soulcougher73
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 15,608
- 4,059
- 136
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'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.
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.
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.
Sure you did, and you took the thread off-topic: "Too bad the Democrats didn't apply that standard to Obamacare."
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.
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.
So basically you are conceding that your panties are in a knot, because your little circlejerk got interrupted.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
Okay . . .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.