Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

from that page:

I see what you're trying to do here

Approximate the Pepsi logo?

 

[thezerofire]

Approximate the Pepsi logo?

which also approximates King Obama's logo

it's all coming together

 

[GaimeGuy]

No. Read it again, and then again and again, if necessary, until you understand what I wrote.

EDIT: Maybe that was a bit harsh. If, in your sentence, "that" means "executive action authorized or permitted by statute" and "this" means "executive action that is not authorized by, and is in fact contrary to, statute," then your sentence summarizes what I wrote in response to APK. But I don't think that's what you meant.

If republicans feel that current statute allows obama to do these border control activities, why don't they sue him for not doing those things?

I'll tell you why: Because they recognize that the executive branch has reasonable leeway in interpreting and enforcing, and yes, implementing the laws. They've just been raising a fuss about obamacare for half a decade, so they can do something childish like sue the president, and not just over anything, but over something they specifically petitioned his administration to do (If they wanted it done by statute, they would have passed the statute themselves, not petitioned the executive branch to take action to delay the mandate.) And no one will bat an eye because they're all caught up in the mindset of "YEAH THAT OBAMA AND HIS OBAMACARE... STICK IT TO EM!"

They're children. Stupid, spiteful, petty, incompetent, unreasonable children who have no interest in running a country or changing it for the better, only in arguing over philosophical bullshit and loosely applying these philosophical abstractions to role play and win games on a public stage.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If republicans feel that current statute allows obama to do these border control activities, why don't they sue him for not doing those things?

Because not everything permitted is required.

(If they wanted it done by statute, they would have passed the statute themselves, not petitioned the executive branch to take action to delay the mandate.)

They did pass a bill to delay the employer mandate. And I must have missed it when they petitioned the president to delay the mandate unilaterally--could you point me to your source?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Because not everything permitted is required.



They did pass a bill to delay the employer mandate. And I must have missed it when they petitioned the president to delay the mandate unilaterally--could you point me to your source?

But the senate did not, so it's a moot point.

 

[Metaphoreus]

But the senate did not, so it's a moot point.

No, the fact that the Senate didn't pass the bill is a moot point, as it has no relevance to the question of whether House Republicans attempted to delay the employer mandate by legislation.

 

[benjipwns]

Nobody trusted Boehner's package months ago, surprised he backed down though, the count must have been even worse than expected.

If I talk about how dumb a co-workers is and how I wish they would just get fired so I don't have to deal with them; any rationale person is going to infer that I care about this person getting fired and them not getting fired bothers me.

I'm just suggesting that they put their resources to better use in a way they know they can because I suffer from cognitive dissonance about their actual job and market.

 

[benjipwns]

Immigration is a sticking point on Fox:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ent_over_immigration_are_you_a_christian.html

CARLSON: So I have a moral obligation to share my earnings --

POWERS: Yes.

CARLSON: -- and my country with people I've never met because they are suffering?

POWERS: Are you a Christian?

CARLSON: I am absolutely a Christian.

POWERS: Okay, have you read the Bible? That Bible says --

CARLSON: This is not a theocracy.

POWERS: It is very clear.

CARLSON: No, countries are not run according to Christian concepts.

POWERS: You are telling me that you don't have any obligation as a Christian to care?

...

POWERS: So you don't think that Jewish people who are fleeing pogroms should have been allowed into our country?

CARLSON: Oh, come on, that is silly... I'm not even going to engage that

POWERS: That is persecution.

 

[HylianTom]

An interesting aside with Justice Ginsburg..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ginsburg-high-court-duck-gay-marriage-24797632

Ginsburg: High Court Won't 'Duck' Gay Marriage

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says the Supreme Court won't duck the issue of same-sex marriage the next time a case comes to the court.

The 81-year-old Ginsburg said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday that she expects a same-sex marriage case to be heard and decided by June 2016, and possibly a year earlier.

Yes yes yes! GeorgeTakeiVersionofIt'sHappening.gif

 

[Tamanon]

Helluva first day for the new GOP whip, lol.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

An interesting aside with Justice Ginsburg..

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ginsburg-high-court-duck-gay-marriage-24797632

Ginsburg: High Court Won't 'Duck' Gay Marriage


Yes yes yes! GeorgeTakeiVersionofIt'sHappening.gif

I called this like two years ago (the moment Obama changed his stance it was a give), that gay marriage will happen before 2016.

 

[Fox318]

Approximate the Pepsi logo?

It all makes sense now.

 

[Jack Remington]

As much as it's a lock for Boehner's lawsuit to get thrown out for lack of standing, I almost want to see it heard, just for the fact that the administration would win decisively. Because, as anyone who isn't a complete partisan idiot and who has devoted even a modicum of research to this knows quite well, everything Obama did to alter ACA implementation was completely legal and within the bounds of executive authority established by literally decades of precedent.

As funny as it would be to see the lawsuit immediately dismissed, seeing the wingnuts get smacked down on the actual merits of the case would be more satisfying in the long run.

 

[dabig2]

As much as it's a lock for Boehner's lawsuit to get thrown out for lack of standing, I almost want to see it heard, just for the fact that the administration would win decisively. Because, as anyone who isn't a complete partisan idiot and who has devoted even a modicum of research to this knows quite well, everything Obama did to alter ACA implementation was completely legal and within the bounds of executive authority established by literally decades of precedent.

As funny as it would be to see the lawsuit immediately dismissed, seeing the wingnuts get smacked down on the actual merits of the case would be more satisfying in the long run.

Yeah, the longer it stays in the media the more advantageous it is to the Democrats, especially when it's getting trashed and picked apart while the ACA keeps chugging along and more and more people begin to like it.

The soundbites write themselves.

 

[rocketknight]

http://emailsfromthedccc.tumblr.com/

 

[B-Dubs]

http://emailsfromthedccc.tumblr.com/

God, those are hilarious.

 

[AntoneM]

Nobody trusted Boehner's package months ago, surprised he backed down though, the count must have been even worse than expected.


I'm just suggesting that they put their resources to better use in a way they know they can because I suffer from cognitive dissonance about their actual job and market.

Fair enough, I agree in general that the media is terrible. I just choose not to watch.

 

[speculawyer]

GOP Tells Obama to Ignore Congress One Day After Suing Him for Ignoring Congress

On Wednesday, House Republicans sued President Obama for acting on his own without approval from Congress. On Thursday, House Republicans told President Obama he should act on his own to fix the border crisis.

The messaging whiplash resulted from Speaker John Boehner's failure – so far – to pass a Republican spending bill that would provide $659 million to help stem the child migrant crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a statement following the decision to abruptly scrap a vote on the measure, Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders tried to put the onus back on Obama, saying the president had the power to act unilaterally, "without the need for congressional action," to respond to the crisis.

There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries."​

Yet that was a polar opposite message from the one Republicans delivered a day earlier, when they voted to authorize a lawsuit against Obama for "bypass[ing] the legislative process to create his own laws by executive fiat," according to an accompanying committee report.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-tells-obama-ignore-congress-one-day-suing-203633750.html

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah, the longer it stays in the media the more advantageous it is to the Democrats, especially when it's getting trashed and picked apart while the ACA keeps chugging along and more and more people begin to like it.

The soundbites write themselves.

Maybe that is the genius of the lawsuit . . . the GOP will flip their narrative from "We hate this president" to "We love Obamacare so much that we pushing Obama to implement it FASTER!"

 

[Oblivion]

CARLSON: This is not a theocracy.

POWERS: It is very clear.

CARLSON: No, countries are not run according to Christian concepts.

Haha, wow. I love how conservatives flee from Christianity the moment it conflicts with their political views.

"What?! When did we ever claim that the country should be following the teachings of the Bible?!"

 

[speculawyer]

CARLSON: I am absolutely a Christian.

"Well . . . except for those parts about helping the poor, helping the sick, turning the other cheek, being peaceful, loving my enemy, etc. But, yeah, I am absolutely a Christian."

It is amazing how greedy and self-centered people can be and yet still think they are "absolutely a Christian."

 

[adamsappel]

"Well . . . except for those parts about helping the poor, helping the sick, turning the other cheek, being peaceful, loving my enemy, etc. But, yeah, I am absolutely a Christian."

It is amazing how greedy and self-centered people can be and yet still think they are "absolutely a Christian."

I know it was posted recently by someone else, but it's easier just to do it again.

And just for good measure:

 

[Oblivion]

"Well . . . except for those parts about helping the poor, helping the sick, turning the other cheek, being peaceful, loving my enemy, etc. But, yeah, I am absolutely a Christian."

It is amazing how greedy and self-centered people can be and yet still think they are "absolutely a Christian."

It sucks that there's gonna be a whole generation of selfish, greedy fucks who are going to grow up thinking Jesus really hated compassion and poor people.

 

[RustyNails]

It sucks that there's gonna be a whole generation of selfish, greedy fucks who are going to grow up thinking Jesus really hated compassion and poor people.

Supply Side Jesus is probably the biggest contribution to US' politics discourse in a long time. Thank you based Franken.

 

[pigeon]

This is so confusing.

Does house leadership have any power at all?

Absolutely. They have the power to pass any bill that the Republican Party has widespread agreement on.

Unfortunately several members of the Republican Party don't think Congress should ever pass any bills.

Oops!

 

[Oblivion]

Haha. Troll-y Reid is best Reid:

 

[RustyNails]

Absolutely. They have the power to pass any bill that the Republican Party has widespread agreement on.

Unfortunately several members of the Republican Party don't think Congress should ever pass any bills.

Oops!

I wonder if the wise and infallible founding fathers foresaw this.

 

[Black Mamba]

Absolutely. They have the power to pass any bill that the Republican Party has widespread agreement on.

Unfortunately several members of the Republican Party don't think Congress should ever pass any bills.

Oops!

If only there was a mechanism with which the party leaders could "convince" its members to fall in line.

Hey, who remembers earmarks?

 

[speculawyer]

Supply Side Jesus is probably the biggest contribution to US' politics discourse in a long time. Thank you based Franken.

Jews provide Jesus again.

 

[speculawyer]

If only there was a mechanism with which the party leaders could "convince" its members to fall in line.

Hey, who remembers earmarks?

Yeah, it is pretty funny how something that they thought was so corrupt that they had to get rid of it turned out to be a lubricant that made democracy function. Without it, the gears of democracy have seized in gridlock.

The GOP is unable to even pass a symbolic bill that was never expected to become law.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Wouldn't 2016 be the first year Republicans have to defend their gains in the Senate since a lot of the 2010 seats are back up?

If Clinton does well there could be some changes there. However the House will likely stay firmly Republican until there's a GOP President. It's all just pendulum politics.

 

[Black Mamba]

Wouldn't 2016 be the first year Republicans have to defend their gains in the Senate since a lot of the 2010 seats are back up?

If Clinton does well there could be some changes there. However the House will likely stay firmly Republican until there's a GOP President. It's all just pendulum politics.

If the GOP doesn't win the Senate this year, they're in danger of a 60 Dem Senate in 2016, IMO.

A ton of GOP Senators who are not looked upon favorably right now are up for election in 2016 against what will almost assuredly be a Democratic Presidential win and possibly a huge landslide.

 

[Fenderputty]

Haha, wow. I love how conservatives flee from Christianity the moment it conflicts with their political views.

"What?! When did we ever claim that the country should be following the teachings of the Bible?!"

I wanted to pull my hair our reading that.

 

[HylianTom]

If the GOP doesn't win the Senate this year, they're in danger of a 60 Dem Senate in 2016, IMO.

A ton of GOP Senators who are not looked upon favorably right now are up for election in 2016 against what will almost assuredly be a Democratic Presidential win and possibly a huge landslide.

If things line up just right and Clinton brings a wave with her, I could see the House swinging to the Democrats that year as well.

The GOP's post-mortem/soul-searching was pretty entertaining in 2012/13; their reaction in 2016/17 could be incredible.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Cantor has decided being a lame duck sucks, he's out.

I give it a few weeks before we learn where he's cashing out to.

 

[FyreWulff]

Taking the Palin exit, I see

edit: also lame that it's being done to mess around with the election timing.

 

[speculawyer]

Wouldn't 2016 be the first year Republicans have to defend their gains in the Senate since a lot of the 2010 seats are back up?

If Clinton does well there could be some changes there. However the House will likely stay firmly Republican until there's a GOP President. It's all just pendulum politics.

No, gerrymandering is the issue in the house, not who is president.

 

[Averon]

Yeah, gerrymandering will ensure the GOP's hold on the House until at least 2020, when the new census is due and the states can redraw their districts. That's why I see the 2020 election as being so important (besides from being a presidential election, of course).

 

[Diablos]

Wow, Boehner is absolutely worthless. This is a crisis; fuck the Hastert rule.

Yeah, gerrymandering will ensure the GOP's hold on the House until at least 2020, when the new census is due and the states can redraw their districts. That's why I see the 2020 election as being so important (besides from being a presidential election, of course).

If Hillary wins, this means Congress will do fuck all until at least 2020, with shutdown battles always on the horizon. It's really disturbing if you think about it. It's a tactic employed by the GOP that reeks of desperation. It no doubt forces many voters to assume the only way we'll be able to get a less dysfunctional Congress is to have the person in the WH be of the same party as the House majority. This is terrible. The complete lack of action from Congress on just about everything is setting a really bad precedent.

 

[Chichikov]

By the way, a footnote to that clownshoe border funding bill -
An emergency Iron Dome funding was part of that bill, and obviously this gets quite a bit more play in Israel.
Now since it may look like the GOP blocked a pro-Israeli bill that the dems tried to pass, Netanyahu sent his army of paid commenters to defend the Republican party on every news outlet that published that story.
The results are quite hilarious.
Whoever write their talking points is not that versed in crafting them for American politics.

 

[jamesinclair]

So the dems fell like a deck of cards to the demands of the GOP again.

The nation’s highway and mass transit programs can breathe easy for another 10 months after Senate Democrats relented Thursday and cleared a GOP-crafted $11 billion extension they had overwhelmingly rejected two days ago.

But as happy as transportation interests will be to have something — anything — in place soon, the bill’s passage nevertheless represents a defeat for asphalt, trucking and other business groups that have long pushed for a hike in the gas tax and a five- or six-year transportation bill.

The Senate’s 81-13 vote sends the legislation to President Barack Obama for his signature mere hours before the Transportation Department said it would need to begin cutting payments to states and on the brink of a five-week congressional vacation. Failure to act would have put 700,000 jobs at risk, according to the administration.

Though the Senate’s actions may seem incongruous, in the end, it turned out exactly how most observers expected — with the Senate making a statement but, ultimately, acceding to the House’s version of a bill and ensuring money remains flowing to states for transportation projects.

But that wasn’t without some last-minute drama over what exactly the Senate would vote on. A rumor circulated Thursday afternoon that — because the House is likely to be in session on Friday — the Senate might again pass its shorter, $8 billion extension, forcing the House to either accept that bill or be blamed for the highway account running low on funds in the middle of the busy summer construction season.

The House had rejected the Senate’s version of the patch earlier Thursday and planned to leave town, forcing the Senate to accept its bill.

“I would doubt, just to be candid, that any brinkmanship is tried in this way,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Thursday when asked about the odds of the Senate jamming the House on the stopgap.

The bill cleared Thursday raises revenue from a controversial budget technique called pension smoothing as well as boosting customs fees; the money then gets funneled into the Highway Trust Fund, which can no longer maintain program funding at status quo levels on an 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax. This is the 10th short-term extension of the program in the past half-decade.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 79-18 in favor of the three-month extension. But a drafting error left the bill $2 billion short of funding, driving the final stake in the heart of its chances in the House, where success was already slim. Carper said he believed the “spirit” behind the earlier vote was still alive, and said he thought the Senate could pass a long-term bill in 2014.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...the-issue-until-may-109620.html#ixzz399A5Dcyy

 

[Lucky Forward]

I kinda want to join the ReaganBook, make a bunch of liberal opinions and see if they'll censor me.

ReaganBook: 'The Facebook For Patriots' Is Already Offline

ReaganBook, the conservative social networking site that recently pre-launched, has already been taken offline.

The website, which billed itself as "the Facebook for patriots," looks to be temporarily down while it works out security issues. ReaganBook left users with this message:

"Thank you to all those who participated in the pre-release of ReaganBook.com Your participation is helping us build a more secure site. Thank you! Please be patient while we make the necessary changes to keep the site free from obscenity, pornography, and those intent on the destruction of life, liberty, and the family. We will be opening the doors again soon with additional protections in place. As Reagan taught us, trust, but verify."

According to The Verge's Colin Lecher, who joined the social network while it was still up, the site's design was highly susceptible to trolls.

"[E]veryone seems to be either using real names, the names of famous conservatives, or the names of famous conservatives paired with sex acts. Some are earnest; some are parody," Lecher wrote.

According to The Verge, during the last few days that ReaganBook was online, Porter started apologizing for the "vile content" people were posting to the site.

C'mon guys, fun is fun, but stop trying to destroy life, liberty, and the family.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If only there was a mechanism with which the party leaders could "convince" its members to fall in line.

Hey, who remembers earmarks?

Earmarks aren't the problem. The problem is that Boehner refuses to rely on any democrat votes. There are 40-70 tea part members who can shit can anything he does and don't care about earmarks, yet Boehner doesn't do the obvious thing: get 40-70 democrats with some type of concession or compromise. That's how legislation used to work. Instead Boehner only goes that route at the last minute (see: nearly every budget or debt ceiling vote).

 

[Diablos]

Earmarks aren't the problem. The problem is that Boehner refuses to rely on any democrat votes. There are 40-70 tea part members who can shit can anything he does and don't care about earmarks, yet Boehner doesn't do the obvious thing: get 40-70 democrats with some type of concession or compromise. That's how legislation used to work. Instead Boehner only goes that route at the last minute (see: nearly every budget or debt ceiling vote).

...and this is a horrible, horrible precedent. We can't keep going like this. Case in point, I want Hillary to win but the future is not looking good, period. Boehner really needs to strong arm everyone else in the leadership with him and devise a plan to tell the TP caucus to sod off. He just won't do it unless the country is literally one step away from defaulting.

I just don't understand why they are still afraid of the Tea Party -- do they not remember the shutdown and how the donors/wall street/etc. reacted to that? Boehner has more leverage but he doesn't want to use it.

Part of me hopes even with gerrymandering taken into account, enough people will come to their senses and at least start to vote the Republicans out. But this is just wishful thinking, and the best we can hope for is the House changing hands by 2020-2024, maybe 2016 if a miracle happens and Hillary runs a campaign even more epic than Obama's (lol)...

edit: Was pretty bummed to see Kasich still ahead in OH. Then again he was wise enough to take the Medicaid funding.
I can't wait to vote out Corbett. UGH. It's like an itch that won't go away.

 

[jamesinclair]

A last-ditch effort to deliver aid to Israel during its war with Hamas died on the Senate floor, as Republicans blocked the proposal over concerns that it would increase the debt.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to split off the Israel and wildfire money as a standalone bill, hoping to put aside the dispute over border funding and appeal to Republicans’ deep ties to Israel.

“We’ve all watched as the tiny state of Israel, who is with us on everything, they have had in the last three weeks 3,000 rockets filed into their country,” Reid said. “Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asked for $225 million in emergency funding so that Israel’s arsenal as it relates to the Iron Dome could be replenished. It’s clear that is an emergency, and we should be able to agree on that.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/senate-blocks-israel-aid-109617.html#ixzz399KHn2dm

Goodbye Democrats, I hope you liked the last time I voted for you, because it was the last one.

 

[Diablos]

Congress -- left, right, and center -- cannot thrive without fulfilling its fetish to blindly defend Israel, it seems.

Abhorrent.

 

[Averon]

Boehner won't do the obvious thing because doing that will cost him the speakership. A neutered speakership that can't pass simple bills because he allows himself to be shackles by the TP crazies. It's as simple as that.

Boehner is the weakest speaker I've seen in. Has any other speaker showed such weak leadership as John Boehner?

 

[Diablos]

Bull fucking shit. He could really strongarm the non-TP Republicans and Dems would have enough sense to try and meet him halfway on some stuff. But he'd rather take the road of scorched earth policy/legislation (or none at all) because he's an inept coward.

 

[RustyNails]

Bull fucking shit. He could really strongarm the non-TP Republicans and Dems would have enough sense to try and meet him halfway on some stuff. But he'd rather take the road of scorched earth policy/legislation (or none at all) because he's an inept coward.

He cant strong arm the clown car. No one can.

 

[pigeon]

Bull fucking shit. He could really strongarm the non-TP Republicans and Dems would have enough sense to try and meet him halfway on some stuff. But he'd rather take the road of scorched earth policy/legislation (or none at all) because he's an inept coward.

Strongarming the non-Tea Party Republicans isn't necessary -- they would go along with the vote if they felt safe. But everybody's afraid of getting Cantor'd, now more then ever. So he'd need to get the Tea Party to commit to not campaigning against the reps who voted for the bill, and he can't do that.

Remember that several Tea Party members believe that any bill that could get Democratic votes is a bad bill.

Boehner won't do the obvious thing because doing that will cost him the speakership. A neutered speakership that can't pass simple bills because he allows himself to be shackles by the TP crazies. It's as simple as that.

Boehner is the weakest speaker I've seen in. Has any other speaker showed such weak leadership as John Boehner?

Well, not many speakers have presided over the final decline of a political coalition. The best comparison to Boehner's position here isn't another Speaker, it's Jimmy Carter, the last New Deal coalition President, who famously had a lousy relationship with a Congress controlled by his own party. The same basic pressures are operating here.

Boehner's situation is a little unique in that, if he actually got ousted, the Republican Party might not actually be able to put together 218 votes for any one person to become Speaker. That would really be the ultimate meltdown -- the GOP not even being able to pass its own leadership votes in the House.

So I kind of hope that happens!