It's hard to follow all this. I don't want to invest the time.

Didn't the Republicans change the rules so Cantor is the only one who can bring a bill? They know that the majority of the House has gone on record that they would support the Senate bill to fund the government and debt, and so to keep moderate Republicans from submitting that bill, they changed the rules so that only Cantor can do it. They want him to be in charge.

I honestly don't know what power Boehner has left. What is his power?

I understood that the maneuver was to prevent any House members (Dem or GOP)
from calling up or introducing a "clean Bill" for the shut down or debt limit.

Boehner just may have given the bullet for Cantor's gun to replace him as Speaker

For the Adak's and others who think a default would have no effect...

NY times
MARK LANDLER
October 15, 2013

Seeing Its Own Money at Risk, China Rails at U.S.
Japan is also starting to rumble publicly along these lines.

Cantor is the only one who can file a discharge petition which would start a process that, with enough support among the rest of Congress, could bring a bill to the floor without Boehner's support.

Boehner can bring any bill he likes to the floor whenever he wants.

The discharge petition was supposed to be a way to break the type of logjam that the tea party caused. It's convenient and efficient to have a Speaker who runs things, but the discharge petition was supposed to be a way for a majority of congresspeople regardless of party, to overrule the Speaker in special circumstances. The House GOP leadership changed the rule to prevent that.

Thank you!

It is also being reported:

"Canadians are blaming themselves for Ted Cruz's behavior"

"...others who think a default would have no effect..."

Assuming it gets that far: of course it'll have an effect.

That's what I'm countin' on.

So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. China has long wanted the US dollar removed as a world standard. They make a compelling argument to the world. The US is so full of extremists that cannot see beyond their nose, then that dollar should be replaced by a basket of currencies.

Of course extremist will say that is not a problem. These are the same people who created that massive recession in 2007 - almost created another 1929 and 40% unemployment. People forget how close we came to falling off the cliff because wackos said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" and even tried to put Social Security into the stock market.

Apparently extremist routinely forget the lesson of history – especially their own mistakes.

Ironically, I make money if the wacko extremists do make America fail. Says how much faith I have in Cantor and the boys.

I guess my sense of humor towards the GOP is returning... slowly.
How about this headline...

Forbes
Rick Ungar
10/16/2013
The Houston Chronicle Un-Endorses Ted Cruz

The Senate has passed:
On to the House.

The "Obama can waive the debt ceiling" thing is interesting. I'm sure if he does it, he'll be screamed at, but if he waits to the last second he can appear all "Daddy disciplining the squabbling children", and Boehner can then be all "I would have fought to my last breath, but Obama stopped me". Win-win.

And it's over (for a few months). With 87 Republicans voting aye.

Would have been nice if they'd done it a couple of weeks ago.

Amen to that.

Crap. I was expecting fireworks and stuff at midnight. This was the most boring government shutdown EVER!

What did the Republicans / Conservatives get out of this whole shut down?

Pro's:
1) They mobilized their base - they hadn't done that in a long time.

2) They let Obama show himself as the scumbag he is.

Con's:

1) They lacked a coherent strategy. This is a government, at some point you have to reach a compromise with the other party.

They had no way of forcing a compromise. Naturally, Obama and Reid will not easily compromise.

2) They got blamed for most of the problems of the shut down, imo. Obama was an ass-hole about the War Memorials and Cemeteries, but overall, the Conservatives took most of the blame for it.

3) Any hint of working together, party to party, evaporated immediately.

Overall, it was an unwise move by the Conservatives. You don't start walking until you have decided where you're going, and how you're going to get there.

The whole exercise reminded me of the WWII FIRST amphibious landing in the north of France, at Dieppe.

It was a complete disaster.OK, it wasn't THAT bad, but it certainly wasn't a well thought out political move.

I don't see how this has exposed Obama as anything but an embattled president being held to ransom by unreasonable opposition.

Ordinary, mainstream conservatives must be so sick of this stuff. How can they fly the flag of fiscal competency with this sort of shit coming from their ranks?

The damage the Tea Party Republicans have done to America's standing in the world is profound. No matter what else, America's status as an economic powerhouse has never been more under threat. Having heard the same people rail against Obama for making America 'look weak' to her enemies by, for example, talking to Iran, it is surreal to me that they would voluntarily make their country look like it's a borderline failed state.

The time for arguments and compromises was during the debates leading up to the passing of the budget and the passing of the Affordable Care Act. democrats compromised heavily. They all but compromised away most of the useful features of that act and pretty much gave the republicans the budget they asked for.
For the Republicans to then balk at paying the bills or enacting that compromise was absurd.

The mark of a great President is acknowledging the concerns of both parties, and helping to bring the people and parties, together. Compromises are the keystone needed to make a great government, work.

Not stick it to the people he's supposed to be serving! Going to extra expense to close the open air memorials in Washington (WWII, Lincoln, MLKing, and Vietnam), and the memorial cemeteries in France (most notably around Normandy Beaches).

That cemented Obama as an ass-wipe forever. Obama had ALL the cards here:

1) Dominant party in the Senate, and a strong minority even in the House. The Democrats are all united, as well, whereas the Republicans are split moderates and very conservative.

2) ACA/Obamacare was already law. There is no way the funding can not go through, regardless of what the Conservatives in the House or Senate, do. It's too late for that.

All Obama had to do was have a conference with the Conservatives, and make some slight compromises. Not to cut Obamacare, of course, that was never possible, just find something to give up as a symbol of the give and take politicians make to each other, all the time. I'm not saying it was his duty to do it, but it would have been a great sign of working together, to keep the gov't running, and our two parties being civil to one another. The substance could be quite small. It's all about saving face, showing a bit of respect for the opposition party, and everyone goes home a winner.

Instead, Obama saw a chance to win win win, playing political gamesmanship. I'm not saying that the Republicans didn't start the game, but clearly it was an error, and it SCREAMED for a victor to be magnanimous in his triumph. But Obama would rather barricade off the WWII Memorial, so the 80 year old "Honor Flight" vets from the Midwest, can't get in to see it before they die. These are all WWII vets, for Christ's sake! And that memorial belongs to the PEOPLE, the gov't just has custodial care.

The damage wasn't from the Tea Party Republicans! The damage was from the Conservatives starting a stupid political maneuver, that was not thought out. Worse still, they weren't even united on what they were going to do; what they were going to support, and what they were NOT going to support.

The focus was on Obamacare - which is already law, and they can't get enough votes to repeal it. So what's the sense in fighting against it?
Not much! Not that I can see.

That's why Obama had them where he couldn't lose. Just no way. That's where a really good president would have gone into conference with the Conservatives, and worked out a quick compromise to keep the gov't running normally. Instead, he has the NIH drug trials refuse to register new (terminal) cancer victims, into it's trials.They can't register (put a name and data into the computer), to save lives?? The doctors are there working, the nurses are there working, the trials are still on-going and new ones being started, but they can't REGISTER a new patient now?

That's SOO scummy. I feel dirty just entering this into a reply. :(

But this was the dumbest political maneuver I've seen in a long time, for sure.

You've also motivated this independent voter to rearrange who he'd vote for and that harms the GOP unless I see the moderates push back. I don't like Obama even a little after the NSA revelations, continued CIA nonsense in the Middle-East, and ongoing drone attacks but no way does he share fault on this one. Congress had already passed compromise legislation and one unhappy little group of douche-bags tried an end run around the system because they didn't like the compromises that earned the votes.

OK, enough about the politics. What about me? What about glatt?

My metro train was very crowded today. I didn't get a seat. Welcome back, federal workers.

Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.

Does anyone actually read adak's shillshit anymore? You do know he posts that stuff so the odd googler will come along and half believe him, don't you? He's on somebody's payroll, for sure.

Hey Adak, have a modicum of respect for the office, will you, you anti-american fuck?

(cue adak talking about his fake service and other feats of magic he's performed.)

Sorry you lost! Better luck next time!

The paper today was talking about winners and losers.
I think the only winners here are China. And we in the USA are all losers.

Oh, and if tw really moved his money around to profit on a default, maybe he's a loser more than others. How did that go tw? Did you take a big hit?

That isn't new: China has been working towards owning us for years and years.

I, for one, won't welcome our creepy sneaky overlords.

The reason I point it out is because the Afghanistan and Iraq wars never showed up in the budget. They paid for through Emergency Spending Measures, not that they were emergent or unforeseen.

Yep.

Don't worry, our super massive over the top excessive superfluous defense contractor piggy bank military will keep them from owning us.

Except all our machinery uses chips and ICs they manufacture, and they have a secret backdoor kill switch built in to each one.
:tinfoil:

"So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. "

Nope. What I loved what the possibility folks might see for themselves they don't need as much 'governing' as they're told they do.

What I loved was the possibility folks might see the politicians need them a helluva lot more than they need the politicians.

What I loved was the possibility that ludicrous amounts of scrip might stop being spent on horseshit.

China: fuck 'em...what they gonna do? Without the U.S., China goes back to being just a Third World hole.

All moot anyway...*shrug*

"This was the most boring government shutdown EVER!"

"you anti-american fuck"

HA!

Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing.

You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government.

Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more. It expanded because the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead. It expanded to fill the gaps left by libertarian and free market ideologies. It expanded to facilitate the broadening out of society's benefits to all Americans and not just those who successfully rode the financial surf.

Now, I daresay you'd be quite comfortable with all that. Survival of the fittest, no passengers, no such thing as fairness idyll.

I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.

Good news everybody!

"Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing."

I get it: I (and folks like 'me') are supposed to carry 'them' because they can't carry themselves.

Make me.

#

"You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government."

And that’s 'their' damned problem.

#

"Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more."

'It' expanded 'cause the mercenary wanted more (more power, more control). To that end: generations were taught (are being taught) that bigger government is better government, that governance of the minutia of living is a necessity, and that no individual can do without the 'guidance' of 'authority.

Utter horseshit.

#

"...the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead"

An unsavory truth (fact): some folks need to die.

If X can't fend for him- or her-self, and X has no one who WANTS to help him or her, then X needs to go.

To demand I care for X is theft (of my time, resources, and self...fuck that noise).

That folks like you have to force folks like me is theft, Dana.

No other assessment makes sense.

#

"I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.”

First, it'll never "suddenly shrink to the bone". Like smack in the vein: it's 'needed'.

Second, if it did "suddenly shrink to the bone" I expect lots of folks to suffer...some die; some make it through (and are better for it).

#

"Survival of the fittest"

HA!

You write it as though it were a bad phrase.

It's not bad or good...just what 'is'.

Folks like you wanna insulate themselves from it...good luck with that.

#

Tell you what, Dana: if children starving and old people freezing bother you so much, devote your time, resources, and 'self' to saving them.

Why do 'I' have to participate?

Now that the world has seen that Henry Quirk was right all along,
we can look foreward to February 7th, 2014.

Yesterday, when the Senate passed it's Bill to end this shutdown and debt ceiling fiasco,
Harry Reid made gave a short speech trending towards conciliation and optimism.
Not so for the Senate Minority Leader...

Senator Mitch McConnell's "conciliation" speech drew a bright new red line on the floor.
The GOP will begin it's "conversation" in the super-committee at
last March's $986 billion sequester (aka the Budget Control Act (BCA).
It will be the new Pavlovian war cry of the GOP.
In other words, Obamacare (ACA) becomes just one ribbon on the GOP's BCA battle flag.

Attachment 45699

Here is a link to the current effect of sequestration by state...

The Texas Tribune
Ryan Murphy
2/26/13

Interactive: Sequester Cuts by State

"Now that the world has seen that Henry Quirk was right all along"
 

HA!

"Why do 'I' have to participate?"
 

Here's why...

Because it is manifestly 'unfair' I can fend for myself when so many cannot.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

How sad, then (for the incapable), that I just have to say 'NO'.

How strange that you would use English to communicate that. Shouldn't you be making up a new language, rather than participate in something that the entire culture has developed over a period of many centuries of deep cooperation, a tie that binds us together so strongly?

I thought you might fall for that... so predictable

Don't want to participate? Move to the wilderness. Don't participate in any economic activity. Don't rely on emergency services, state-funded roads, or any of a number of things. You can so no, but you're just not willing to do so effectively.

Society has a cost and that cost is cooperation and mutual support. A lot of the monetary support is misapplied and a lot of our representatives and employees don't behave as I'd like, but the benefits are greater to me than the cost of cutting myself off from all of it.

Same horseshit as always...a little originality would be nice.

*sigh*

In reverse order...


"Don't participate in any economic activity."

Conflating voluntary transactions (I buy 'this' over 'here' instead of 'that' over 'there', or choose to do without) with theft (gimme that or I'll jail you) is dumb.

#

"Don't rely on emergency services"

I don't.

#

"state-funded roads"

That I pay for by way of state sales taxes...why would I not use what I've paid for?

#

"Society has a cost and that cost is cooperation and mutual support."

Society is nuthin' but a word for a buncha folks living in close proximity to one another and not killing each other.

It becomes 'jail' when communitarians (Left and Right) decide that the one owes the many sumthin' more than not stealing and not killing.

#

"...the benefits are greater to me than the cost of cutting myself off from all of it."

Then mire yourself up to your neck in it.

##

"so predictable"

What's predictable is that you'd try to make a lame joke at my expense.

I laugh at your lack of novelty, not the joke.

##

"How strange that you would use English to communicate that. Shouldn't you be making up a new language, rather than participate in something that the entire culture has developed over a period of many centuries of deep cooperation, a tie that binds us together so strongly?"

The day some motherfucker with the big stick tries to tax me for using English is the day I might just do that.

##

So stupid (all of you, for missing [or, being incapable of comprehending] the point of anything I've written in this thread [and others]).

No wonder the lot of you crave being governed.


Who's next?

HQ, you're kidding yourself. People here do comprehend what you are writing.

Maybe you are the one missing it ... that some/I see your postings
as naive or simplistic or implausible or callow or silly, or maybe just sort of "stupid".

Next.

It's only horseshit because your brain simplifies everything to fit your biases.

You do a pretty good job parroting the Libertarian handbook, but that doesn't make you any smarter than a bible thumper.

I'm done trying to engage with fuckwits. To say you are TMR would be optimistic, but I'll leave it there.

His user picture is of a caveman. Fits pretty good. I'd like to see him actually try to survive in the individualistic world he espouses.

"I'd like to see him actually try to survive in the individualistic world he espouses."

I think I'd do pretty well.

How do I 'know'?

Been there and done that.

I could regale you with details but -- pffftt! -- you wouldn't believe me, I can't (in a tangible fashion, by way of the net) prove anything, and you aren't worth the trouble anyway.

I'd actually be interested to hear what you have to say. I love hearing people's experiences.

"People here do comprehend what you are writing"

No, 'they' don't.

*shrug*

#

"...that some/I see your posting as naive or simplistic or implausible or callow or silly, or maybe just sort of "stupid"."

Your opinion (which I get): you're welcome to it.

so stupid
 

"the Libertarian handbook"

Not a libertarian: too many rules.

fuckwit
 

Look in the mirror.

Oh, everyone understands "fuck you, I got mine". Anyone giving original responses to such a cliche stance is being charitable.

There are plenty of places with less government than the US. I don't envy their inhabitants.

You don't need to prove anything to me. I've already written you off as delusional and paranoid.

Still, I'd enjoy hearing tales of your time living as a member of a tribe in Papua New Guinea. And about how you trekked 100 miles in a day through the mountains of Nepal.

Insults only hurt when they have some degree of truth. Looks like I might have touched a nerve. And here I thought you were a steely individualist, surrounded in the impenetrable armor of his narcissism.

Just love when a thread goes belly up.

Glad I could help.

Again with the English! You're really one of us aren't you?

again: so stupid
 

"You're really one of us aren't you?"

I never claimed to be sumthin' other than a human man living in America (like a whole whack of other human men).

As I say: missin' my point (BIG time).

"individualist"

No. An individual...one who owes you nada.

"fuck you, I got mine"

Trite, but true.

Especially the 'fuck you' part.

So don't delude yourself into thinking that people don't understand.

Missin' mine, bro! From where I sit you responded with some kinda horseshit line that sounded interesting but didn't answer my statement at all.

"You're really one of us aren't you?"

*sigh*

Yes, I'm a man living in America who uses English (just like a whole whack of other men).

Still missin' my point in this thread (just like happy monkey).

Tell you what: if we're gonna tussle, then let's tussle.

But: I'm not gonna waste my time dancing 'round and 'round.

Go back and READ what I've posted in this thread...get the meaning of what I posted (not what you THINK I mean), then refute me.

Till any of you do this: *shrug*



Here’s your cheat sheet of relevant posts…


Keep it shut down (shut down MORE of it, and let it stay down).

And: YAY FOR DEFAULT!



"...others who think a default would have no effect..."

Assuming it gets that far: of course it'll have an effect.

That's what I'm countin' on.



"So you love it that extremists are playing right into China's hand. "

Nope. What I loved was the possibility folks might see for themselves they don't need as much 'governing' as they're told they do.

What I loved was the possibility folks might see the politicians need them a helluva lot more than they need the politicians.

What I loved was the possibility that ludicrous amounts of scrip might stop being spent on horseshit.

China: fuck 'em...what they gonna do? Without the U.S., China goes back to being just a Third World hole.

All moot anyway...*shrug*



"Great. Right up until the part where a bunch of children actually starve for lack of food aid programmes; old people actually freeze in the coming winter because they cannot heat their homes, and a rash of small businesses are crippled by the soaring cost of borrowing."

I get it: I (and folks like 'me') are supposed to carry 'them' because they can't carry themselves.

Make me.

#

"You may not need that much government, but there are a fuck of a lot of people who do in fact need government."

And that’s 'their' damned problem.

#

"Government didn't expand because it is some hulking beast wanting more and more."

'It' expanded 'cause the mercenary wanted more (more power, more control). To that end: generations were taught (are being taught) that bigger government is better government, that governance of the minutia of living is a necessity, and that no individual can do without the 'guidance' of 'authority.

Utter horseshit.

#

"...the alternative to doing so would leave some people for dead"

An unsavory truth (fact): some folks need to die.

If X can't fend for him- or her-self, and X has no one who WANTS to help him or her, then X needs to go.

To demand I care for X is theft (of my time, resources, and self...fuck that noise).

That folks like you have to force folks like me is theft, Dana.

No other assessment makes sense.

#

"I honestly don't know what it is you expect to happen if the government were to suddenly shrink to the bone.”

First, it'll never "suddenly shrink to the bone". Like smack in the vein: it's 'needed'.

Second, if it did "suddenly shrink to the bone" I expect lots of folks to suffer...some die; some make it through (and are better for it).

#

"Survival of the fittest"

HA!

You write it as though it were a bad phrase.

It's not bad or good...just what 'is'.

Folks like you wanna insulate themselves from it...good luck with that.

#

Tell you what, Dana: if children starving and old people freezing bother you so much, devote your time, resources, and 'self' to saving them.

Why do 'I' have to participate?

So to boil your statements down it's all about you. You have everything you need independent of the rest of humanity, so you really don't care what happens to anyone else. You feel you are unjustly taken advantage of because you subscribe the nonsense argument that taxes are equivalent to extortion.

Is that pretty close to the mark?

Honestly, it is really hard to figure out what the heck HQ is saying in between all of the regurgitated sound bites.

Can anyone in the US honestly say they benefit in no way from services provided by some form of government? (Remember, you're posting this over the internet. A government funded research experiment.)

He's saying "fuck you, I got mine", and pretending that there's something more profound in there that nobody is seeing.