|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 8, 2015 13:12:57 GMT -5
McCarthy withdrew. Who will it be?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,841
|
Post by Dub on Oct 8, 2015 13:14:24 GMT -5
I read that earlier. This is NOT a good sign.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2015 13:46:36 GMT -5
Did you realize that "House Speaker" sounds just like "How's Beaker?"
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Oct 8, 2015 14:13:25 GMT -5
I, therefore, nominate Beeker for House Speaker. House Speaker Beeker has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 8, 2015 14:52:01 GMT -5
If there was a guy named Beak Howser, then we could have House Speaker Beak Howser.
And that would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Oct 8, 2015 15:49:29 GMT -5
If he was less assertive than some others, he could be Meeker Speaker Beeker. And if his outlook was extremely grim, why of course he would be known as Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker. But we all know that he probably doesn't exist, which would not prevent the House from forming a committee to search for him. A member of that committee? None other than a Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker.
Am I done yet? Gosh, I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2015 15:49:42 GMT -5
B. Couser
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2015 15:50:59 GMT -5
If he was less assertive than some others, he could be Meeker Speaker Beeker. And if his outlook was extremely grim, why of course he would be known as Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker. But we all know that he probably doesn't exist, which would not prevent the House from forming a committee to search for him. A member of that committee? None other than a Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker. Am I done yet? Gosh, I hope so. I was on board with the first few possibilities but thought the last one weaker.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Oct 8, 2015 15:54:18 GMT -5
If he was less assertive than some others, he could be Meeker Speaker Beeker. And if his outlook was extremely grim, why of course he would be known as Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker. But we all know that he probably doesn't exist, which would not prevent the House from forming a committee to search for him. A member of that committee? None other than a Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker. Am I done yet? Gosh, I hope so. I was on board with the first few possibilities but thought the last one weaker. Yeah, the last one stunk... a real reeker.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 8, 2015 16:13:10 GMT -5
And if he were to run through the House chambers nekkid, he would be a Streaker Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2015 16:15:43 GMT -5
And if, though you really didn't want to, you watched with your hands over your eyes, but fingers slightly parted, you would be a Streaker Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker Peeker.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 8, 2015 16:22:29 GMT -5
And if, though you really didn't want to, you watched with your hands over your eyes, but fingers slightly parted, you would be a Streaker Bleaker Meeker Speaker Beeker Seeker Peeker. Maybe a cheeker peeker?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 8, 2015 16:38:27 GMT -5
And if one followed stealthily, he would be a Sneaker. And if he then made an anonymous call to the press, he would be a Leaker. (One wishes there were a verb for the ability to turn him into a biter-of-heads-off-chickens--or a stage-hillbilly--and even a half-assed way of working that into the chain. I leave those as an exercise for the student.)
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 8, 2015 17:02:41 GMT -5
And if the vote proved to be really really close. . . ?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2015 17:05:11 GMT -5
If you say "beeker" enough times in a row, the resulting sound is indistinguishable from saying "kirby" enough times in a row.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 8, 2015 17:43:02 GMT -5
I have nothing to add on the bleaker leaker deaker frontier.
McCarthy wasn't really a change so I figured he would be fighting the same battles against the will if the voters. I have no idea who the tea drinkers would accept with out the war. But if it's still one of the Democrats that claim to be Republicans then they will have the same problems with the tea drinkers. The Republican voters wanted a war with Obama in '14 and the leadership didn't deliver so I'm expecting vetoes, over riding veto votes etc. Likely to be a revolt in the Senate too.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Oct 8, 2015 18:45:28 GMT -5
You gotta hand it to those Republicans...they sure have their act together.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 8, 2015 19:00:25 GMT -5
What we're seeing is yet another playing-out of a systemic problem we have in Congress, a problem that is only going to continue getting worse unless it is addressed. It will be fixed only when the states stop gerrymandering their congressional districts in such a way as to produce fierce, take-no-prisoners, compromise-is-a-dirty-word partisans. These folks get elected on both sides of the aisle, but with the ability of an upstart, 30- to 40-member (and growing) ultra-conservative caucus to thwart the will of the majority of fellow House Republicans, it has been most noticeable within the GOP. Also, Congress needs to get rid of the fiscal Frankenstein monster of the Continuing Resolution and go back to funding the government the rational, old-fashioned way, through individual appropriations bills. And thirdly, it needs to repeal the debt-ceiling law, which green-lights the government to pay for stuff it authorizes by writing checks, but to dishonor those checks when presented for payment. This is a felony in most states.
This is eye-glazing, policy-wonk stuff. But if these things are not done, I (and others - I'm not the only student of the ways of Congress who thinks this) see a future of ever worsening chaos. Save this message and come back a year from now and see if I'm not right.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 8, 2015 19:01:36 GMT -5
Glad to see everyone treating it with all the seriousness it deserves. Did somebody already do "weaker?"
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 8, 2015 19:53:36 GMT -5
What we're seeing is yet another playing-out of a systemic problem we have in Congress, a problem that is only going to continue getting worse unless it is addressed. It will be fixed only when the states stop gerrymandering their congressional districts in such a way as to produce fierce, take-no-prisoners, compromise-is-a-dirty-word partisans. These folks get elected on both sides of the aisle, but with the ability of an upstart, 30- to 40-member (and growing) ultra-conservative caucus to thwart the will of the majority of fellow House Republicans, it has been most noticeable within the GOP. Also, Congress needs to get rid of the fiscal Frankenstein monster of the Continuing Resolution and go back to funding the government the rational, old-fashioned way, through individual appropriations bills. And thirdly, it needs to repeal the debt-ceiling law, which green-lights the government to pay for stuff it authorizes by writing checks, but to dishonor those checks when presented for payment. This is a felony in most states. This is eye-glazing, policy-wonk stuff. But if these things are not done, I (and others - I'm not the only student of the ways of Congress who thinks this) see a future of ever worsening chaos. Save this message and come back a year from now and see if I'm not right. I'm in favor of stop gerrymandering. But compromise is the art of surrender. Looks like the 40 are representing the vast majority of GOP voters who voted in mass to "fight Obama" at every step. And getting rid of Continuing Resolution is right every dollar spent should be voted on individually down to x dollars for the 1st Marine Division, x dollars for PP, x dollars for the Whitehouse chef etc. I don't think getting rid of the debt ceiling is a good idea but putting anyone in government who orders something and doesn't pay for it should be in jail. Staying under the debt ceiling is easy, just stop spending money on anything not listed in Article 1 section 8. Including not paying troops not stationed in the US unless congress declares war. A good place to start would be deleting the Whitehouse budget. Every president through Truman payed the Whitehouse expenses out of his pocket. Congresscritters should be paying their staff out of their pocket too.
|
|