Quantcast

Republicans Deny President Obama Was Ever Re-elected, Believe 2012 Never Happened

Boehner-looking-confusedOver a week into the government shutdown, patience has grown thin with many Americans.  As millions of American lives face uncertainty with the antics going on in Congress, leading Congressional Republicans made a startling revelation into why they believe they’re in the right as it relates to the government shutdown.

It seems they don’t recall President Obama ever being re-elected.  In fact, many of them seem unable to recall that there was even a presidential election held on November 6, 2012.

When Speaker of the House John Boehner was asked why he feels Republicans have the right to hold our government hostage even after President Obama overwhelmingly won re-election, he seemed confused, asking, “Who was re-elected?  I don’t recall that happening.  “Obamacare” is bad, the American people have spoken.”

Following his statement, another reporter responded by asking, “If the American people have spoken, wouldn’t that mean they support “Obamacare?”  You know, considering that on November 6, 2012, President Obama was re-elected and Democrats were given more seats in the House and Senate.”

Boehner replied, “What happened on November 6, 2012?  Was there something going on that night I wasn’t made aware of?”

Looking confused and flabbergasted, reporters then turned to Texas Senator Ted Cruz to see what he had to say.  Considering he was elected to the Senate for the first time that night, he surely had to be aware that the 2012 elections happened and President Obama was overwhelmingly re-elected.

One reporter asked Cruz, “How have the American people spoken out against “Obamacare” if they re-elected President Obama, while also giving more seats back to Democrats in both the House and Senate?”

Cruz, with a puzzled but cocky look on his face walked to the podium and addressed the question, saying, “On November 6, 2012 the American people spoke clearly when they elected me the next senator from Texas.  The rest of this liberal propaganda about some “overwhelming” victory for President Obama seems like something the communists want you to believe.  The American people have rejected President Obama and his radical “Obamacare” as made evident by the fact that the government is shut down and I am a United States Senator.”

Somebody else stood and said, “Boehner not letting the House vote on the Senate’s resolution is why the government’s shut down, not because the people have rejected anything.”

Boehner responded by saying, “There aren’t enough votes in the House to pass the Senate’s resolution.”  The person then asked Boehner to prove it, to which Boehner replied, “No.”

Rand Paul was also in attendance, and stood to say, “I’m confused as to what you people mean when you say President Obama was overwhelmingly re-elected.  When did this happen?”

Looking totally confused, most reporters simply stayed silent.  That is until someone from Fox News decided to ask a question directed at both Cruz and Paul:  “So, last November when absolutely nothing happened except for you two fine gentlemen becoming senators by some magical process that didn’t include any sort of national elections, what do you think the American people were saying?”

Cruz quickly replied, “That they were rejecting Obamacare.”  Paul agreed by saying, “Yes, it was a unanimous rejection of Obamacare.”

One reporter rose in anger, shouting, “Then why did the American people re-elect President Obama and give more power back to the Democrats in Congress?!”

Cruz looked on for a moment in silence, glanced over to Paul and Boehner and finally said, “We really have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Now, did this press conference actually happen?  Of course not.  But I believe it’s a fairly accurate mocking of the delusion that’s currently going on in the minds of many Republicans.

Last November President Obama, running with the promise of fully implementing “Obamacare,” was overwhelmingly re-elected president.  Not only that, Democrats gained seats in both the House and the Senate.  Yet despite these facts, Republicans seem to feel that they were given some kind of mandate to shut down our government in a feeble attempt to stop the Affordable Care Act.

It’s as if they either don’t care about our elections or are simply in denial that they ever happened.  It’s as if these clowns don’t understand that if the American people were really rejecting “Obamacare,” Mitt Romney would be president—not Barack Obama.

And whether or not Republicans want to act like it, elections do matter.  While there is no doubt that millions of Americans oppose “Obamacare” (mostly due to the blatant lies that have been continually told by Republicans), they had their chance to elect Mitt Romney and failed to do so.

Instead, through our voting process given to us by our Constitution, President Obama was re-elected.

It just seems Republicans either don’t care or seem to want to pretend that the presidential election held on November 6, 2012 never happened.  But it did, and that night the American people spoke loud and clear when they re-elected President Obama and gave more seats in Congress to the Democratic party.

And that’s the funny thing about reality — just because Republicans want to pretend that neither of those events ever happened, doesn’t mean that they didn’t.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column, and an unapologetic Hillary Clinton supporter. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matthew Reece

    “It’s as if these clowns don’t understand that if the American people
    were really rejecting ‘Obamacare,’ Mitt Romney would be president—not
    Barack Obama.”

    Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Romney lost for many reasons, and there is no way to know that Obamacare was the most important one (not that he was even consistently against it).

    • TommyNIK

      I repeat…..stunning.

    • Janes Addiction

      This “information” regarding the vote breakdown is like a losing team saying – well, we only lost by one point. Newsflash – you still lost.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, not a Republican.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you are STILL not going to get your way. Somalia calls you.

      • Matthew Reece

        Bringing up Somalia as a response to free market anarchism is a red herring fallacy.

      • Progressive

        Free Market Anarchy will never work, because the human mind is more prone to act in greedy and more animalistic ways when there is not a government in charge.
        Also it is historical, and frankly biological, that human beings want to be lead. They want GOVERNMENT, no matter what they say. People like someone being in charge because it creates a sense of stability, which the human mind desires.
        So anyone who claims they want to live in a Free Market Anarchistic world is living a delusion, because frankly it will never occur and if government did somehow cease to be it would not be a “We all work together” or whatever Free Market Anarchists like to think, it will be “Every man for himself.” It would be chaos and it would be very, very bad.

      • Matthew Reece

        You are claiming that a state is necessary. This is a positive claim, which carries a burden of proof. You have only provided a litany of unproven assertions about human nature.

        That being said, the qualities you describe are exactly why governments are far too dangerous to be allowed to operate. If people are basically evil, then evil people will be wielding state power, and history shows that the most sociopathically evil people tend to rise to leadership positions, as they are more willing to initiate force against their competitors.

        The state is merely a camouflaged and organized form of chaos. Statism led to roughly 262 million people being killed in the 20th century. Perhaps the spontaneous order of anarchism cannot do better, but it is worth a try.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Human civilization. There is your proof. Your move.

      • Matthew Reece

        You are assuming that because things happened a certain way, that they had to happen that way. There is no support for such an assumption. Checkmate.

      • hdtex

        Idiot says WHAT?

      • hdtex

        Idiot….

      • Matthew Reece

        Ad hominem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • hdtex

        Idiot troll says WHAT?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Not really. There is no such thing as “free market anarchism.” You want anarchy, go to Somalia. They have no government.

      • Matthew Reece

        There is also no such thing as a government. Both are ideas, not entities.

      • hdtex

        Idiot

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Romney lost because he was a rich idiot pandering to other rich idiots and is clueless about how the rest of the country exists.

      And that is not how our elections work. Whoever shows up and votes gets a say. If you don’t vote, too bad, so sad and it doesn’t matter what you want. You want to change that, make voting compulsory as in Australia.

      • Matthew Reece

        My point is that those who do not consent to be ruled by a certain ruler or process should not have that ruler or process forced upon them. Since you don’t seem to think that consent matters, perhaps we should legalize murder, rape, theft, slavery, and other such crimes. Oh wait, they are legal, but only for government agents in the form of war, government-run prisons, and taxation.

      • Angel Rivera

        You got it backwards, anarchy is just a polite word for not facing consequences on your actions on others. Human beings are animals and the structure of community is ingrained in primates. We are savages at the core. At the end of it all, when actual anarchy takes place, there are always someone that will raise to the top and dominate. The current structure of government is a way to determine who rules without destroying everything in the process.

      • Matthew Reece

        You have it backwards. Statism is another word for not facing the consequences of one’s actions. How many people who commit crimes in an official capacity get punished? Very few, because the state has a monopoly on criminal justice, which allows its agents to call their crimes “necessary and proper” or “law and order.”

        If we are savages at the core, then leaving a monopoly on force lying around is far too dangerous to do. Statism is organized chaos. Anarchy is spontaneous order. There is no reason to assume that a post-state (theoretical free society) situation is going to look like a pre-state (cavemen) or failed state (Somalia) situation.

      • strayaway

        Edward Snowden makes your point. From a USA Today report, “Snowden said the U.S. government was “unwilling to prosecute high officials who lied to Congress and the country on camera, but they’ll stop at nothing to persecute someone who told them the truth.” Regarding our government’s surveillance dragnet, Snowden remarked, “They hurt our economy. They hurt our country. They limit our ability to speak and think and live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely.” I think that true progressives actually do savor their ability to speak and think and live and be creative, to have relationships and to associate freely but some are caught in the quandary of supporting these things or being a team member.

      • Matthew Reece

        I think I want most of the things that progressives want. I just understand that trying to use the state to achieve those goals will result in the opposites of those goals being brought about.

      • strayaway

        In every system, someone rises to the top and dominates. Anarchy is an extreme expression of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism. We all have to position ourselves somewhere along the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum.

      • Matthew Reece

        There are many ways of ensuring that no one dominates in a free market anarchy except someone who does so by providing goods and services in such a good manner that no one cares to compete with them.

      • Snarky Daemon O’Mockery

        Hail Eris!

        Just because you refuse to play the game, it doesn’t mean you get to end it for everyone else. _Rational_ anarchism, as opposed to the notion of an unregulated free market (hasn’t existed in at least five hundred years, may never exist again), merely requires rational *anarchists* (that free market calls for a majority of hugely generous, big-hearted people, with lots of private property to share with those who have nothing, because THAT is what the “norm” was, in North America before Columbus). BTW, private prisons are a monstrous notion, because they have a quota of inmates, meaning they need a steady supply of War On (Some) Drugs-/(Some) Terrorism-related convicts, whereas government-run prisons need never make a profit. Whether it be by tariffs or taxes, the people with the most money need to pay the most, either at the ports or at tax time, because highways (among other things) don’t build or maintain themselves, regardless of what kind of fuel is used to operate the vehicles which use the highways.

        Until we have a society composed entirely of rational anarchists, it’s pointless to speak of a “free market,” because the very rich *don’t want it to be free*. They just want it to make them endlessly richer. Reckoning without taking that reality into account is fatally naive.

        Snarky
        Please do not change color while I am talking to you.

      • Matthew Reece

        The game is inherently immoral because people are forced to play. They are not forced to vote, but they are forced to deal with the results of voting.

        Private prisons are only a monstrous notion if there are government laws and government courts. I call for the abolition of these.

        The state is what enriches the 0.01%, not the free market. Government regulations are written by politicians who are bribed by the rich to help them stifle competitors to their mega-corporations. If these people had to compete in a free market (which has no corporations), they might not do so well.

      • Snarky Daemon O’Mockery

        Hail Eris!

        Without government laws and courts, private prisons have no reason to exist at all. With them, a demand is created for inmates, irrespective of guilt in any crime with a victim. Either way, private prisons are unnecessary.

        Snarky
        Having completed their ghastly work, Gwen’s squad members return to the field and resume their cheerleading activities, as Gwen reminds them
        once more that she is the boss and they are all her bitches.

      • Matthew Reece

        In a stateless society, there will still be criminals and therefore, there will still need to be a way to deal with them. Of course, the only crimes would be those that harm people and/or their property, so there would need to be less prison space (just imagine no nonviolent drug offenders taking up prison space). Many crimes which are now dealt with by prisons would instead be dealt with by various restitution programs, so there would need to be even less prison space. But still, I think there would have to be some.

      • hdtex

        IDIOT SAYS WHAT?

      • Matthew Reece

        Spamming just makes you look like a retard, which you very well could be, as you are apparently incapable of any sort of rational thought.

      • hdtex

        IDIOT SAYS WHAT?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Sorry, but you live in a communal society. You get a choice over who does the ruling by voting. If you don’t like it, find some place more to your liking. Again, Somalia.

      • Matthew Reece

        Again, bringing up Somalia is a red herring fallacy, as it is not a free market anarchist society.

        There is no such thing as society. Each individual exists; society does not. It is only a concept.

        Ruling is immoral because it violates all logical rights.

    • Angel Rivera

      You don’t vote means that you are OK with the results from the election and don’t care who wins.

      • Matthew Reece

        No, not voting means not consenting to be governed by the results.

      • Lynne Larson

        Good luck with that.

      • TheGermanGuy

        If you don’t consent to be governed by our elected officials, then move to another country. No one is making you stay, Mr. Reece. You seem to value personal choice – why not choose to leave behind something that you obviously don’t care about?

      • strayaway

        “Love it or leave it” was a Nixon era slogan directed at anti-war protesters. I enjoy the irony of hearing more and more progressives sound more and more like Nixon supporters.

        “Meet the new boss.
        Same as the old boss.”
        -the Who

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Progressives are more “Love it, change it when it needs it.” Reece is free to stay here and complain, but it really sounds like he’d be happier somewhere else.

      • strayaway

        TheGermanGuy quote, “If you don’t consent to be governed by our elected officials, then move to another country.” sounded more like
        1) “love it or leave it” then
        2)”Love it, change it when it needs it.”

        Even your comment had a note of intolerance. You seem to be suggesting that if Matthew Reece doesn’t agree with you, then he should go elsewhere. I thought that the tea partiers were trying to change something they thought needed to be changed. Why does “Love it, change it when it needs it” apply to progressives but not Matthew Reece?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What has Reece done to change anything? All he does is complain and wants something that is never going to happen. “Leave it” is merely a suggestion since he seems so unhappy.

        We are not likely to get a single-payor system in my lifetime. I can continually whine about it, work to change the system, or move to a country that has universal coverage. I’m NOT going to whine about it, because it is not productive.

      • strayaway

        Vermont tried to institute an affordable single payer plan but the Obamacare bureaucrats stood in the way of the affordable part by insisting that Vermont’s plan would include expensive things that make Obamacare unlike any Canadian provincial single payer plan. Had Reece supported Obamacare, then he would have also been responsible for repressing Vermont’s single payer plan as other supporters of Obamacare did whether inadvertently or otherwise. Sometimes less is more.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What expensive things? I would truly like to know. And sometimes less is truly less.

      • strayaway

        I once heard the Canadian Consul from Chicago on public radio describe the main reasons why Canadian provincial single payer plans made health care in Canada 40% cheaper than US health care. His reasons were that provincial plans, at the time he spoke, limited medical liability claims to $10,000. The result was that doctors, hospitals, and other care providers in Canada tended not to purchase medical liability insurance the cost of which had to be passed on to customers. With doctors in the US paying sometimes $100,000 or more for liability insurance and hospitals and other providers paying similar huge amounts per patient, this is a huge savings. Patients do no have to purchase more insurance to cover the passed on medical liability costs. Of course, patients don’t even have to purchase health care insurance to pay for health care either under single payer.

        The other significant savings achieved by these provincial plans is the reduction in paperwork costs. The Consul explained that instead of having an entire wing of a hospital floor occupied by hospital bureaucrats determining whether the patient, their insurance company, or government pays what part of a bill, one person could just check the, e.g. appendicitis, box and the government would reimburse the hospital an established amount.

        To summarize, the insurance companies are gone, the trial lawyers are gone, and most hospital bureaucratic staffs are gone. That saves much of the 40% difference.

        Vermont was allowed, by Obamacare bureaucrats, to offer a single payer plan but it was required to include Obamacare at its core. Obamacare keeps the trial lawyers, insurance companies, and bureaucracies feeding at the health care profit trough. That accounts for much of the affordability difference between provincial plans and what Vermont was allowed. A couple of lessor savings, according to the Consul included government purchase cost saving passed on to patients and government payment of med school costs so doctors could offer their services for less.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Can’t argue that. I think the plaintiffs’ attorneys are a scourge, insurance companies are pirates and bureaucracies are the Devil Incarnate. But that’s what we got. Some of us wanted a universal single-payor or at least a public option. Maybe next time around.

      • Matthew Reece

        People once said that a constitutional republic would never work. People once said that slavery would never end. People once said that landing on the moon was impossible. Now people say that the end of the state will never come. I say they are on the wrong side of history.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am a free market anarchist, not a Tea Partier. Other than that, good post.

      • hdtex

        IDIOT SAYS WHAT????

      • Matthew Reece

        Ah, the “love it or leave it” argument. If we apply that logic to a different but equivalent situation, then a woman in an abusive marriage should be forced to either marry another abusive husband or stay inside the house with her current husband in order to get a divorce. All I did was to replace “government” with “husband,” “citizenship” with “marriage,” and “renounce citizenship” with “divorce.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No the woman has another choice, leave the abusive husband and don’t remarry, or find a nice guy to marry.

      • Matthew Reece

        You did not understand my analogy. This is true for the woman. My point is that it is not true for the citizen, and it should be.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Your analogy makes no sense.

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

      • hdtex

        IDIOT SAYS WHAAAAAT?

      • Matthew Reece

        Who is we? I do not consent to be governed by elected officials, so they have no legitimacy over me. Keep your collectivism to yourself.

        No one has any right to demand that I leave, because this infringes upon the logical rights of private property ownership and freedom of association.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No one is “demanding” you leave. It’s a suggestion because you appear to be so unhappy here. And sorry, you ARE governed by elected officials. Try going against any of our various laws and find out.

      • Matthew Reece

        Such governance is illegitimate, and is an example of argumentum ad baculum.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who determines what is legitimate? What proof can you offer.

      • Matthew Reece

        That which is coercive is illegitimate because it violates the logical right of bodily ownership. To try to argue against bodily ownership you must implicitly assume it, so any argument against it is false by the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental axiom of logical discourse.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Huh? How about just admitting you are never going to get what you want. This sounds like intellectual masturbation.

      • Matthew Reece

        The future is unknown and unknowable.

      • hdtex

        BWAHAHAHA…..FIVE DOLLAR WORDS FROM A TEN CENT MIND……IDIOT.

      • Snarky Daemon O’Mockery

        Hail Eris!

        No, lots of people don’t vote for reasons which have nothing to do with anarchism. Your not voting because of not consenting to be governed is identical, in effect, to their not voting because they’re too damned lazy to get out and vote, or because they’re too tired, after working long hours, or simply too busy, raising kids while doing housework and going grocery shopping, or even because they’re blindsided by having a sudden tonne of things to do on election day, when they were in fact planning on voting. Your own reasons just got lost in that shuffle.

        Snarky
        Death without pain is like a sundae without sprinkles.

      • Matthew Reece

        The politicians and vote counters will see it as identical, but that does not mean it is.

      • Snarky Daemon O’Mockery

        Hail Eris!

        In your mind, they are different, but your mind is one among millions, or tens, hundreds of millions — you’re just another voter, one who voluntarily chose to disenfranchise himself, but only extremely close races would be strongly affected by your vote, anyway. No one will notice your self-disenfranchisement, unless you go around wearing a sign, and then they’ll wonder what’s wrong with you. Most people are not prepared to become anarchists, in the arch-libertarian sense of the word, much less try to be self-sufficient in a way humans haven’t been for a good ten millennia or more. Society may be just a concept, but it’s a fairly concrete one, to the majority of humanity.

        Snarky
        There are two modes of transport in Los Angeles: car and ambulance. Visitors who wish to remain inconspicuous are advised to choose the latter.

      • Matthew Reece

        “Most people are not prepared to become anarchists, in the arch-libertarian sense of the word, much less try to be self-sufficient in a way humans haven’t been for a good ten millennia or more.”
        Those are two different things. Having no government does not mean having no interpersonal trade relationships. In fact, there would almost certainly be more interpersonal trade relationships without government barriers to them.

      • hdtex

        JUST MEANS YOU ARE AN IDIOT…..

      • maggie33

        Wouldn’t that indicate it’s time to move to another country? If you don’t like the results from an election but you choose not to participate in an election then your options are limited. Leave said country or live by it’s rules. No one is forced to live in America unless they’re incarcerated.

      • strayaway

        The rules allow change. Even the Constitution has provisions allowing it to be modified. Why don’t you like the rules? Wouldn’t it be convenient though to wish everyone away that one disagrees with? I remember a Twiglight Zone episode in which a little boy wished annoying people into the corn field. Have I wandered into a different dimension?

      • Matthew Reece

        Would you also tell a prisoner that if he does not like his cell, then he is free to move to any other cell? This is a red herring because the prisoner does not want another cell; he wants to be free.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You are free to leave. Our society has certain rules. Follow them or get out.

      • Matthew Reece

        I am not free to leave, as you would understand if you understood my analogy.

        Society does not exist. Each individual person exists.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You are free to exist somewhere more to your liking, then

      • Matthew Reece

        Red herring fallacy, as it does not address my arguments.

        Ad nauseum fallacy, as you keep repeating this.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        As do you. Your arguments make no sense. The bulk of civilization does not agree with you. Yours is an interesting concept but highly impractical. You are doomed to die bitter.

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, as you say my arguments make no sense without providing logical arguments against them.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Within the context of contemporary civilization, you make no sense.

      • hdtex

        IDIOT SAYS………..NOTHING.

      • hdtex

        IDIOTS KEEPS SPEWING!

      • hdtex

        IDIOT…..SAYS WHAT?

  • TommyNIK

    Stunning.

  • roses in the rain

    These people need to be removed from office. They are unstable.

  • scottrose

    There is a social pact, under which we pay taxes and expect for the government to be functioning. For the Rethugliturds to shut down the government with a demand that our health care reform laws be rendered null, and then to change their minds about what their demands are related to a reopening of the government, and to top all, for Boehner to refuse to hold a vote on reopening the government, when it is plain that the votes are there to reopen it, to me says that dog shit should be hurled at Boehner before he is thrown into boiling oil and told that that is his punishment for thinking of gay people as second class citizens and stealing their tax dollars to “defend DOMA.” The problem is not the “Tea Party.” The problem is Boehner’s contempt for his fellow citizens.

    • Matthew Reece

      Social contract theory is self-invalidating.

  • Wheelock67

    they were successful in overturning/ignoring Al Gore’s election in 2000, this is just a similar tactic

  • Steve Giovanis

    This is a satirical article right? I mean, are they really in that much denial?

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Sadly, they ARE in that much denial.

  • Anne Nelson

    I find it difficult to believe Ted Cruz was elected. In the precinct in which I was clerking and the one in which my husband was working went to Obama but those same Hispanics who voted for Obama voted for TED CRUZ? I KNOW Republicans think “Hispanics will vote for anyone with a Hispanic name.” The reality is that Mexican origin and Central American Hispanics don’t really like Cubans that much and they don’t like people who aren’t for a pathway to citizenship. So I ask, did all these people lose their minds, or did the machines hijack their votes?

  • reeblite

    want to cut government? time to amend the first article of the constitution. the house of representatives was created in a time when we needed physical representation from our states to vote on issues we couldn’t be there to vote for. this is simply an outdated, broken system. these represenatives don’t represent me. we can do without the house. keep the senate. we can vote on these bills 2,3,4, 6,9 times a year, how often it takes, by computer, computers at public liabraries, by mail. by popular vote. no lobbys. a government by the people, for the people. decided on by the people, not the 1%. imagine the monies saved by not paying benefits, pensions, lunches, salaries of all these clowns.

    • Matthew Reece

      Making government more democratic will not fix it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you have a viable alternative that won’t result in me getting royally screwed???

  • jhspoljunkie

    See, you laugh and think that whole “press conference” is just make believe. I know people in Utah who honestly believe with all their heart everything that happened in the last election, at least for president, was bought and paid for by Kenyan Muslim terrorist anti-colonialists who want to take over the world.

  • decreator

    I am sorry, but If you still support these lunatics…you’re part of the problem! This is unbelievable

  • nadude

    You would only believe this malarky if you still believe we actully elect the house the senate or the President.

  • Mike Schulz

    No wonder they seem so clueless, they ARE

  • Kristina Senior Gardner

    Is this? Is this real? I’m literally unable to tell anymore.

    • feynor

      I’d love to have some confirmation. A link to audio or video of the statements.

      On one hand, it’s not entirely beyond what I’ve come to expect of the GOP, but on the other hand, it seem just a little far fetched.

    • feynor

      It had to be pointed out to me, my brain had enough trouble with the article that I missed it.

      From the artible:
      “Now, did this press conference actually happen? Of course not. But I believe it’s a fairly accurate mocking of the delusion that’s currently going on in the minds of many Republicans.”

  • maggie33

    I swear this sounds like it’s from the Onion. The delusional Party (GOP) have lost their minds.

  • June

    Since the Government is shut down, does this mean we stop paying taxes for which our money is used for from a governmental standpoint?

  • Null

    the American people have a vote, that is such bull! the senators and positions do, we don’t have a democratic voting system, being realistic we have a group of in control its called a plutocracy! If we had a true voting system it would be called a direct voting system and that would be a true democracy! think of the patriot act.. and NSA spying, now think of Affordable Care … its not even going to be Affordable.. The Government Borrows from he central bank … called “debt” which is not “affordable” and before your taxes are even taken.. they are put right back in to pay that un-payable debt. .. its a scam and we will always be slaves to that until a revolution!

  • janieliza

    STOP IT! This did not happen.
    Obama was reelected but these men are NOT delusional. They are totally unable to do anything about what is real, so they lie in the hope that someone will hear it and believe the lies… that Obamacare is hated.
    Frankly people were affected badly by the Republican hard bitten attitude about the cost so they did for a short time behave as if they hated Obamacare, but basically what they want is insurance that is affordable. OR single payer Medicare for all with power to negotiate price. Our children need healthcare. Our grandchildren need healthcare. It has not been affordable. It may never be affordable, but it has changed by leaps and bounds so that Insurance companies cannot turn us away or throw us out for getting sick.
    So now what we do know is that we can survive this if we get rid of the Republicans that act like lies are truth. Those who have no problem proposing that legislators give tax cuts to the rich, kill all the social programs and entitlements, drill baby drill, and full speed ahead on money making even if we poison the entire country’s water supply. They act as if it does not matter that this country is of the people, by the people and FOR the people… not for corporations.
    TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE.

  • independant

    2010 sure happened! It will happen in 2014 again, thanks to Obamacare.
    Spend, Raise Taxes, Regulate……..Not a winning combo this time.