Certain members of the GOP are now worried that Obamacare funds might be spent on Viagra for baby rapers. This is like... like... like something that strains my store of metaphors relating to a complete lack of a sense of proportion, that's what it's like.
Only a Republican senator could be thinking about boners at a time like this.
Ummm, no, certain members of the GOP were attempting to stop the "fixes" to Obamacare by gumming up the works.
ReplyDeleteShootin' Buddy
That's not very funny.
ReplyDeleteCoburn is one of the good guys.
ReplyDelete"he's makes a mockery of this Senate" Wow, way too late on this one.
Tam, you're missing the point.
ReplyDeleteReps propose amendments. If Dems adopt them, then the Senate bill differs from the House bill, and the revised version has to pass both houses, all over again...and Scott Brown stops that from happening.
If Dems vote agains the amendments, then Repubs have a cudgel to use against them in the elections.
What TJIC said, plus: In part, intent was to put the majority party on record as opposing all manner of things that would be fun to put in ads in November. Other amendments included protecting veterans, children, cancer patients and others from the medical device tax, requiring the president and congress to enroll in this glorious plan, removing sweetheart deals, etc.
ReplyDeleteRight. This was a procedural & political step, not some wild hair about hormone deficient kiddy porn lovers. A substantive policy change means the whole bill gets whacked. So now the Dems either vote for the amendment -- screwing up the health care bill altogether -- or they go on record voting for federal funding of viagra to sex offenders.
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, now the GOP has footage of the Democrats voting in favor of giving federal tax money to baby rapers for viagra.
ReplyDeleteThere was no way to meaningfully impede the bill, so they have to play for November.
This has a level of subversiveness that gets the pdb stamp of approval.
What the other said -- it's the procedural equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" The amendment itself is a MacGuffin -- it could've said "Be it known that puppies are cute and awesome" and had the same effect. The idea is to have the Dems on record as voting against a positive for the sake of their sacred cow. They're cutting their own switch, as it were.
ReplyDeleteLike I said elsewhere, the Grand Old Party itself may not be worth much these days, but there are many Republicans in Congress who do, in fact, register pretty high on the ol' Clue Meter (shameless plug) and are doing everything they can to make a mockery of this... travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
ReplyDeleteFor once, I think they have adopted the principle, "Any chair in a bar fight."
ReplyDeleteSee what holding someone's feet to the fire can accomplish?
The Dems voted AGAINST the "puppies are cute and awesome" amendment? Those unfeeling monsters!!! I had no idea they'd sunk so low.
ReplyDeleteMy mom loves puppies. She's a lifelong Democrat. But she'll never vote for one of them again, now!
Actually, the British NHS system has paid for Viagra for several baby rapers. And despite occasional public revulsion, continues to do so.
ReplyDeleteIf they do it in Lunnon - why not Yaptown on the Potomac?
Stranger
NJT: umm, what? She'd vote against the Dems, or puppies?
ReplyDeleteFinally the stupid party is figuring out how to use the evil party's tactics...
ReplyDeleteIt's called preparing the battlespace. Imagine the ads this fall when any opponent can say that democrat X voted for your tax dollars to pay so that baby rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, etc can get viagra?
ReplyDeleteQuoth the Tam: "Only a Republican senator could be thinking about boners at a time like this"
ReplyDeleteActually, with the screwing we've been getting from Congress recently, I am surprised more people aren't thinking about them.
From my cold, dead hand...
ReplyDeleteØbama pulls so many of them, I can't imagine that boners isn't all he thinks about.
ReplyDeleteCome on Tam, you're smarter then that. It's all about working the system at this point. Kind of our last shot, as I doubt USSC will take up this case.
ReplyDeleteActually, let me float this: Coburn adds a public option. Would the Evil Party jump at the bait and end up on the hook?
Oh. "Boners."
ReplyDeleteI thought she said "Boehners."
(I really need to start paying attention.)
This isn't a random topic. Some prison inmates have won court decisions, requiring states to supply viagra to inmates. Also to parollees, halfway houses, etc.
ReplyDeleteAll the other rationales about why this kind of amendment was proposed are true, and likely why this is here now instead of in four years when they start doling out the prescriptions.
Actually, I am a bit surprised that they haven't thrown in the no-fly list as a reason to bar medical services. No one has mentioned that you have to be a labor union member to see a doctor, either, but that might not be in the bill. Yet.
If you trust they wackos in Washington, DC, to write a bill, don't believe for a moment you can trust the next Congress, or the one after that, not to abuse the thing. As for trusting this one - recall the campaign promise to never leave a crisis without exploiting it.
Jesus wept, people, it was a joke.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually really glad that a GOP senator took a wide stance on the issue...
I know it was a joke, so was "From my cold, dead hand".
ReplyDeleteBut it's given me an awesome idea for a potential 28th Amendment.
"... people, it was a joke."
ReplyDeleteOh. Uh, and welcome to my world - you probably do not have this problem too often, with me it seems, alas, endemic.
How 'bout an atta boy for LeMieux showing that they think they deserve better than the same Medicare they push on granny?
ReplyDeleteThis is like... like... like something that strains my store of metaphors relating to a complete lack of a sense of proportion, that's what it's like.
ReplyDeleteWow, I never thought I'd see the day!
tweaker
Kinda like others have said, it's a political gambit not social conservative madness.
ReplyDeleteIf Democrats kill the amendment, then Republicans get a thirty-second ad they can run in November that starts, "Why does Harry Reid want child molsters to get Viagra?"
If Democrats don't kill the amendment, then the mess has to go back to the House for another vote, gumming up the works.
OK, it was a HARD decision to make. But occasions like this CUM in BURSTS and SPURTS. But Republicans are taking the dimorats to the WOOD shed over this one. OK, please see the Austin Powers movies for the rest of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteFrom my cold, dead gland!
ReplyDeleteJesus wept, people, it was a joke.
ReplyDeleteI feel better knowing that I was not the only one not to notice...
Sarcasm in print can be difficult to fathom.
ReplyDeleteSwift laid it on thick for a reason. I won't attempt it without deliberately marking it as such.