Shut 'em Down!

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about this though that is in that article

When he says that, he means it won't pass on partisan lines. It could be passed bipartisanly, but that would probably kill Boehner's speakership, opening the gov't and raising the debt ceiling with full Democrat support and a minority of the Republicans. He is desperate for a lifeline but he is in the wrong profession for that.

When he says that, he means it won't pass on partisan lines. It could be passed bipartisanly, but that would probably kill Boehner's speakership, opening the gov't and raising the debt ceiling with full Democrat support and a minority of the Republicans. He is desperate for a lifeline but he is in the wrong profession for that.

It's debt ceiling ping-pong. Earlier today Senate majority leader Harry Reid said he would allow no strings to be attached to legislation to raise the debt limit. "We will act on a clean debt ceiling," he said.

Now a spokesman to speaker John Boehner says the House cannot pass a clean debt ceiling bill:

"House Speaker John Boehner has always said that the United States will not default on its debt. He also always says that there aren't votes in the House to pass a 'clean' debt limit bill. That's why we need a bill with cuts and reforms," said the unnamed spokesman, quoted by Reuters.

more *** waving.

Obamacare passed already. There is no reason to attach their terms to a CR. There is no reason to discuss anything when the starting point of the negotiation is fundamentally flawed.

Obamacare passed already. There is no reason to attach their terms to a CR. There is no reason to discuss anything when the starting point of the negotiation is fundamentally flawed.

Reports of shots fired near the US Capitol building. Reuters reports:

US Capitol police have reports of shots fired at 2nd St and Constitution Avenue NE, several injured.

Why are the democrats in the Senate unwilling to negotiate then? So far, their only terms are: Give us a clean budget bill, and we will think about talking to you about things you want. Would you feel confident in negotiating with somebody if that is their terms?

Obamacare passed already. There is no reason to attach their terms to a CR. There is no reason to discuss anything when the starting point of the negotiation is fundamentally flawed.

Obamacare passed already. There is no reason to attach their terms to a CR. There is no reason to discuss anything when the starting point of the negotiation is fundamentally flawed.

Nothing to see here, give us everything we want or I'll nudge the stock market into a tumble.
-Boehner

Right no need to discuss how Obama single handedly decided he wasn't gonna follow the employer mandate part of the law till after the midterms, provide over 2500 exemptions from the law to individuals and corporations, or provide congress their own special subsidy because the law was so poorly written.


Nothing to see here, give us everything we want or I'll nudge the stock market into a tumble.

Intense willful blindness.

Reports of shots fired near the US Capitol building. Reuters reports:

US Capitol police have reports of shots fired at 2nd St and Constitution Avenue NE, several injured.

Until the next "mass shooting".

It was Aelius
HOW DID HE KNOW

It was Aelius
HOW DID HE KNOW

He isn't entitled to make those changes. He is not above the laws passed by congress.


I'm taking bets on how long before the tea party is erroneously blamed.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering.

Nor is the one-year delay of the employer mandate an affront to the Constitution, as Professor Michael McConnell and Congressional Republicans insist. The relevant text requires that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Scholars on both left and right concur that this broadly-worded phrasing indicates that the President is to exercise judgment, and handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws, including, indeed, the Constitution. As McConnell himself notes, both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments have consistently opined that the clause authorizes a president even to decline enforcement of a statute altogether, if in good faith he determines it to be in violation of the Constitution. But, McConnell contends, a president cannot "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons." While surely correct, that contention is beside the point.

Well, I guess the denizens of P&R should never convene in one place IRL. He's always watching us!!!

So, are these reports about the shooter being a woman with a toddler in her car bogus?

Ugh! I think I'm done with news for today.

The US capitol police chief, Kim Dine, holds a news conference to describe what happened, confirming details of what was earlier reported. He said:

A vehicle in the vicinity of the White House apparently tried to pass a barricade.

Shots were potentially fired. [Officers] pursued the vehicle. The vehicle struck one of our vehicles... and ultimately ended up at 2nd and Maryland Avenue NE, where it crashed into one of our barricades.

We have no information that this is related to terrorism or is anything other than an isolated incident.

Dine says he believes that there was a child in the car. But he does not know the condition of the driver.

He confirms that an office was injured, but not by gunfire:

One of our officers was struck in his staff car. He appears to be conscious and breathing. As far as we know, no officer was shot.

I'm always up for forgiveness Jassik. But make no mistake, you are indeed blind.

A catastrophe or disaster which deconstructs the infrastructure of the program is really what this article is geared to, not:

'oh hey we've had 3 years, a limitless supply of money, and all the (overwhelming) talent of the US government to prepare this thing but its just not ready yet and the midterms are coming, so we'll push it out for a year'

The delay is an abuse of power and was only done for political gain. The rest of the bill wasn't ready either as news outlets are clearly reporting, how come we didn't delay them too?