You're Not Really Against Obamacare Unless You Shut Down the Government

[ClydeR]

A few prominent Senate Republicans, like Tom Coburn and John McCain, recently questioned the plan to shut down the government this fall unless Obama cancels Obamacare. The plan they oppose is for Republicans to vote against all spending if any of it goes to Obamacare.

On a talk radio program, Marco Rubio explained that you can't claim to be against Obamacare unless you're willing to shut down the government over it.


Many Republicans have questioned the tactic of pushing to defund Obamacare, but Rubio reiterated his point, noting that you can’t vote for the law’s funding and simultaneously be against it.

“[L]ook, I’m not attacking anyone directly,” Rubio said. “All I’m saying is that you cannot say you are against Obamacare if you are willing to vote for a law that funds it. If you’re willing to fund this thing, you can’t possibly say you’re against it.”

More... (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/06/rubio-if-youre-willing-to-fund-obamacare-you-cant-possibly-say-youre-against-it)

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

If we shut down the government, don't those useless fucks in Congress still get paid?

[Parkbandit]

Republicans are fools to believe this will somehow turn out any differently than it always does.

Reps: WE'RE GOING TO DO {insert threat}
Dems: No you're not
Reps: WE ARE SERIOUS!
Dems: Go ahead.
Reps: WE MEAN IT THIS TIME!
Dems: OK, go ahead!
Reps: Nevermind... we cave back into our gelatinous form. But, can we at least get {insert small concession}?
Dems: No.
Reps: ok. :(

Here's what they should do: Voice their opposition to the law, but let it go through. The costs will inevitably cause the law to cave in on itself. Proclaim "We told you so" and get rid of it.

[Whirlin]

They sound like children that are going to try to hold their breath until they get their way... But unlike holding their breath, they'll live afterwards.

[Wrathbringer]

Republicans are fools to believe this will somehow turn out any differently than it always does.

Reps: WE'RE GOING TO DO {insert threat}
Dems: No you're not
Reps: WE ARE SERIOUS!
Dems: Go ahead.
Reps: WE MEAN IT THIS TIME!
Dems: OK, go ahead!
Reps: Nevermind... we cave back into our gelatinous form. But, can we at least get {insert small concession}?
Dems: No.
Reps: ok. :(

Here's what they should do: Voice their opposition to the law, but let it go through. The costs will inevitably cause the law to cave in on itself. Proclaim "We told you so" and get rid of it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Parkbandit again.

[Jace Solo]

This is not the same thing as:

On a talk radio program, Marco Rubio explained that you can't claim to be against Obamacare unless you're willing to shut down the government over it.

As this:

All I’m saying is that you cannot say you are against Obamacare if you are willing to vote for a law that funds it. If you’re willing to fund this thing, you can’t possibly say you’re against it.

[Latrinsorm]

It is if there is only one "law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_spending_bill) for government spending.

[Thondalar]

Only thing the FEDERAL government should be spending money on is military upkeep to defend the Union.

[cwolff]

Only thing the FEDERAL government should be spending money on is military upkeep to defend the Union.

Defending the Union isn't that expensive.

[Whirlin]

Only thing the FEDERAL government should be spending money on is military upkeep to defend the Union.

They're defending against disease, pain, and death... isn't that the same reason they defend against invaders? To prevent death? It's just a less personified opponent.

[Latrinsorm]

Only thing the FEDERAL government should be spending money on is military upkeep to defend the Union.We tried that and it was a catastrophic failure. Why would it be any different now?