Well played, GOP
16/12/12 19:50![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsGOP Authorized Half A Million Dollars In Secret to Defend DOMA, While Publicly Opposing Spending
"The updated contract now authorizes Bancroft LLC and Republican Paul Clement, former solicitor general, to spend up to $2 million in defense of DOMA, double the original agreement."
Whoah. Turns out the Repubs were "secretly"* spending extra money for DOMA, passing a little provision in a bill that would let them spend $ 2M on a law that was pretty controversial.
Remind me to remind you the next time a Republican tries to portray themselves as a staunch fiscal conservative and a paragon of prudence, to laugh in their face and recall how they threw money into keeping gays from getting married on a federal level, all the while claiming this should be an issue to be decided by the states themselves.
In a rough calculation, turns out those $ 2M could've been used for, say, providing 1500+moochers people in need with the max amount of food stamps - but no, preventing gays from marrying each other is far more important than anything like that. Even more important than the holy, Jesus-like act of cutting government spending in a meaningful way; or Founders-like act of keeping government out of people's life - which, if memory serves, is what Republicans actually claim to be all about, right?
* (Apparently, the "secret" part here being more like there was a poorly written section in the article. In fact there was no bill passed, just an addendum to an already existing contract).
Ps. I'm trying to picture Boehner standing before a silly chart, explaining how this budget-cutting stuff is done, and not turning red in the face. Well of course, technically that wouldn't be so hard, with all that bronze paint on his face, but still.
As for wasting money, well, I'm aware this is hardly the monopoly of a single party. Billions are being spent on useless stuff, regardless of which "side" happens to advocate that. The issue here is more with the inconsistency of stated principle, especially when juxtaposed with the blatant pursuit of a partisan agenda, coupled with some fierce exercise of Jedi-mind-trickery.
"The updated contract now authorizes Bancroft LLC and Republican Paul Clement, former solicitor general, to spend up to $2 million in defense of DOMA, double the original agreement."
Whoah. Turns out the Repubs were "secretly"* spending extra money for DOMA, passing a little provision in a bill that would let them spend $ 2M on a law that was pretty controversial.
Remind me to remind you the next time a Republican tries to portray themselves as a staunch fiscal conservative and a paragon of prudence, to laugh in their face and recall how they threw money into keeping gays from getting married on a federal level, all the while claiming this should be an issue to be decided by the states themselves.
In a rough calculation, turns out those $ 2M could've been used for, say, providing 1500+
* (Apparently, the "secret" part here being more like there was a poorly written section in the article. In fact there was no bill passed, just an addendum to an already existing contract).
Ps. I'm trying to picture Boehner standing before a silly chart, explaining how this budget-cutting stuff is done, and not turning red in the face. Well of course, technically that wouldn't be so hard, with all that bronze paint on his face, but still.
As for wasting money, well, I'm aware this is hardly the monopoly of a single party. Billions are being spent on useless stuff, regardless of which "side" happens to advocate that. The issue here is more with the inconsistency of stated principle, especially when juxtaposed with the blatant pursuit of a partisan agenda, coupled with some fierce exercise of Jedi-mind-trickery.
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 18:44 (UTC)or, for the zero people:
2 million = 2,000,000
1 billion = 1,000,000,000
1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 19:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 19:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 19:21 (UTC)I couldn't say how many m&m's is too much to eat for a person on a diet, but eating 1 or 2 isn't going to matter.
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 20:43 (UTC)Every single person's story matters. People are not M&Ms. And this sort of legislation directly affects people's lives.
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 21:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 21:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 16:24 (UTC)Surprisingly enough I'm not being smart-a**. your statement is not the issue. The issue is about adding a select group to the definition of marriage; which is why I'm in favor of civil unions.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 17:14 (UTC)Quite right. :)
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 17:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 17:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 21:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 22:51 (UTC)bullshit.
(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 23:43 (UTC)That's news to me. Thanks for letting me know.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 00:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 19:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 20:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 21:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 22:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 01:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 07:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 09:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 01:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 07:34 (UTC)the phrase is an exclamation of surprise, reg[r]et, dissapointment, happiness, and many other emotions
Take your pick.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 11:25 (UTC)OH SNAP 1292 up, 367 down
(exclamatory phrase) a playful indication of surprise, misfortune, or insult
popularized by Tracy Morgan of Saturday Night Live, OH SNAP is seemingly derivative of oh no you didn't where an insulted person, for example a guest of Jerry Springer or often a spunky African American woman contends the insult being made against him/her. While derivative of "oh no you di-int," OH SNAP has more of an emphasis on playfulness and can be said by people other than those being insulted.
see also: OH ZIP
Ted: Man, where you been all afternoon?
Darrin: I had to stop off at your mom's place for a nooner that last a bit longer than expected.
Ben: OH SNAP!
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 11:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/12/12 22:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 20:32 (UTC)If they aren't serious about the war on minorities and women, can you really expect them to be serious about fiscal responcibility?
Goddamnit GOP what DO you stand for?
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 21:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 21:40 (UTC)That was suposed to read "just appointed" not "appointed just"
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 21:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 22:07 (UTC)Such is life.
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/12 22:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 11:27 (UTC)