Stupid Republican idea of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter acsenray
  • Start date Start date
kdeus said:
The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as "Cheney" and "Mrs. Clinton", to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he's gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's a possibly legitimate and commendable bill that's being torpedoed by its Republican sponsors' ham-tongued rhetorical trippery. Sounds par for the course.

It just amazes me that, rather than letting this work its way through Congress under its legitimate cover, Issa decided he was going to try to jump-start it by tossing his shoes at the most popular First Lady in more than 40 years. I'm more and more convinced that the Republicans are taking their cues from Michael Scott.
 
Squink said:
Passed by the RNC today:

PDF here

At the end there, where they're urging the President, the Congress and the Democratic Party to remember what made our country great, I think they're talking about 9/11, or maybe torturing people. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was pretty damn great because we are the World's only Super Power! YEAH!!!
Click to expand...
"What's was that huge booming sound Howard?"
"Why that's the Republican Party careening at super sonic speed into irrelevancy dear, that's all."
"Ohhhhhh. Okay. So we don't have to be ashamed to be Americans anymore?"
"That's right dear."
"Oh, thank God. I think people were beginning to see through the English accent I've been putting on for the last eight years."
"What English accent?"
 
Republican health care bill to increase coverage will not increase coverage. It [i]will[/i] shave 68 billion off of the deficit. As compared to the Democrat's plan, which is projected to shave 104 billion from the deficit.

You gotta give them credit. It is much better than their last proposal, The Road to Recovery, which was such an embarrassment it can no longer be found on their site. Luckily, my google-fu finally came through and you can no longer hide embarrassments since the internet remembers everything. See page 6 for the GOP plan for healthcare last March.
 
legalsnugs said:
Does the stupid idea have to come from a federal Republican? If not, here's my contribution.

"Hunger can be a positive motivator," says Missouri State Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, who chairs the State's House Special Standing Committee on Children and Families.

The mind wobbles. (/Kelly Bundy)
Click to expand...
Oh my god.

That's beyond hilariously awful and just...awful.
 
Oh man, I was thinking it was Arlington, VA, and worried that the stupid had got so far north. I'm relieved.
 
First they instituted a minimum wage, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't making 25 cents a day.

Then they instituted food stamps, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't hungry.

Then they instituted direct transfer payments for single mothers of young children, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a single mother of a young child.

Then they instituted unemployment insurance, and I didn't speak up, because I'm not unemployed.

Then they instituted social security for the elderly, and I didn't speak up, because I'm not old.

And then they instituted universal single-payer health insurance, and there was no one left to speak up for me.
 
I thought maybe the Republicans were trying to legislate the length of the sleeves on the First Lady's dresses.
 
Probably only because their target audience mostly thinks he's already presented his Kenyan birth certificate. Most likely while singing L'Internationale or something.
 
Kobal2 said:
It's not so stupid. He'll just outreach by SPEAAAAKING SLOOOWLY AND IN A LOUUUUD VOIIICE. And offer them glass beads, tinware and trinkets in exchange for votes.
Click to expand...

And constantly refer to Hispanics as "you people". I hear they REALLY like that.
 
Every day I think someday I will wake up and read about one of these numb-nuts heads actually exploding. They have so much rage built up, and restricting their homosexual practices to public restrooms can only make it worsse.
 
Even Ken Starr concluded that the Vince Foster conspiracy was a load. Foster killed himself. The end. No mystery. No "unanswered questions."

Starr was also unable to find single shred of dirt on the Clintons from any other aspect of the Whitewater Inquisition. He was about to throw in the towel on it when Blowjob-gate landed in his lap.
 
kdeus said:
What Rep. Issa is talking about is the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") (5 USC Appx 2). FACA applies to any committee that is (1) convened or controlled by the executive, (2) makes a consensus recommendation to the Agency head or President AND (3) includes at least one person who is NOT a officer or employee of the U.S.

If all three conditions apply, then FACA applies and the committee meetings must be open to the public (and the public must be given notice that they are occurring), the committee must include representatives from all interested groups, and certain recordkeeping requirements must be met. Basically, its a much bigger pain in the neck to be a FACA committee than not.

In 1993, this came up when Mrs. Clinton championed health care reform efforts. Her commission consisted entirely of federal officers & employees, except for her. The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found that the First Lady is, for purposes of FACA, a federal officer or employee.

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as "Cheney" and "Mrs. Clinton", to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he's gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.
Click to expand...

So there's already a law that covers this, or am I not understanding something.
 
Oh, so you only like Social Security as a prop for a story criticizing the government. Your friend couldn't get something that you would have denied her yourself had you been Emperor Of The Universe, so the government is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Gotcha.
 
In an abstract, theoretical way, I can see his point. I might even have supported it if it came up when First Lady Hillary was being tasked with developing major policy initiatives (Indeed, I've heard it argued that the reason Hillarycare failed was because it was developed behind closed doors, and that a more public process might have helped).

But bringing it up now, when Michelle Obama is engaged only in excactly the kinds of stuff that fall under the "historic role of the first lady" is just asinine.
 
Back
Top