency in choosing to have an abortion performed. It doesn't happen without the consent of both.
Your shoplifting example is off the mark because Collett's argument is predicated on the institutionalized redistribution of property by the government. Taxes to pay for programs beyond what he considers the bare minimum are wrong, because they forcibly remove individuals' property and give it to others. But since those programs already exist, he sees no moral failing in taking advantage of the programs, only in voting to perpetuate them. In order for this analogy to match up, you'd have to believe that shoplifting was not wrong, and thus obviously there would be no hypocrisy in shoplifting.
It is hypocritical when the thing you support (shoplifting) requires the thing you don't support (higher prices). You can't have the first without the second. So praising the first while criticizing the second makes you a hypocrite.
Well, you can have the first without the second. The store would just make less profit. This analogy is getting kind of twisted, because shoplifting is taking something without paying for it. Collett is paying for (a portion of) his Medicaid benefits through his taxes. So really it would be like a store giving certain people a discount while charging everyone else more to cover it. He'd see no hypocrisy in applying for that discount as long at the program is running, while simultaneously advocating for an end to the program.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
According to him, the immorality was in the government's taking. Applying for the benefits is not immoral, because whether or not he applied, the money would already be taken.
The government is taking your money. They are spending it on things they shouldn’t be. Trying to get whatever you can back — I have nothing against that. You have to at some point try and get your tax dollars back.
He's making three separate arguments. 1) That money shouldn't be taken 2) That the taken money should not be used on poor people, 3) There is nothing wrong with poor people taking the money.
#2 and #3 contradict each other. If he doesn't think there's anything wrong with getting your money back, then there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the government spending money on medicaid.
Your second example is wrong because action on your part initiated the thievery and it would not have occurred without your action, whereas with Medicaid the funds would have been taken before he ever applied, and will continue to be taken until and unless the program is eliminated, whether or not he gets his benefits.
So it's wrong to hire someone else to steal for you.
But it's perfectly kosher to place an order for goods that you know for a fact have been stolen.
No, because both the patient and the doctor have agency in choosing to have an abortion performed. It doesn't happen without the consent of both.
So Collett was being forced to accept medicaid against his will? Did someone place a gun to his head?
Well, you can have the first without the second. The store would just make less profit. This analogy is getting kind of twisted, because shoplifting is taking something without paying for it. Collett is paying for (a portion of) his Medicaid benefits through his taxes.
If Medicaid patients are paying for Medicaid, then what's the problem?
Collett is arguing that there's no problem if medicaid patients apply for medicaid because they're only getting their money back, while also arguing that it's wrong for government to give them their money back in the form of medicaid.
So really it would be like a store giving certain people a discount while charging everyone else more to cover it. He'd see no hypocrisy in applying for that discount as long at the program is running, while simultaneously advocating for an end to the program.
There actually is a discount that you can apply for.
@MillAlex Sink says she's "very interested" in running for that seat. I would expect it to be a done deal, quite honestly. Especially if Crist campaigns for her (Pinellas County being one of the few places that are unabashedly "Crist Country").
So as someone who considers themselves something of an expert on Florida, and particularly Tampa Bay Area politics, I'm not really worried at all.
She'd better not back down from a recount this time
Schrodinger, all I can say is that this dude does not see a contradiction between #2 and #3. "Gettin' what's mine" is A-OK in his book. I'm not making value judgements on the morality or immorality of any these actions. I'm just pointing out where this dude's philosophy draws the line between the actions of the government and the actions of an individual, and how the differences therein mean that according to his own beliefs, he isn't a hypocrite. I'm not really willing to do the gymnastics necessary to extrapolate how that philosophy applies to abortion or shoplifting or sodomy or auto-erotic asphyxiation because his philosophy is awful and crawling inside this guy's head is hurting my brain.
In July, Boehner made a critical decision to kill the Senate’s bipartisan deal and instead enact reform by piecemeal. To soothe conservative fears, the Judiciary Committee started off by passing a tough Arizona-style enforcement measure. To keep Latino groups from going on the attack, Republican leaders hinted the committee would take up a legalization bill next.
That second bill has yet to surface. That means if Boehner pulls the plug now, Republicans will have voted for a “self-deportation” plan despised by Latinos, an equally toxic Steve King-backed amendment calling on Obama to deport DREAMers, a handful of uncontroversial visa fixes–and nothing else. It would be like starting heart surgery on a patient and walking away with the incision still open. Failing to pass immigration reform is dangerous enough politically, but in this scenario you might as well hand Florida and Colorado to Hillary Clinton now.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
He's making three separate arguments. 1) That money shouldn't be taken 2) That the taken money should not be used on poor people, 3) There is nothing wrong with poor people taking the money.
#2 and #3 contradict each other. If he doesn't think there's anything wrong with getting your money back, then there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the government spending money on medicaid.
Two and three do not directly contradict each other. I get that you want them to, but they simply do not.
Posts
So what is the moral argument against government offering welfare that doesn't cast moral judgement on the people accepting welfare?
That's not an argument for why Medicaid is immoral.
Why not?
Government involvement is the objection.
That the government should stop redistributing wealth to pay for welfare, but as long as it's going on I might as well get in on that. Rational self-interest and all that.
It seems to be the jist of all his objections to government programs.
You're not actually presenting an argument here, you're just stating a conclusion.
Again, you're just being silly now.
Anti-redistribution arguments are typically based on the idea that poor people don't deserve any help or that poor people need to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, which casts a moral judgement on the recipients.
And if you can find a quote from Greg Collett wherein he supports that argument, I will gladly call him a hypocrite alongside you.
http://www.academia.edu/161539/A_Medieval_Welfare_State_Welfare_Provision_in_a_Twelfth-Century_Icelandic_Law_Code
That's like asking a direct quote from every intelligent design advocate saying that he's primarily motivated by the bible to push Christianity in the classroom.
The mainstream republican position is that social welfare programs are bad because they reward undeserving people, or they teach people to be lazy. So when I see a republican calling for an end of social welfare programs, my default assumption is that he's relying on the same reasoning as republicans at large.
Now, maybe Collett's position is more nuanced than that. But the fact that you can't tell me what his more nuanced position actually is, even as a hypothetical, means I have no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here is Collett's position:
So he's against the government, because he believes that people should turn to family and churches.
So... why doesn't he do that right now?
And then you go ahead and get an abortion. Even though there was nothing stopping you from turning your baby over for adoption.
Hypocritical?
Bolded the reason why. Government is currently not "properly left out of the equation." It's collecting his tax money regardless, and using it to pay for programs. He probably figures that as long as he's paying into Medicaid, it's not hypocritical to tap into it for his eleventy-one kids. The money is already spent, and it's only rational to get as much utility out of it as he can under the current system. He probably figures that if government weren't involved, and weren't taxing everyone to pay for programs, that everyone would voluntarily give that money up to churches and charities for no net negative effect.
He'd be totally fucking wrong, but he seems to believe that the moral evil is on the government's part for taking his money and giving it to others, instead of the recipient's part for accepting it.
He even flat-out says exactly that:
The guy is a loon for myriad reasons, but hypocrisy is not one of them.
If government made abortion illegal, then unwanted pregnancies would be turned over for adoption.
Therefore, as long as abortion is not illegal, it is not hypocritical for a pro-lifer to get an abortion.
Stores charge me extra money in order to offset the cost of shoplifters.
I think shoplifting is wrong. However, as long as stores continue to charge me extra, I will respond by continuing to shoplift.
Is this hypocritical?
If stores stopped charging me extra to cover the cost of shoplifting, then I figure that I wouldn't need to shoplift anymore.
So charging extra to cover the cost of shoplifting is bad, but I don't begrudge the people who shoplift.
Like many idyllic pasts, the past where only private charities existed with nothing done by the government is a fiction. The focus on "earned" entitlements from the government by conservatives both in Congress and outside of it is still as fucking old as time itself, though. People like the Tea Party congressmen never got the message that poorhouses fucking sucked at doing what they were supposed to do.
It's like insisting that it's immoral to pay for drugs, but not immoral to sell them.
Yeah. That has a better ring to it anyway.
1) The Government, which is redistributing wealth through welfare programs
2) The Recipient, who accepts that welfare
Collett's position is that The Government's action is immoral. The Recipient's action is not immoral. Therefore there is no hypocrisy in Collett accepting welfare from the government.
In your abortion example, it would always be hypocritical for a pro-lifer to get an abortion, because they believe that abortion is immoral. The government's inaction in outlawing abortion has no bearing on the individual's decision to elect for the procedure.
Your shoplifting example is off the mark because Collett's argument is predicated on the institutionalized redistribution of property by the government. Taxes to pay for programs beyond what he considers the bare minimum are wrong, because they forcibly remove individuals' property and give it to others. But since those programs already exist, he sees no moral failing in taking advantage of the programs, only in voting to perpetuate them. In order for this analogy to match up, you'd have to believe that shoplifting was not wrong, and thus obviously there would be no hypocrisy in shoplifting.
I read the entirety of the doucheweasel's manifesto and it really hearkens back to a time when everybody lived on a big plot of land in the country with a plump wife and a dozen kids and raised animals and grew crops and was self-sufficient and paid cash for everything and got by with true grit and determination and didn't need no taxman comin by and takin his tithe.
Unfortunately the year is not 1813, it is 2013 and not everybody lives that way anymore.
Also his opinions on health insurance are fucking loco.
So, shouldn't he be a libertarian then?
I am half tempted to cross post this in the libertarian thread and see how long it takes for the "no true Scotsman's" to pop back out of the woodwork...
In this case, government is only giving him medicaid benefits because he specifically asked them to do it, when he filled out the application.
So asking the government to do something immoral isn't immoral?
If I say stealing is wrong and then I hire a thief to steal for me, is that immoral?
Technically, they're only the recipient of the abortion. The doctor is the one who actually performs it.
According to the above logic, these are two separate actions. Ergo, it's immoral to perform an abortion, but not immoral to receive one.
It is hypocritical when the thing you support (shoplifting) requires the thing you don't support (higher prices). You can't have the first without the second. So praising the first while criticizing the second makes you a hypocrite.
So as someone who considers themselves something of an expert on Florida, and particularly Tampa Bay Area politics, I'm not really worried at all.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
According to him, the immorality was in the government's taking. Applying for the benefits is not immoral, because whether or not he applied, the money would already be taken. Your second example is wrong because action on your part initiated the thievery and it would not have occurred without your action, whereas with Medicaid the funds would have been taken before he ever applied, and will continue to be taken until and unless the program is eliminated, whether or not he gets his benefits.
It does make me wonder what Collett's opinions on receiving stolen property would be, though.
No, because both the patient and the doctor have agency in choosing to have an abortion performed. It doesn't happen without the consent of both.
Well, you can have the first without the second. The store would just make less profit. This analogy is getting kind of twisted, because shoplifting is taking something without paying for it. Collett is paying for (a portion of) his Medicaid benefits through his taxes. So really it would be like a store giving certain people a discount while charging everyone else more to cover it. He'd see no hypocrisy in applying for that discount as long at the program is running, while simultaneously advocating for an end to the program.
He's making three separate arguments. 1) That money shouldn't be taken 2) That the taken money should not be used on poor people, 3) There is nothing wrong with poor people taking the money.
#2 and #3 contradict each other. If he doesn't think there's anything wrong with getting your money back, then there also shouldn't be anything wrong with the government spending money on medicaid.
So it's wrong to hire someone else to steal for you.
But it's perfectly kosher to place an order for goods that you know for a fact have been stolen.
So Collett was being forced to accept medicaid against his will? Did someone place a gun to his head?
If Medicaid patients are paying for Medicaid, then what's the problem?
Collett is arguing that there's no problem if medicaid patients apply for medicaid because they're only getting their money back, while also arguing that it's wrong for government to give them their money back in the form of medicaid.
There actually is a discount that you can apply for.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=five finger discount
She'd better not back down from a recount this time
I understand that there is a 'budget committee', but no actual budget?
...Sooo, have the bills been paid? If so, how?
And are people still in limbo?
1. Correct
2. Continuing resolution, so yes
3. No
And we are way off-topic to boot!
In other Congressional news: Boehner may be forced to put immigration reform on the table.
...Why didn't they just do this in the first place, then?
Because Ted Cruz wants to raise money for his presidential bid.
I'm not at all sure if I'm being sarcastic or if that reflects reality.
As the kids say: Why not both?
He did basically admit in an interview that his bullshit was all about the fundraising. As if a 21-hour fundraiser wasn't a big enough clue.
Two and three do not directly contradict each other. I get that you want them to, but they simply do not.
With special guest star: Herman Cain!
The 2016 Republican Presidential Primary! A bigger clown show than the 2012! Now with 300% more derp and another 200% "The fuck is going!?"
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.