I bet they could balance the budget by selling ringside seats to watch both sides clobber one another by savvy application of procedure.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Ok, this is a good start- now if they'd make the case for why this budget is bad, and not accept anything that even vaguely resembles it, then that'd be great.
Legislative tomfoolery makes me naturally uneasy but this seems rather meaningful. There's more than one budget bill being floated around by the majority party? And they basically just forced them to vote on it themselves by abstaining? Seems fair.
I'm rather interested in hearing the right's justification for this. What's the point in voting yes on something you don't actually want to pass, besides scoring points with extremists?
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Pretty much that.
Also I can't help but imagine at least one democrat is going "Problem Republicans?" and giving a troll face.
Normally I don't approve of legal shenanigans in voting, but this didn't hurt anyone/anything and is, for lack of a better word, hilarious.
It is nice to see what the Republicans really want out of the budget, for a change. Rather than rhetoric so extreme they wouldn't actually vote on it in a million years, spouted purely for political points.
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.Reminds me of the time there were tariff shenanigans and the President (Madison, maybe?) proposed a tariff so godawful that even his political opponents wouldn't vote for it, much like this. Difference is that they actually went for it that time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/house-democrats-republicans-budget_n_849715.html
Legislative tomfoolery at its finest.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?