3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Sure the Republicans want to cut and save the taxpayers money as long as it doesn't affect programs they like and it includes their social agenda. Plain and simple. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 My view if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself. Same category as facelifts and tummy tucks. Totally elective (except for ectopic pregnancies). No govt or insurance company $ at all. If Planned Parenthood Abortion gets govt. $ why don't counseling centers? Sure, so let's shut down the government over abortion. Awesome. Retards on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Even that article doesn't answer the question. Reid and others say the sticking points are abortion and EPA regs. Boehner isn't denying that as the sticking points. What Boehner said was this: ""There's only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet, and that issue is spending," the speaker said. "We're close to a resolution on policy issues, but I think the American people deserve to know: When will the White House and when will Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?" They're both wrong. The reason there is no agreement as yet is because last year Congress refused to pass a budget. If they passed a budget last year, we'd be paying attention to more important things. Like bombing Libya. Or a Japanese nuclear meltdown. Or some other doomsday headline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 If it's all about fiscal issues, why such a strong Christian theme at all the rallies and gatherings? Same reason beards and women with hairy pits are themes at all liberal rallies and gatherings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 That's the basic Republican position. They want less abortions but once the baby is born they expect him/her to either work hard or starve. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Wow. And looking at all the fat asses in this country I really think starvation is the least of our problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Wow. Hey, if I ever have a kid, that little freeloader is getting a job ex utero. Even if it's just mopping floors, that little **** won't leave the hospital without a paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Same reason beards and women with hairy pits are themes at all liberal rallies and gatherings. Because they're trying to legislate beards and hairy pits? Kind of funny, but you'll need a better analogy if you're trying to actually make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Because they're trying to legislate beards and hairy pits? Kind of funny, but you'll need a better analogy if you're trying to actually make a point. Because I think it's safe to say you've been to as many Tea Party gatherings and rallies as I have liberal ones so you about as qualified to make your statement as I am to make mine. That was my point. Though my statement is probably much closer to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Hey, if I ever have a kid, that little freeloader is getting a job ex utero. Even if it's just mopping floors, that little **** won't leave the hospital without a paycheck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWcEXXp5UB0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 What Boehner said was this: ""There's only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet, and that issue is spending," the speaker said. "We're close to a resolution on policy issues, but I think the American people deserve to know: When will the White House and when will Senate Democrats get serious about cutting spending?" Either way, we now know the final sticking point WAS Planned Parenthood funding and the state block grants that would have effectively cut it off for a lot of states. And pretty sure we can safely say it was the Republican leadership that was holding onto that goal over how to allocate 300M until the last second. Reid was right. It bodes poorly that the Republicans are going to play chicken with social issue bullstojan like Planned Parenthood and NPR--both of which are a tiny sliver of the budget--instead of focusing on bigger spending issues (medicare/caid, social security, military, etc) but why should we be surprised? The right loves its motherment as much as the left. Fiscal Conservatives like Thune will go inspecting men's bungholes and lose political points instead of focusing on the more pressing budget issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Either way, we now know the final sticking point WAS Planned Parenthood funding. Again, the true final sticking point was that all of this time, energy, money and stress would have been avoided if someone -- anyone -- bothered to take time out of their busy schedule to pass a budget last year. Not taking issue with you. I understand what you're saying. We're just looking at two different parts of the same puzzle. I'm looking at the problem from its beginning, which in my mind is the best place to start when your goal is to fix a problem, and you're looking at it from the one minor component that comes out of the mouth of someone like Harry Reid, which is probably true, but does nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to avoid this kind of problem in the future except to teach people that it's important to build up your childish rhetoric arsenal sooner rather than later. Incidentally, classifying any unnecessary expense (like NPR and Planned Parenthood or John Murtha's airport) "a tiny sliver" is part of the reason we're in this fiscal mess. Yes, the bigger spending issues are a faster way to go, but just because you can't get out of your upside-down mortgage right away doesn't mean you should keep going out for dinner every night. I think you know that, and you just like to battle over this for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Again, the true final sticking point was that all of this time, energy, money and stress would have been avoided if someone -- anyone -- bothered to take time out of their busy schedule to pass a budget last year. Not taking issue with you. I understand what you're saying. We're just looking at two different parts of the same puzzle. I'm looking at the problem from its beginning, which in my mind is the best place to start when your goal is to fix a problem, and you're looking at it from the one minor component that comes out of the mouth of someone like Harry Reid, which is probably true, but does nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to avoid this kind of problem in the future except to teach people that it's important to build up your childish rhetoric arsenal sooner rather than later. Incidentally, classifying any unnecessary expense (like NPR and Planned Parenthood or John Murtha's airport) "a tiny sliver" is part of the reason we're in this fiscal mess. Yes, the bigger spending issues are a faster way to go, but just because you can't get out of your upside-down mortgage right away doesn't mean you should keep going out for dinner every night. I think you know that, and you just like to battle over this for fun. Bingo. This would be a great time for Boehner to tell the American people that this should all have been taken care of last year, but that Congress was more concerned with passing a health care law that most people didn't want. But then he should thank Harry and Nancy for not addressing it, so that there could be some, any, cuts made to get us at least pointed back in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Because they're trying to legislate beards and hairy pits? Kind of funny, but you'll need a better analogy if you're trying to actually make a point. I haven't followed this story all that closely so I'm confused. Who was trying to legislate Christianity, and how so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Again, the true final sticking point was that all of this time, energy, money and stress would have been avoided if someone -- anyone -- bothered to take time out of their busy schedule to pass a budget last year. Not taking issue with you. I understand what you're saying. We're just looking at two different parts of the same puzzle. I'm looking at the problem from its beginning, which in my mind is the best place to start when your goal is to fix a problem, and you're looking at it from the one minor component that comes out of the mouth of someone like Harry Reid, which is probably true, but does nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to avoid this kind of problem in the future except to teach people that it's important to build up your childish rhetoric arsenal sooner rather than later. Incidentally, classifying any unnecessary expense (like NPR and Planned Parenthood or John Murtha's airport) "a tiny sliver" is part of the reason we're in this fiscal mess. Yes, the bigger spending issues are a faster way to go, but just because you can't get out of your upside-down mortgage right away doesn't mean you should keep going out for dinner every night. I think you know that, and you just like to battle over this for fun. I think we're on the same page here but in the case of planned parenthood, the Republicans chose an inopportune moment not to cut funding by $1, but to make a political statement using the budget negotiations,That's the sort of nonsense that drives many Independents like me nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 I think we're on the same page here but in the case of planned parenthood, the Republicans chose an inopportune moment not to cut funding by $1, but to make a political statement using the budget negotiations,That's the sort of nonsense that drives many Independents like me nuts. What drives you more nuts: that they made a political statement, or that the budget wasn't passed last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) I love it when I hear the babies bones crack and snap from an abortion. It just reminds me of all the good deeds we are doing to decrease the surplus population and reduce crime by disposing of the future unwanted. I'm warm all over. Edited April 9, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 What drives you more nuts: that they made a political statement, or that the budget wasn't passed last year? Both. Waiting until the last minute to pass the budget is a Congressional tradition, one that the Republicans should be thankful for as the newly elected got a say in its passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 What drives you more nuts: that they made a political statement, or that the budget wasn't passed last year? Can I go with "That they're all self-serving !@#$s?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 (edited) Either way, we now know the final sticking point WAS Planned Parenthood funding and the state block grants that would have effectively cut it off for a lot of states. And pretty sure we can safely say it was the Republican leadership that was holding onto that goal over how to allocate 300M until the last second. Reid was right. It bodes poorly that the Republicans are going to play chicken with social issue bullstojan like Planned Parenthood and NPR--both of which are a tiny sliver of the budget--instead of focusing on bigger spending issues (medicare/caid, social security, military, etc) but why should we be surprised? The right loves its motherment as much as the left. Fiscal Conservatives like Thune will go inspecting men's bungholes and lose political points instead of focusing on the more pressing budget issues. Man sometimes you are reaaaal slow. It's quite obvious to anyone who has the capacity to rationalize that the Planned Parenthood deal was a bargaining chip that they knew that they would never get, so at the end they "conceded" that demand in order to get the cuts they hoped for. There is no doubt about it, Boehner was the big political winner out of this deal, he corraled his caucus and got the left to give up more than what they had hoped for. Edited April 10, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts