Warning. Political Rant

"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen) 10/03/2013 at 11:18 • Filed to: None

0

62

Disclaimer: I know enough to be dangerous, I am drawing wild conclusions, but I am pissed as fuck, because I think have a valid point, haha.

For government that is hellbent on thwarting terrorism, leaving air-traffic controllers to do their work unpaid seems real fucked up. Especially over something that became law in 2009? Let's make an analogy here:

citizen + officer
"hello officer"
"do you know how fast you were going?"
"that's irrelevant, I am shut down today, the law doesn't apply to me"

politician + politician
"hello politician"
"did you know the health car exchange opens tomorrow?"
"that's irrelevant, we are going to shut down tomorrow, because that came out of nowhere! (not)"

I end with quotes from Jon Stewart:
"It's the fucking law"
and
“You’re not helping yourself if it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hardline, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world, but not with Republicans, maybe he’s not the problem!”

Cixelsyd > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:23

0

You know just enough to get this one a bit wrong, it seems ;-)

Only "non-essential" employees are furloughed. ATCs are considered essential and are exempt from the shutdown.

For Sweden > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:23

3

The "It's the f***ing law!" argument is terrible. The legislative branch has the power to change or repeal laws. That's a big part of what they do.

Ex. President Mack41 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:23

2

They're all at fault. Two party system "at work". (pun intended)

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 11:25

0

Someone else on oppo today told me ATC's are working for free. I did not verify this. But my main point is, this originates from 2009, why are we being such assholes about it all of a sudden.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > For Sweden 10/03/2013 at 11:27

0

Yeah... But when they could see this coming 4 years ago, there is no reason to shut down now, a government that works that slowly should be replaced. When I used to live in the Netherlands i remember the gov't making a terrible oversight and we had to vote in a new gov't. They didn't shutdown.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > For Sweden 10/03/2013 at 11:27

0

Not to mention law =/= funding, and a different congress then vs. today - there is not an intrinsic ability in law to tie the hands of a legislative body for future funding measures.

< Remarks on who B.H.O. makes deals with and how redacted >

Cixelsyd > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:28

0

I take it back. It appears I was mistaken, according to this article. They work, but without pay:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog…

I agree with your premise though. The entire idea of shutting down the government because a law you didn't like passed strikes me as inherently undemocratic. It's a tactic more at home in a third-world country.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Ex. President Mack41 10/03/2013 at 11:29

0

Hahaha. Imo, some form of universal healthcare makes sense, the rest of the westernized does it, with mixed results, I'll admit, but still we are the last bastion of treating our less fortunate citizens like utter shit, dooming some to suffer in pain, simply because they don't have the means to be taken care of until their condition is critical and a hospital is forced to do something. It's almost as if we are torturing some of our people as compared to other nations.

Nibbles > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:30

0

Midterm elections are coming up. This was (partially) a ploy to gain some sort of favor, or turn constituents against some of their incumbents.

Too bad it's gon blow up in their faces. I wish we could just vote in a new gov't.

For Sweden > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:32

0

I agree that shutting down the government is stupid, but people seem so offended that congress would even dare consider changing a law. Those people are stupid.

The Netherlands, along with other parliamentary systems, take the I.T. approach to legislative impasses. They just turn the government off and on again.

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 11:34

0

I can verify. Today is day 3 I'm working "for free" (non-ATC). They might pay us, they might not.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > For Sweden 10/03/2013 at 11:34

0

THANK YOU for reminding people of that role of the legislative branch to modify or repeal legislation.

Law can be a fluid thing, when the legislature does it's job, and it's duty.

dieselwagon > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:37

2

As a liberal European, i'm against both D's and R's.

However, this was foreseeable and inevitable. The Republicans have no incentive or interests in working with Obama, their whole agenda is to his his administration fail in as many ways as possible. Forcing a government shutdown is all part of that, they can tie Obamas hands through 'democratic' methods and then blame him for being an ineffectual and weak president. If he was 'strong' then it would be increasing the power of federal government and thereby socialist. Negative PR continues.

If Obama has a successful term as president, why would the Republicans get elected next time round? They wouldn't, so it's in their interests to make the Obama administration fail at every opportunity even if his proposals are in the best interests of the country.

Personally, I don't believe either party is acting in the bests interests of the country as whole. They're acting in the interests of personal and party finances as well as securing easy populist votes from their respective demographics.

Ex. President Mack41 > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:37

0

I think it's very tough to draw direct comparisons between the US and other first world nations for a lot of issues. Just on the number of citizens, diverse beliefs, and the amount of immigrants (legal and illegal) that come here. I also believe in a universal healthcare system of some type, but have not given the issue any fair amount of thought or looked at Obamacare enough to have an opinion of it one way or the other. What's frustrating is I bet I have as much of a grasp as most people on the subject but I keep my mouth shut because I realize it's not enough to give a fair assessment.

There in lies the problem, being informed. People do a poor job of getting informed and doing their own analyzing on subjects. But both parties do the public a disservice by selling whatever supports their viewpoint and glossing over the whole thing. It's a tough thing, but that's politics. I do my best to not worry about them, got enough going on as it is.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:38

2

Jon Stewart is a hack, so of course, that last statement is expected.

But when it is Obama that is actively working to negotiate, support, and even probably ARM militant islamists, and Obama that says in every domestic speech recently, that he is unwilling to bend or negotiate on his policy points...

Then YES, it is Obama that is the problem, and his democrat minions like Reed in the Senate, that are implacable, and are not interested in negotiation, when they can get away with blaming the republicans, and most of the media reports it sycophantically... and folks like Stewart make slanted jokes like that.

The republicans are CAVING, and contorting and trying to find some compromise even barely shy of just capitulating entirely.

It is Reed and Obama that have nothing to say but 'No', and are trying to convince people that it is the other way around. Classic transferrence and deflection. Deceit.

And it is the Obama administration that is **spending** money to put barracades and wire around a public venue, open air, un-supervised WWII memorial to flout Honor Flight veteran visits to it. That memorial was installed with contributions, not taxpayer dollars. It requires no staffing or daily operation overhead... it is an outdoor sculpture and memorial installation. It costs MORE to barracade it, than to leave it open.

This is no different, but maybe even more VILE, than the sequester having closed the people's house to the people, by canceling white house tours.

This 'feel the pain' measure is their Modus Operandii.

Cixelsyd > For Sweden 10/03/2013 at 11:39

1

The proper way to change a law is for congress to pass a new law. The issue here is that the GOP doesn't have the votes to do that. Instead, they are blackmailing the executive branch by shutting down funding to the entire government to force them to agree to repeal Obamacare voluntarily.

The legislature's duty is to do it's job and pass laws. They are refusing to do that, by refusing to bring a bill to the floor. If a clean funding bill was presented to the floor, it would pass and the government would be open by this afternoon.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 11:46

1

You've got it backwards.

I'll quote Lincoln here, as his words seem appropriate: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

The GOP is holding the gun to our country's economy and telling Obama that he must repeal healthcare or he will be responsible for the damage caused by the shut down. It's bullshit.

Obama isn't asking for anything here. Obamacare is already law. The GOP politicians are the ones making the demands, so they are responsible for the consequences of the shutdown.

McLarry > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 11:58

0

I like Jon Stewart; he's got obvious Democratic leanings but will still call both the D's and R's on their shit alike, so he's at least got some common sense. Sadly, his bias wins out over his common sense sometimes...this is one of those times.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 12:14

0

They said repeal. Then they back-tracked to defund more than a month ago.

Monday night, before the shutdown, they backed down again, to delay for 1 year.

Obama is the chief executive. He is no longer a senator, no longer a legislator. He is HOLDING the LEGISLATURE HOSTAGE FROM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION.

The Legislature, and more specifically the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SPECIFICALLY, has the power of the purse, SPECIFIED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

They have the right, and frankly, the responsibility, to make sure the taxpayers money is spent wisely, and efficiently, and Obamacare/ACA is an abomination.

It was passed starting in the Senate, not the house, and it was SPECIFICALLY NOT A TAX. It couldn't be a tax, because it didn't originate in the House of Representatives, as all tax bills MUST.

When it was tried in the SUPREME COURT, the executive branch's lawyers argued that it WAS a tax, and thus legal to be levied, because if it WASN'T a tax, it would be illegal as a form of punishment on citizens in good standing, without due process, to penalize people for not buying a health insurance product.

It CANNOT BE A TAX FOR SCOTUS, and NOT A TAX FOR US CONGRESS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

The US Constitution, including the 9th and 10th Amendments limit the government from getting involved in a private industry like Obamacare/ACA does.

The people fighting against this are fighting for that reason. IT ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO CONTROL HEALTH INSURANCE OR MEDICAL PRACTICE!

Just because it is passed, doesn't mean it shouldn't be repealed, because it is BAD LAW, and AS WRITTEN, it is unconstitutional, and it had to be mis-represented and perjured for the SCOTUS to rule the way it did... especially when Justice Sonia Sotomayor was an advocate for government run health care before she was appointed to the court, and didn't recuse herself with her conflict of interest... and John Roberts changed his opinion at the 11th hour, after previously voicing considerations opposite of his final opinion, which suggests possible political pressure on the court.

Your Lincoln quote is exactly what the Obama and Reed are doing. They are holding a gun to any and all political opponents heads, telling them to capitulate, while simultaneously vilifying them in the media, and blaming them, while they give more and more ground, when Obama and Reed are the ones who are implacable until their opponents give up everything.

If we give up everything, Obamacare will BANKRUPT 1/6th of the US economy, and become an entitlement bigger than any previous one, and no previous entitlements have been able to be rescinded when they show to be insolvent....

If we go down this road to the destruction of the american way of liberty and freedom from government control, there is no turning back.

These are the last ditch efforts to turn back to freedom and liberty from government control of every doctor, patient, and all the money involved.

They will use medical reasons to control EVERYTHING YOU DO.

Why do you think the IRS is in charge of this program, not the FDA, or other agency?

The IRS is the only entity in the government that OPENLY treats people contrary to the 4th and 5th Amendments with little or no due process, and presumed guilt until proven innocence... contrary to every other part of the judicial system.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 12:30

0

Why should Obama negotiate? He's not asking for anything. How is that holding the legislature hostage? The simple fact of the matter is that the only thing preventing the GOP from repealing Obamacare is that they don't have the votes to do it. They've tried to repeal it 50 times and failed.

Similarly, the only thing preventing the government from opening up today is Boehner refusing to offer a funding bill for a vote because he is afraid of the Tea Party. If he did, it would easily pass. The majority of Congress would vote to pass a clean funding bill. Why isn't that being voted on?

The only group standing in the way of Congress doing its job is the GOP House leadership.

PatBateman > For Sweden 10/03/2013 at 12:31

0

I've been laughing at this argument for a while as well.

They: "You can't challenge the ACA!! It was voted in!! The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of it!! It's the f**king law!!"

Me: "I need to go buy a gun and get a CHL."

They: "All guns should be illegal!! We must do away with the 2nd Amendment!!"

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > McLarry 10/03/2013 at 12:41

0

Perhaps to some extent, but I think on the whole this trend of the republican party going directly against the democratic party with these lowly tactics is inexcusable, especially since it's a law the size of a proverbial Jumbo Jet that they could see coming from 4 years away. This is not AT FUCKING ALL in the best interest of the people.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 12:43

0

He is asking for his political opponents to give up any effectiveness.

He is asking for the legislative branch to bow and capitulate to the executive branch, contrary to the separation of powers.

He is asking for every damn bit of hidden pork, over-spending, and government waste built into that Continuing Resolution, which is an abomination in itself.

He is asking the congress to continue to operate without a budget for yet another year, in violation of the US Constitution.

Obama is standing in the way of Congress doing it's constitutional duty, as well as their job.

Harry Reid's strangle-hold on the senate, and Obama's veto, are being used to keep one branch of government hostage to the policy of the executive branch, when the executive branch is NOT the branch responsible for setting policy.

The conservative members of congress represent conservative AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The PEOPLE elect their representatives. Elections have consequences, as Obama has said... and Obama was not the only person elected.

There are 535 people in congress for a reason, and they have the constitutional responsibility to set policy. NOT one elected executive, who is NOT an elected dictator or king, his responsibility is to uphold the law, not make the law, or flout the law, or ignore the law.

The presidential VETO power is to check the legislative branch from doing unconstitutional things... not to hold them hostage from their constitutional duties, if they DON'T CONTINUE doing the unconstitutional things they are doing and refusing to do.

They are shredding the US Constitution more and more, and destroying the foundations of this country in the process. That is what Obama declared he would do days before his inauguration, as he proclaimed that he would "fundamentally transform" this country.

The people, through their representatives, or themselves directly through a constitutional convention, shape this country's policy, not any single elected president. Otherwise the president would be a fascist dictator.... which this is resembling more and more every day.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole 10/03/2013 at 12:44

0

Haha, and I fail to see how this is in the best interest of the American people. It's like they are throwing a temper tantrum.

BAAAH BAAAH BAAHH... I don't like this Baah baaha baah. I need a nap and oh yea... We are shutting down gov't.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 12:47

0

He is asking people to stand by his law, that HAS been found constitutional and has already been agreed to go into effect. This doesn't feel like they are opposing it, it feels like they are throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they want. Again, it's the ******* law.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 12:52

0

Obama is standing in the way of Congress doing it's constitutional duty, as well as their job.

Nothing Obama is doing prevents Congress from either passing a bill to repeal Obamacare or to fund the government. They are free to do that at any time.

This is how the system works. A bill got passed. Whether the GOP likes it or not, that bill is now law until Congress repeals or amends it. Any deviation from that system is undemocratic and, frankly, un-American.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Ex. President Mack41 10/03/2013 at 12:52

0

The problem is, I think the people that DO make policy and ARE in office are also just as informed as you and I. It shows, because 4 years after Obamacare became law they all of a sudden throw a temper tantrum and shut the whole kittenkaboodle down. I think having to shut the government down REEKS of incompetence. Is it important for me to be informed? Yes. But I don't HAVE to be informed, but it seems politicians have taken this same approach. They've either (A) made it law, knowing they would shut down the government to sabotage it, or (B) had no fucking clue what they were signing into law.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 12:57

0

I have been through this.

I am going to put this as simply and directly as I can.

It is the legislative branch's power, duty, responsibility, and capability to pass, modify, and repeal legislation, as they see fit, and spending bills are specifically the purview of the House of Representatives FIRST.

It is NOT the executive branch's power, duty, responsibility or capability to impede the legislative branches's constitutional power, unless vetoing something that is un-constitutional. The Veto is a backstop, not a weapon.

Regardless of the tax vs. not a tax implications of the SCOTUS decision, the legislature can STILL decide to repeal the law, if they decide to, and it is not improper for members of the legislature to work toward that goal, as they see fit, under their constitutional authority.

LAWS CAN BE REPEALED. Law implementations can be de-funded. THAT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE US CONGRESS.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS OBSTRUCTING CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITY.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 13:00

0

I'll throw in one point that I've been enjoying sharing with people.

Does everyone remember the last time we were "on the brink of shut down and about to hit the debt ceiling"? Obama came on TV and told the country " We need to do this! We can't go broke! It won't happen again!" And the people said ok. They talked about this debt ceiling for over a month leading up to hitting it and people were freaking out the whole time.

This time you know what we were talking about a month ago SYRIA. We're going to hit the debt ceiling next month Mr. President what should we talk about...hmm...distract them I told them I wouldn't ask for another debt ceiling increase....talk about Syria!!! Let's bomb Syria! Maybe they won't notice the debt ceiling!"

Just saying....it was a well timed "incident".

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 13:03

0

Obama's veto is doing just that.

ACA may have passed previously.

But the continuing resolution DID NOT PASS.

It is just as much legal for a current bill not to pass, as a previous bill to have passed, or to be repealed in the future.

Other funding measures to re-enstate veterans affairs, and various other legitimate goverment functions are being disregarded by the senate, and threatened veto by the president.

If opposing ACA is unamerican, then opposing the will of the congress to DENY the continuing resolution is JUST AS MUCH UNAMERICAN.

If you are going to argue the will of congress, then you have to argue that failure to pass the CR is also the will of congress.

And any compromise effort by republicans, the only ones making suggestions right now, are being BLOCKED.

It is Obama saying "all or nothing." which is not his authority to do.

It is within the House of Representative's authority to defund what they decide that they disagree with.

IT was the senate that voted for cloture, and then completely changed their bill, trying to pull a fast one via conference committee, because they KNEW they couldn't get cloture otherwise.

It is the senate that is refusing to pass anything else but the full, bloated, wasteful, and problematic CR... in leu of a constitutionally required budget.

If the congress had an annual budget, as they are required to, the government would never have shut down in the first place.

McLarry > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 13:12

1

I'm sure they'd counter that this law isn't in the best interest of the people either. It's also not as though they sat on their hands and now just suddenly decided to fight it, either...This action is more drastic than that taken previously, but with the bill actually going into effect now, you might say the stakes are higher.

Not that that's a great reason to shut down the government... Or, more realistically, 27% of the government, which sounds a lot less scary. Really they're all behaving like children...most of the responsibility rests on the Republicans' shoulders, but the Democrats haven't exactly been exemplary representatives either.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 13:13

0

Your understanding of the veto power is simply wrong.

The Constitution states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

The Constitution says the veto can be used on any bill the President doesn't approve of. There is no limitation that it only be used on un-Constitutional bills and no president in history has ever accepted the formulation you propose. Show me where the veto is limited in the way you claim.

The President has every right to veto a bill that repeals Obamacare as a condition of funding the government. That isn't obstructing Constitutional activity. Quite the opposite, in fact. Obama is exercising the powers given to him directly by the Constitution. This is the balance of powers at work.

Win some elections if you don't like it.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 13:17

0

If you are going to argue the will of congress, then you have to argue that failure to pass the CR is also the will of congress.

A majority of Congress in both houses would vote for the clean CR. The only thing preventing that from happening is Boehner's refusal to schedule it for a vote.

philipilihp > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 13:17

0

Why can't they just agree to vote on a clean funding bill without having to hostage or blackmail anyone? This hardline crap is not looking good for anyone. Not the taxpayers, not government employees, not the US credit rating, not the respect the rest of the world might have for the US as a country, not for the US political system, and definitely not for me. Get your shit together, congress. This is not fair to anyone.

The ACA might be expensive, but it's the right thing to do . Why do you want to deny people with pre-existing conditions healthcare? Is it worth holding the US economy hostage, and by extension to a degree the world economy? The US economy was doing a little better, finally, before this crap.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 13:23

0

A: there is nothing clean about the pork-packed CR.

B: the CR without Obamacare funding, already passed a majority of the house. Also, several other piece-meal funding bills have passed, and are being disregarded.

C: Why should Boehner give up everything at this point, and completely make the House of Representatives irrelevant, and doormat to the senate controlled by an Obama minion, and to Obama himself.

Giving everything up now would make the HR inconsequential, and diminish the power of the federal institution with the closest accountability to the people they serve.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 13:24

0

With a gov't shutdown all kinds of constitutional activity is obstructed.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > McLarry 10/03/2013 at 13:27

0

When something goes wrong legislators' jobs should be on the line, not the hard working people in other areas of gov't. A gov't shutdown just doesn't mean anything to a politician if by putting it into effect their job isn't on the line, shit, even their salary isn't. Where's the accountability?

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > philipilihp 10/03/2013 at 13:29

1

Yeah, the dems and reps are having a pissing contest at the expense of OTHERS. How about their jobs and/or salaries be on the line in situations like this? Shutting down the gov't doesn't affect their bottom line, it affects the bottom line of people whose jobs they shut down, it affects the bottom line of tax payers. But their jobs are secure, how about their jobs be on the line next time they are faced with this? I'm sure they'd resolve it a whole lot faster than this temper-tantrum-throwing-nonsense.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 13:30

0

Passing the House is only 1/3rd of the legislative process. The GOP needs to learn this. Passing the House doesn't mean you automatically get your way. If you read the Constitution you've been railing about all day, you'd see that the Senate and the President have important roles to play, and they've been using their powers just as set forth by the Constitution.

There is nothing illegal or un-Constitutional about how Obama has handled this debate. Sooner or later, the GOP will realize they have no end game here and will have no choice but to vote on the CR that doesn't include Obamacare.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 13:33

0

2010 Mid-terms.

We DID win a LOT of elections, and turned the House.

Elections have consequences, as Obama has said himself. He can't just ignore the legislative branch, or bully them.

No president before has had CAUSE to use their veto power to FLOUT the separation of powers, and shred the constitution every chance he has gotten.

When the POTUS abides by his OATH OF OFFICE TO OBEY, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION, then the purpose of the president's VETO is in line with that oath.

This president has broken that oath at every turn, from ACA, to Benghazi, to un-accountable Czars that are not vetted by congress...

Obama may be able to use his veto this way, but that doesn't make it the right way to use it, and it is holding the legislative branch hostage, while simultaneously VILIFYING members of congress for doing what they are charged to do, simply because they disagree politically.

Congress is not a white hat here, they have botched their responsibilities at every turn, and lead to this impasse themselves...

as I said, if they did their constitutional duty to have a budget, the goverment wouldn't be shut down, based on a bullcrap and obfuscating continuing resolution.

The crap-storm from both directions has simply come to this head... but conservatives in congress are not in the wrong for exercising their role to defund, repeal, or delay ACA.

Obama himself has issued waivers, and delays to some aspects of ACA, which he has no right to do, since he isn't a legislator. It is just an executive order that says he won't execute the law he signed, and otherwise wants to impose on others who don't have political-favor waivers.

This is a giant freakin' mess, because most of congress, and the white house BOTH are trying to shred the limitations on them that the constitution enumerates.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 13:47

0

The senate end-around maneuvered to change their CR at the last minute, after cloture. That was a dirty trick.

Obama is charged with enforcing the law, which he selectively refuses to do (refusing to enforce other properly legislated laws, and granting waivers to his friends exempting them from ACA, and then turns and blames the congress for doing what congress is supposed to do, and VILIFIES members of congress for doing it. That is despicable political rhetoric, and not behavior becoming the chief executive.

Obama and Reid are the implacable ones, that refuse any other compromise other than full house capitulation... and holding one chamber of congress hostage like that is also despicable.

They could pass the CR without ACA funding, and discuss ACA funding as a separate issue, and actually debate and do their jobs.

Conservative representatives are congressmen with just as much standing as any other member of congress, as a member of the legislative branch, which Obama is NOT. They are not pariahs for having BIG constitutional and common sense problems with ACA that stands to take government control of and cause tremendous trouble for 1/6th of the US economy.

philipilihp > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 13:48

0

They'd definitely feel a whole lot less comfortable with throwing their own salaries into the pool as a bargaining chip/blackmail tactic.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > philipilihp 10/03/2013 at 14:02

0

In business you tend to get fired for poor performance, I think a gov't shutdown being necessary, is equal to poor performance. Some, maybe several people should be fired, haha.

philipilihp > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 14:29

0

A government shut down shouldn't be an option. Ever. How does it make any sense at all to halt all government operations? How is this conducive to anything?

The next midterm elections will tell the tale of how this all played out. I can see a bunch of people responsible for this mess not returning, and to them I say: "Good riddance."

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > philipilihp 10/03/2013 at 15:13

0

Yep. Finding people incompetent should be an option, fire people until the new ones plus the ones left can come to an agreement for pete's sake. Don't let it drag on and on for 4 years and let it lead to a shutdown.

McLarry > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs 10/03/2013 at 15:23

0

amen to that

Cixelsyd > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 10/03/2013 at 15:34

0

Do you think the Syrian government gassed its own people in order to help their good buddy Obama distract the public from the debt ceiling?

This is heavy conspiracy theory stuff.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 15:43

0

No president before has had CAUSE to use their veto power to FLOUT the separation of powers, and shred the constitution every chance he has gotten.

Yep, that Obama. Shredding away with his veto powers left and right. We are lucky there is any Constitution left, am I right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U…

He's vetoed two bills. Reagan vetoed 78.

You know what that means? It means the GOP couldn't get a bill out of Congress and onto his desk. If there is anything you should be upset about, its the inability of the GOP to capture the Senate and place any real pressure on Obama. It's not the will of the people when no law has been passed.

As I've asked before, show me your authority for your argument that vetoes are un-Constitutional. You can't, because the veto was specifically designed to allow the President to act as a check on the legislative power. That is the entire point of its existence. to argue that the President has the duty to rubber stamp every piece of legislation that gets passed unless it is "un-Constitutional" is pure nonsense.

MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 16:01

0

Yep that's definitely it.

No I'm not saying that - come on now. I'm just saying it was convenient that Obama got so interested in it instead of letting the UN handle it or try political measures. He came out and was like LETS BOMB THESE BITCHES (still paraphrasing obviously).

And no one talked about the debt ceiling.

Cixelsyd > MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner 10/03/2013 at 16:04

0

He had said months ago that chemical weapons were a red line.

He had no control over when the Syrians decided to call his bluff on the issue.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 16:48

0

Vetos are only un-constitutional when the violate the function of the enumerated powers of another branch of government, AND violate the president's oath of office to protect and defend the US Constitution that enumerates those powers.

I never said he had to rubber-stamp anything, but it is improper for him to hold everything at bay until he gets his way. He isn't a lawmaker. Just as the HR doesn't have to bow to anything and everything POTUS or Senate Majority Leader has to say.

I did say that he was holding the legislative process hostage, by vilifying his political opponents for not compromising, when they are, and HE is the one that is unwilling to negotiate or compromise. He isn't a legislator, but he is acting as if he is the king-arbiter of Congress. He isn't a senator anymore.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 16:56

0

The ENTIRE point of the veto is to check the power of the legislative branch. It can NEVER be unconstitutional to use one. This is remedial civics here.

There is no situation where a veto could possibly "violate the function of the enumerated powers of another branch of government, AND violate the president's oath of office to protect and defend the US Constitution that enumerates those powers."

The veto is a specific enumerated power that the President has according to the Constitution. The Constitution does not place any restrictions on that power. he gets to veto any bill he objects to, for any reason. By definition, it cannot be unconstitutional. If Congress doesn't agree, they can override it. Other than that, they are stuck.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 17:05

0

Checking their power against abuse is one thing.

Prohibiting them from doing their regular duties and functioning as a working legislature, is another.

Veto isn't intended to blockade congress entirely, and hold most federal functions at a stand still to get one's political way, as president.

They are stuck, because Obama. and POTUS is not supposed to be holding this process hostage, like a spoiled damn child until he gets his way. The legislature is supposed to be functioning so that the people, including the political minority, have their representation on legislation and policy.

The people hire legislators to set policy, including funding, and including the possibility of changing or repealing previous legislation, not to have the POTUS hold it hostage, and keep everything at a standstill for political game-playing.

It may not be explicitly illegal, but it is not the president acting in the spirit of his oath, and respecting the separation of powers.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 17:10

0

You keep blaming Obama, yet no bill has been presented to him to veto.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 17:18

0

The house has been passing bills all week, trying to restore funding

If Obama has nothing to sign, and want's too, he needs to pull his puppet, Reid's strings.

But Obama and Reid are singing the same obstructionist temper tantrum tune, and Reid isn't likely to the source of it.

And Obama's white house is the one erecting barracades around the WWII memorial, that is an un-manned open-air venue built with private-sector contributions, not federal money.

It is also Obama's white house that tried to erect barracades at the entrance to Mt. Vernon, George Washington's homestead. Mt. Vernon is entirely PRIVATELY OWNED, and has nothing more than historical context to the federal government.

This is bullshit temper tantrum throwing... and Obama is up to his eyebrows in it, make no mistake.

And for not liking to "cherry pick", OBAMA is the one who is picking and choosing which companies and groups get waivers, and some pieces of the bill delayed while others aren't, something the ORIGINAL BILL DIDN'T PROVISION HIM TO DO.

For all the talk of "law on the books", Obama is changing the nature of the ACA law, it as he sees fit, whenever he wants, without legislation, which is not legal for him to do, anyway.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 17:47

0

The house has been passing bills all week, trying to restore funding

Passing a bill in the House doesn't mean you passed a law. It only gets you 1/3rd of the way there. Watch some Schoolhouse Rock, man.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 17:54

0

You missed the point entirely. Not surprising, I suppose.

completely without the context of the following sentences.

If you don't want to have a conversation, you simply could just *not reply.*

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 17:55

0

The rest of the sentences are red herrings that don't deserve a reply.

The simple facts are as follows:

1.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 17:57

0

Dismiss me if you like. It still happens to be reality, if you would care to watch what is actually going on.

I don't think red herrings mean what you think they mean.

Cixelsyd > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 17:59

0

1. The ACA was passed by boht houses of congress and signed into law by the President.

2. The GOP has tried and failed on 50 occasions to repeal that law.

3. Because of these failures, the GOP has now refused to pass a funding bill unless it includes a provision to deny funding to the ACA, effectively demanding a repeal of the law without going through the normal lawful legislative process. This is a form of blackmail.

4. Because the GOP doesn't have a majority in the Senate, they've failed in their efforts to pass this bill as well.

5. In the end, the GOP will have to cave and nothing will have been accomplished, other than wasting untold millions and kicking our economy in the nuts over an effort to look good to voters back home.

Cixelsyd > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/03/2013 at 18:01

0

It means exactly what I think it means. Whether Obama is being mean or playing hardball with photo ops has no bearing on the underlying merits of the debate. Red herring. Meant to draw attention away from the real issue.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Cixelsyd 10/03/2013 at 22:19

0

The facts previously mentioned are PART of the scope of the real issue.