Thanks goodness.

Maybe we'll get some proper leadership in the House

good riddance

He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership

Exactly what has this clown accomplished except block what the people voted congress to do in 2014.

Obama must be bummed out.

Isn't down for another shutdown, particularly over a social issue. Can't blame him.

I think it is sad that he is leaving, he stood his ground, and would not compromise on his values or beliefs, even if it meant being at odds with the POTUS. Many would not stand up to the POTUS, but Boehner did. We can see what happens to anyone who disagrees with the administration, such as Dennis Kicinich and others, we've seen Congressmen railroaded when the govt. launches it's campaigns against them. I don't think Boehner would go along with the New World Order agenda. Interestingly enough, though Hillary's representative was at the Bilderberg conference, someone recently said that Jeb Bush was the one they secretly voted to move into the White House once Obama's term has finished.

All the predictions about the economy etc. will occur. 2015 is a year of transition, 2016 is when the financial crap hits the fan. When you hear talk about sustainable communities, resource based economy it means after the financial crash happens, people will have to develop and learn to live in communities that are self sufficient, because Big Govt. will not be able to funding them. The hope-change people say it will be allright, but others know a revolution just like 1776 will probably happen, and I think that is what the Jade Helm exercises were all about, to get ready for when that time comes.

[POTUS is President of the United States]

[Edited on 9/25/2015 by gina]

Isn't down for another shutdown, particularly over a social issue. Can't blame him.

It is more than just a social issue of abortion rights versus right to life. Planned Parenthood was selling fetal body parts, and I think that is a crime, although they might argue whatever comes out of an abortion is garbage and they can do what they want with the garbage.

It is not the same as stealing {they call it harvesting} body parts from a newly dead person and selling them on the black market to people who need new kidneys etc. Nevertheless it is still morally offensive and should not be backed with taxpayer dollars. If those parts go across state lines, seems to me it is a federal crime trafficking in body parts but I don't know the legality of it.

Why would Obama add funding Planned Parenthood (without restricting the funds so that they could not be used for abortions but only be used for counseling and providing contraception or std testing) to the bill to stop the govt. shutdown? Isn't it two separate issues?

This is what goes on in Washington, when one or more people cannot get their way on legislation, they force it on the Congress. Boehner will NOT compromise on his conscience or religion, he's done, he's had enough. He deserves applause for refusing to serve an administration that has legislated laws that God forbid to all the religions. God would not be in favor or abortion and selling body parts of unborn babies. WHY is POTUS pushing that legislation?

[Edited on 9/25/2015 by gina]

I think it is sad that he is leaving, he stood his ground, and would not compromise on his values or beliefs, even if it meant being at odds with the POTUS. Many would not stand up to the POTUS, but Boehner did

Actually he did not. and that is the point , it is like the election had no consequences and there has not been an opposition party. How many times has Obama had to veto anything?

He caves on everything. The republicans won both houses for a reason and they have done nothing. He has blocked everything. It is time for someone with true conservative principles to take over the speaker's position. He represents the establishment not the people
That is obvious. Now it is time to get Mitch McConnell out

I think it is sad that he is leaving, he stood his ground, and would not compromise on his values or beliefs, even if it meant being at odds with the POTUS. Many would not stand up to the POTUS, but Boehner did

Actually he did not. and that is the point , it is like the election had no consequences and there has not been an opposition party. How many times has Obama had to veto anything?

He caves on everything. The republicans won both houses for a reason and they have done nothing. He has blocked everything. It is time for someone with true conservative principles to take over the speaker's position. He represents the establishment not the people
That is obvious. Now it is time to get Mitch McConnell out

Yes whether you agree with the GOP positions or not it's shocking how few bills the GOP has been able to pass in order to force Obama vetoes. It's almost unheard of. Elections have consequences.

someone recently said that Jeb Bush was the one they secretly voted to move into the White House once Obama's term has finished.

Been saying for 3 years (and placed a couple wagers :)) jebediah is the next "leader" in.
Sure hope I loose, but doubt that will happen. We shall see come payday...

I really don't think Bush is going to be the nominee , I do not see any enthusiasm for him. He does have the establishment but I really feel there is a grass root thing going on. People are really sick of what is going on in this country. I hope you didn't wager too much.

I really don't think Bush is going to be the nominee , I do not see any enthusiasm for him. He does have the establishment but I really feel there is a grass root thing going on. People are really sick of what is going on in this country. I hope you didn't wager too much.

One wager is with someone picking the rich crazy guy that goes for whichever party suits him best , and the other for the guy from the sweet maple syrup state of freedom and unity.
I would GLADLY loose for the latter!

Jeb! is going nowhere. THe political climate has shifted and he looked shell shocked on stage in the last debate and people are openly saying to his face that invading Iraq was the dumbest decision in politics.

Bringing Jeb! back is also bringing back Rove, Wolfowitz, CHeney and all the neocons back out of the shadows. THe public knows this and has already said Jeb!- Hell No!

Bringing Jeb! back is also bringing back Rove, Wolfowitz, CHeney and all the neocons back out of the shadows. THe public knows this and has already said Jeb!- Hell No!

I hope you are correct OG. I don't think this country can survive another round of those guys from the Nixon White House.

Why would Obama add funding Planned Parenthood (without restricting the funds so that they could not be used for abortions but only be used for counseling and providing contraception or std testing) to the bill to stop the govt. shutdown? Isn't it two separate issues?

Where did you read that Obama added funding Planned Parenthood to a Congressional bill? I'd really like to see that source.

Thanks goodness.

Maybe we'll get some proper leadership in the House

Which means exactly what? Do you advocate for more gridlock, and the GOP moving further to the right and being labeled beyond the "the party of no"? Maybe a Tea Party member would satisfy you as speaker? If McCarthy succeeds JB, we'll be right back here in 6 months.

Good for JB for stepping down. It's not as if he doesn't know that there probably is no one in his caucus that can satisfy the dysfunctional factions within his party. I'm looking forward to reading any book he may write and seeing if speaks the truth about members of his caucus.

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

Thanks goodness.

Maybe we'll get some proper leadership in the House

Which means exactly what? Do you advocate for more gridlock, and the GOP moving further to the right and being labeled beyond the "the party of no"? Maybe a Tea Party member would satisfy you as speaker? If McCarthy succeeds JB, we'll be right back here in 6 months.

Good for JB for stepping down. It's not as if he doesn't know that there probably is no one in his caucus that can satisfy the dysfunctional factions within his party. I'm looking forward to reading any book he may write and seeing if speaks the truth about members of his caucus.

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

I'm betting you yearn for all sorts of compromise in gov't. Let's return to the golden days of compromise, so on and so forth.

Ok, let's bring back those days. When would you say those days were - 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's?

When we bring them back, lets not forget to bring along all that were part and parcel of those decades. I'm sure you remember times when globalization hadn't destroyed the American manufacturing base, when we had immigration laws that we actually enforced, when we didn't have almost $20 trillion in debt, when we didn't have an artificially propped up stock market based on Fed money printing and/or zero interest rates, when we would still have a positive balance of trade month-to-month, when the American attitude was to work hard and success was the responsibility of the individual, when we didn't have almost 1/6th of the country on food stamps with no end in sight, when home ownership wasn't in decline, and when the percentage of our fellow citizens in the workforce wasn't also in decline. I also remember when both parties knew they could only go so far in terms of spending, debt, social programs, and a social agenda because the majority of Americans still understood that liberty and the continued existence of the republic was theirs to guard.

Remember those days? Me too.

The point is that compromise is easy when you're not facing stiff challenges, created by our own mismanagement, that threaten the future of all. Why is gridlock never blamed on those who refuse to accept any limits whatsoever? It's always the fault of those who want see some reasonable level of behavior maintained.

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

John Boehner McTell

[Edited on 9/26/2015 by LeglizHemp]

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions ...... the defunding has nothing to do with money for abortions... the defunding is for the money used for all other Planned Parenthood services - like birth control, mammograms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments and other health related services.

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions ...... the defunding has nothing to do with money for abortions... the defunding is for the money used for all other Planned Parenthood services - like birth control, mammograms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments and other health related services.

So what would be wrong with sending the $525 Billion to other providers of these services who don't perform abortions or sell baby body parts, which has been proposed? This way, we know for sure that no public funds are being used for abortions, right? Seems like a no-brainer.

The spending deals Boehner made added about $4 Trillion to the National Debt.

Thanks, Johnny.

But who is next, who steps into his place? Right now that position looks like a difficult one because of the different factions of the republican party. I am not aware of anyone on the scene who seems capable of uniting the party enough to actually get something done, or even provide meaningful opposition, especially in light of the current campaign picture. Any thoughts?

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions ...... the defunding has nothing to do with money for abortions... the defunding is for the money used for all other Planned Parenthood services - like birth control, mammograms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments and other health related services.

So what would be wrong with sending the $525 Billion to other providers of these services who don't perform abortions or sell baby body parts, which has been proposed? This way, we know for sure that no public funds are being used for abortions, right? Seems like a no-brainer.

Did you not understand Sang's post?

The "baby parts" you refer to are used for medical research that may lead to medical advances to benefit society as a whole. You never know, Alloak - these advances might save your life one day or that of a loved one. Do you have a problem with that?

Look...this is all about the far right's inability to accept a SC decision from many years ago. This and any and all efforts to close abortion centers is the goal of the rigid right. Any angle that achieves this is the mission.

How about these people that want to inflict their self righteous and quasi moral & religious values on others try another approach. Let them line up and F'ING GO ADOPT if they are so intent on eliminating a woman's right to choose. How many children are living in foster homes? Eliminate abortion, and how many more children will end up there. Who will pay for that, Alloak?

Thanks goodness.

Maybe we'll get some proper leadership in the House

Which means exactly what? Do you advocate for more gridlock, and the GOP moving further to the right and being labeled beyond the "the party of no"? Maybe a Tea Party member would satisfy you as speaker? If McCarthy succeeds JB, we'll be right back here in 6 months.

Good for JB for stepping down. It's not as if he doesn't know that there probably is no one in his caucus that can satisfy the dysfunctional factions within his party. I'm looking forward to reading any book he may write and seeing if speaks the truth about members of his caucus.

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

I'm betting you yearn for all sorts of compromise in gov't. Let's return to the golden days of compromise, so on and so forth.

Ok, let's bring back those days. When would you say those days were - 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's?

When we bring them back, lets not forget to bring along all that were part and parcel of those decades. I'm sure you remember times when globalization hadn't destroyed the American manufacturing base, when we had immigration laws that we actually enforced, when we didn't have almost $20 trillion in debt, when we didn't have an artificially propped up stock market based on Fed money printing and/or zero interest rates, when we would still have a positive balance of trade month-to-month, when the American attitude was to work hard and success was the responsibility of the individual, when we didn't have almost 1/6th of the country on food stamps with no end in sight, when home ownership wasn't in decline, and when the percentage of our fellow citizens in the workforce wasn't also in decline. I also remember when both parties knew they could only go so far in terms of spending, debt, social programs, and a social agenda because the majority of Americans still understood that liberty and the continued existence of the republic was theirs to guard.

Remember those days? Me too.

The point is that compromise is easy when you're not facing stiff challenges, created by our own mismanagement, that threaten the future of all. Why is gridlock never blamed on those who refuse to accept any limits whatsoever? It's always the fault of those who want see some reasonable level of behavior maintained.

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

From my first post & questions for you, I'll repeat the below:

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions ...... the defunding has nothing to do with money for abortions... the defunding is for the money used for all other Planned Parenthood services - like birth control, mammograms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments and other health related services.

So what would be wrong with sending the $525 Billion to other providers of these services who don't perform abortions or sell baby body parts, which has been proposed? This way, we know for sure that no public funds are being used for abortions, right? Seems like a no-brainer.

Did you not understand Sang's post?

The "baby parts" you refer to are used for medical research that may lead to medical advances to benefit society as a whole. You never know, Alloak - these advances might save your life one day or that of a loved one. Do you have a problem with that?

Look...this is all about the far right's inability to accept a SC decision from many years ago. This and any and all efforts to close abortion centers is the goal of the rigid right. Any angle that achieves this is the mission.

How about these people that want to inflict their self righteous and quasi moral & religious values on others try another approach. Let them line up and F'ING GO ADOPT if they are so intent on eliminating a woman's right to choose. How many children are living in foster homes? Eliminate abortion, and how many more children will end up there. Who will pay for that, Alloak?

Where does it say I want to eliminate abortion?

Thanks goodness.

Maybe we'll get some proper leadership in the House

Which means exactly what? Do you advocate for more gridlock, and the GOP moving further to the right and being labeled beyond the "the party of no"? Maybe a Tea Party member would satisfy you as speaker? If McCarthy succeeds JB, we'll be right back here in 6 months.

Good for JB for stepping down. It's not as if he doesn't know that there probably is no one in his caucus that can satisfy the dysfunctional factions within his party. I'm looking forward to reading any book he may write and seeing if speaks the truth about members of his caucus.

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

I'm betting you yearn for all sorts of compromise in gov't. Let's return to the golden days of compromise, so on and so forth.

Ok, let's bring back those days. When would you say those days were - 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's?

When we bring them back, lets not forget to bring along all that were part and parcel of those decades. I'm sure you remember times when globalization hadn't destroyed the American manufacturing base, when we had immigration laws that we actually enforced, when we didn't have almost $20 trillion in debt, when we didn't have an artificially propped up stock market based on Fed money printing and/or zero interest rates, when we would still have a positive balance of trade month-to-month, when the American attitude was to work hard and success was the responsibility of the individual, when we didn't have almost 1/6th of the country on food stamps with no end in sight, when home ownership wasn't in decline, and when the percentage of our fellow citizens in the workforce wasn't also in decline. I also remember when both parties knew they could only go so far in terms of spending, debt, social programs, and a social agenda because the majority of Americans still understood that liberty and the continued existence of the republic was theirs to guard.

Remember those days? Me too.

The point is that compromise is easy when you're not facing stiff challenges, created by our own mismanagement, that threaten the future of all. Why is gridlock never blamed on those who refuse to accept any limits whatsoever? It's always the fault of those who want see some reasonable level of behavior maintained.

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

From my first post & questions for you, I'll repeat the below:

Let me ask you this Fuji - Are you a proponent of shutting down the government to symbolically represent a stance? Do you think it shows good governance? Are you OK with the costs associated with a shutdown? Bottom line - does the end justify the means?

Why does a funding cut to Planned Parenthood automatically equate to a government shutdown? It doesn't have to.

That's what the conservatives want.............. because they know Obama will veto it without the PP funding....

So, you want to not fund Planned Parenthood, which provides mostly health services to women, but the conservatives don't have a 'war on women'..... you can't have it both ways......

That's what the conservatives want.............. because they know Obama will veto it without the PP funding....

You really think Obama would shut down the government?

That's what the conservatives want.............. because they know Obama will veto it without the PP funding....

You really think Obama would shut down the government?

History tells us that Ted Cruz leads the way.

If the current debate over funding Planned Parenthood becomes the crux of a shutdown, how can reasonable people side with the continuation of infanticide, given what's come out of the recent controversy? Isn't it enough that abortion remain legal? Why do we have to force taxpayer's to fund something so many people find hideously offensive, and that which even the Vice President the other day all but admitted was murder?

By law, federal funding cannot be used for abortions ...... the defunding has nothing to do with money for abortions... the defunding is for the money used for all other Planned Parenthood services - like birth control, mammograms, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments and other health related services.

So what would be wrong with sending the $525 Billion to other providers of these services who don't perform abortions or sell baby body parts, which has been proposed? This way, we know for sure that no public funds are being used for abortions, right? Seems like a no-brainer.

Did you not understand Sang's post?

The "baby parts" you refer to are used for medical research that may lead to medical advances to benefit society as a whole. You never know, Alloak - these advances might save your life one day or that of a loved one. Do you have a problem with that?

Look...this is all about the far right's inability to accept a SC decision from many years ago. This and any and all efforts to close abortion centers is the goal of the rigid right. Any angle that achieves this is the mission.

How about these people that want to inflict their self righteous and quasi moral & religious values on others try another approach. Let them line up and F'ING GO ADOPT if they are so intent on eliminating a woman's right to choose. How many children are living in foster homes? Eliminate abortion, and how many more children will end up there. Who will pay for that, Alloak?

Where does it say I want to eliminate abortion?

Do you want to eliminate a woman's right to choose - yes or no?

If the right to choose is eliminated, and the numbers of children in foster care proliferate, are you in favor of government subsidies to care for these children - yes or no?

Are you personally in favor of eliminating all funding to Planned Parenthood - yes or no?

Are you in favor of the GOP leading an effort to eliminate funding to PP as their latest effort to take their basketball to another court since they can't get their way - yes or no?

If the GOP attempts to shut down the government, are you OK with the costs inflicted upon the economy - yes or no?

Obama veto = Obama relocating the basketball and shutting down the government.