Extra money to defend DOMA quietly approved by House GOP

[soulcougher73]

I'm not 100% versed in all the ways of our government. But does the House GOP have their own budget outside the federal one?

 

[werepossum]

I'm not 100% versed in all the ways of our government. But does the House GOP have their own budget outside the federal one?

So far the House has THE budget - the Senate hasn't deigned to pass one since the Dems took over and no Democrat has the gonads to introduce Obama's budget for a vote. And anyway the proggies are insisting that budgets are not needed.

I'd seriously doubt the House has the right to defend DOMA, and Obama won't. I don't like the idea of a President not defending laws, but since I also oppose DOMA I'm kinda meh about the whole thing. Best thing would be if SCOTUS shoots it down in its entirety. And hopefully the Pubbies eventually get past this idea that we defend an institution by denying it to others.

 

[zsdersw]

nehalem, Incorruptible... if all you can do is try to turn the issue into a criticism of Democrats and/or liberals, go troll elsewhere.

It's neither surprising nor newsworthy when the party/ideology that loves spending taxpayer money wants to spend more. It is surprising (kinda) and newsworthy when the party/ideology that claims to abhor spending taxpayer money decides to waste it defending a law that should never have existed and that is growing more and more unpopular.

If you can't criticize Republicans for spending money on this and, then, increasing spending on it but only want to talk about Democrats and their spending you're a partisan hack and an idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

So far the House has THE budget - the Senate hasn't deigned to pass one since the Dems took over and no Democrat has the gonads to introduce Obama's budget for a vote. And anyway the proggies are insisting that budgets are not needed.

I'd seriously doubt the House has the right to defend DOMA, and Obama won't. I don't like the idea of a President not defending laws, but since I also oppose DOMA I'm kinda meh about the whole thing. Best thing would be if SCOTUS shoots it down in its entirety. And hopefully the Pubbies eventually get past this idea that we defend an institution by denying it to others.

What do you mean 'insisting' that budgets aren't needed? There's no 'insisting', there is simply fact based reality. Money to fund the functions of government doesn't come from budgets, it comes from appropriations bill.

Anyways, he's clearly talking about the House having its own money to spend, not having passed a budget blueprint. Funny thing is that passing a budget would in no way give the House money to spend in this way, for that they would have to pass an appropriations bill, which of course is what both they and the Senate do every year anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

I seriously doubt that HOR Repubs have the Constitutional authority to direct funding in this way w/o concurrence of both the Senate and the President.

The SCOTUS is asking about that, too-


Here's hoping that the law firm gets stiffed for any amount above the original limit, or all of it, for that matter.

I don't, as a matter of good governance. To not defend laws in court gives the executive a retroactive veto, which is not a good idea. If the president won't defend a law, someone in the government should be able to. Not only that, but history is on our side. Lets not win by default, let's go for a total victory.

 

[nehalem256]

nehalem, Incorruptible... if all you can do is try to turn the issue into a criticism of Democrats and/or liberals, go troll elsewhere.

It's neither surprising nor newsworthy when the party/ideology that loves spending taxpayer money wants to spend more. It is surprising (kinda) and newsworthy when the party/ideology that claims to abhor spending taxpayer money decides to waste it defending a law that should never have existed and that is growing more and more unpopular.

If you can't criticize Republicans for spending money on this and, then, increasing spending on it but only want to talk about Democrats and their spending you're a partisan hack and an idiot.

I don't recall criticizing Democratic spending in this thread. You want to complain about Republican hypocrisy on DOMA and I am showing that Democratic hypocrisy on DOMA is even greater.

Don't get your panties in a knot just because your anti-Republican circle-jerk thread got interrupted by reality.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't recall criticizing Democratic spending in this thread. You want to complain about Republican hypocrisy on DOMA and I am showing that Democratic hypocrisy on DOMA is even greater.

Sure you did, and you took the thread off-topic: "Too bad the Democrats didn't apply that standard to Obamacare."

Don't get your panties in a knot just because your anti-Republican circle-jerk thread got interrupted by reality.

You didn't interrupt my thread, sorry. If you want to talk about Democratic hypocrisy on DOMA, feel free to start your own thread about it.

Until then, I'm going to call a spade a spade and assert your idiocy.

 

[nehalem256]

Sure you did, and you took the thread off-topic: "Too bad the Democrats didn't apply that standard to Obamacare."

So in other words yet another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Defending laws that can be construed as unconstitutional that liberals support good. Defending laws that that can be construed as unconstitutional that conservatives support bad.

You didn't interrupt my thread, sorry. If you want to talk about Democratic hypocrisy on DOMA, feel free to start your own thread about it.

So basically you are conceding that your panties are in a knot, because your little circlejerk got interrupted.

Until then, I'm going to call a spade a spade and assert your idiocy.

I am not the one that supports lawsuits against DOMA and then starts a thread complaining about money being spent to defend that law.

 

[nehalem256]

Actually it sounds like the real problem here is that Barack Obama is refusing to do his job and defend the law.

Imagine if some Republican was president and some right-wing group sued claiming that SS was unconstitutional, or Medicare, or funding Planned Parenthood, or basically any thing the government does and that Republican President then decided not to defend it....

Sounds like that would essentially give the President a unilateral retroactive veto.

 

[zsdersw]

So in other words yet another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Defending laws that can be construed as unconstitutional that liberals support good. Defending laws that that can be construed as unconstitutional that conservatives support bad.

Never said I supported Obamacare or that I oppose the lawsuits against it.

So basically you are conceding that your panties are in a knot, because your little circlejerk got interrupted.

Only in your warped fantasy world.

I am not the one that supports lawsuits against DOMA and then starts a thread complaining about money being spent to defend that law.

Neither am I.

You assume too much. And we all know what assumptions are: the mothers of all fuck-ups.

 

[zsdersw]

Simple question, nehalem: Do you consider it hypocritical for supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans to spend increasing amounts of money on defending a law that should never have existed and is becoming more and more unpopular?

Don't answer the question with a comment about Democrats, simply state whether or not you think the Republicans are being hypocritical in their claim to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars when they spend money defending DOMA.

 

[nehalem256]

Neither am I.

You assume too much. And we all know what assumptions are: the mothers of all fuck-ups.

(1) Going by your avatar, signature, and previous threads I am going to assume you oppose DOMA

(2) You clearly started a thread complaining about spending money defending the law.

 

[nehalem256]

Simple question, nehalem: Do you consider it hypocritical for supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans to spend increasing amounts of money on defending a law that should never have existed and is becoming more and more unpopular?

Don't answer the question with a comment about Democrats, simply state whether or not you think the Republicans are being hypocritical in their claim to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars when they spend money defending DOMA.

Spending a minimal amount of money defending an institution that is integral to society is being a good steward of taxpayer money.

I as well as the majority of the Republican party will disagree with you about saying the law "should never have existed".

Whether a law is becoming more unpopular is stupid reason for whether to defend it or not. Clearly it is popular enough that Congress will not repeal the law.

 

[zsdersw]

(1) Going by your avatar, signature, and previous threads I am going to assume you oppose DOMA

I do, but I don't support using lawsuits to repeal it.

(2) You clearly started a thread complaining about spending money defending the law.

Yes, yet you failed in (1) so your entire house of cards just fell down.

 

[zsdersw]

Spending a minimal amount of money defending an institution that is integral to society is being a good steward of taxpayer money.

I as well as the majority of the Republican party will disagree with you about saying the law "should never have existed".

Then you're nothing but a partisan hack who, along with the rest of the GOP who believes as you do, will end up on the wrong and losing side of the issue. Even Newt Gingrich sees the light: http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...gingrich-accepts-marriage-equality-inevitable

I don't expect you to change your opinion, but I enjoy the fact that you will not be able to get anywhere with it much longer.

Whether a law is becoming more unpopular is stupid reason for whether to defend it or not. Clearly it is popular enough that Congress will not repeal the law.

That is not at all clear. Lots of things are popular and lots of things are unpopular yet they are never brought to a vote in Congress, for a variety of reasons.. none of which give any indication of what public opinion is on the issue.

 

[nehalem256]

Then you're nothing but a partisan hack who, along with the rest of the GOP who believes as you do, will end up on the wrong and losing side of the issue. Even Newt Gingrich sees the light: http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...gingrich-accepts-marriage-equality-inevitable

Newt Gingrich is on his 3rd wife, and asked one of his previous wives for an open-"marriage".

Why would I care what he thinks on marriage?

You are at least half wrong on the bolded. I am on the right side. And I guess unlike you I don't pick a side on issues based on it winning. It is called having principles.

 

[zsdersw]

Newt Gingrich is on his 3rd wife, and asked one of his previous wives for an open-"marriage".

Why would I care what he thinks on marriage?

I'm not suggesting that you care, only pointing out that your supposedly strong majority of the GOP who opposes gay marriage is not so strong of a majority anymore. Newt is far from alone in the party for his views on this.

You are at least half wrong on the bolded. I am on the right side. And I guess unlike you I don't pick a side on issues based on it winning. It is called having principles.

No, you're on the wrong side.. and I will never hesitate to point out your wrongness whenever you share your wrong beliefs. Another way in which you're wrong is in your assumptions (you seem to be very bad at assuming things); I couldn't care less whether I'm "winning" or not. I've long been an advocate for gay marriage on principle... and one of those principles is that if the federal government is to be in the business of recognizing beneficial relationships it must do so for more than just heterosexuals because heterosexuals are not the only people whose relationships are significantly beneficial.

 

[werepossum]

What do you mean 'insisting' that budgets aren't needed? There's no 'insisting', there is simply fact based reality. Money to fund the functions of government doesn't come from budgets, it comes from appropriations bill.

Anyways, he's clearly talking about the House having its own money to spend, not having passed a budget blueprint. Funny thing is that passing a budget would in no way give the House money to spend in this way, for that they would have to pass an appropriations bill, which of course is what both they and the Senate do every year anyway.

Okay . . .

Proggies have found yet another "fact based reality" that no one discovered during the nation's first 2-1/4 centuries.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay . . .

Proggies have found yet another "fact based reality" that no one discovered during the nation's first 2-1/4 centuries.

Uhmmm, you don't know what you're talking about.

The government has not ever been funded through a broad budget outline that i am aware of, if it ever has it has been a very long time, longer than either of us has been alive.

There's really no arguing this. The government's operations, Congress included, are financed through appropriations bills, not budgets. Apparently progressives are the only people who took civics 101. (maybe 102)