If only it were actual ACTION.
What they did was force inaction for about 25 hours, and now until July because they just recessed.
Sadly, inactive government is a gift to the Republicans, not some kind of hindrance.
No vote was taken (not that a vote would help, it's clear they can't pass any gun bill in either house). At least they showed they're trying....kind of.
I partially agree with Paul that this was simply a play for attention....but I also see that that's the most Democrats can do at this point, because they get zero cooperation from Republicans on anything. (I would also point out that every 'repeal Obamacare' vote was nothing more than a play for attention, so Ryan's comment is really the pot calling the kettle black.)

I can only hope that the unwillingness and inability of Republicans to legislate at all will lose them congress and the presidency....which will also lose them the Judicial. Perhaps if that all comes to pass, SOME progress can be made....certainly it won't be made until then.

That would be great, who should I speak to about changing that culture of ours?

As far as letting people fly, I never said I agree with it. I was referring to it because President Obama used it as an example. I said, somewhat sarcastically, that it wasn't a constitutional right. I never said we SHOULD ban people from flying.

I absolutely do not think we should limit a person's ability to travel based on an arbitrary list, especially since this incident pretty much proves that it doesn't necessarily stop terrorists. If a gun ban was in place, the shooter would still have been able to get weapons because he was removed from the list for some unknown (as of yet) reason.

Yes, in hindsight the Patriot Act should never have been passed. That is one of the main points of what I have been saying. We are in a crisis situation and people are knee-jerking the way they did after 9/11. Do we really need to have our government pass the Patriot Act Part Deux?

I understand the anger, the sadness, even the rage we all are feeling right now because of this incident. I've tried to remain relatively calm and not release vitriol on anyone I've replied to. I'm sure that I might have angered quite a few by not caving on my stance, but I refuse to back down because someone is pissed at me. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a fiscal conservative, a constitutionalist, and yet still a liberalist when it comes to personal life styles or choices. I've voted Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. I think the fact that Paul Ryan ignored a possible discussion on gun laws is a bunch of horseshit. We should be able to at least talk about things, even if we might not agree with each other.

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

Ryan Reynolds desperately needs to make a reference to his Will Smith DC doppelganger in the next DP movie. Damn... now im going to fantasize about Ryan Reynolds and Will Smith DPing Shiklah. I mean, they're the same person, just different dimensions and skin color. Wouldn't you totally do the same thing?

Both parties clearly pine for the old days where the party bigwigs gathered in a smoke-filled room and decided who the nominee was going to be.

Sometimes it seems like that system resulted in higher-quality candidates. Or at least candidates who were better able to hide their sleazy politician auras behind a screen of charisma.

But shit like this makes it very clear how and why that system was shady and corrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't think this story will be big enough news to change anything. The likelihood of the GOP going to a contested convention and foisting some candidate on voters that hasn't even been running (Drudge Report suggests Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan are likely choices of the party) is much more likely to cause a big enough splash to change things.

I got to disagree that they need the Tea Party vote... well they need the Tea Party's great love, Fox News, Rush. and all the other far right nutters, so they try to appeal to the Tea Party more specifically, but I think that's why they've lost the last two elections.

McCain, had he ran as the centralist candidate he has been in the Senate, was very electable. Unfortunately for the party he stepped to the right in his campaign to appeal to what would become the Tea Party. Then he went over the deep end by choosing a VP candidate that was certifiably crazy and too far to the right for the Nation to take seriously. All in an attempt to appeal to the far right.

Then the party mishandles Obamacare. Rather than own up to it, and say "hey, this is the same plan we tried to pass 3 times into federal law. The Democrats wanted a single payer system, Obama was promising a government option, but they in the end took our plan." Instead they try to run the thing into the ground, and build on the far right anger over it, rather than appeal to where the Nation actually was. Obama's re-election was largely because of Obamacare, something the party and it's media machines like Fox don't understand. To be fair in 2008, I don't think anyone could have predicted the rise of Obama, but the fact his message took off so well, should have been a sign to the Republican party the country was trying to move back to the center from the pull to the right of the Bush years.

Romney could have ran with that further, saying how Romneycare is the model for Obamacare and that his state was the one who really started the ball rolling. Romney as he was as governor was far more electable at the national level than the Romney we got during the campaign... and again there is an appeal to the Tea Party with a Washington Insider but solid Tea Party member in Ryan.

The Republican party has a near solid slam dunk if they put up Rubio/Kasich ticket. It's a moderate ticket that has broad appeal to the masses of America without making most liberals/progressives so afraid that they'll show up in droves the way a Trump ticket does (or a Cruz ticket to a slightly smaller extent). The far right would still vote for Rubio/Kasich over Clinton/Sander (or Clinton/Warren, Clinton/Kucinich... she needs a solid, well known progressive to give her the best chance of winning), so the Rubio/Kasich is safe from all sides.

I agree though, a Trump ticket spells doom for the party period. Not only do they loose the Presidential election, the fact so many Republicans fear Trump's near Fascism will mean they might stay home, and the liberals/progressives will show up in greater than normal numbers to insure he doesn't win, which means a possible to likely loss of control of the Senate. Cruz won't scare away the Republican base as much, but still bring out more liberals/progressives than normal, which likely means a loss of the Presidential election, but perhaps not as much of a loss of the Senate. A Rubio/Kasich combo ticket is safe and gives the best broad appeal... or course if they did go Rubio, they'd tie him up with a Tea Party candidate to pull those votes in, as they don't understand they need to really shed those people and let them form their own party... I think they fear that Fox News, Rush and the like will follow the new Tea Party line rather than the mainstream Republican party and they want that attention... they are so wrapped up in the echo chamber now they don't see the nation is far more to the center than they are willing to go. The fact that Obama is far closer to Regan era style Republicans than most anyone in the race today speaks volumes to how disconnected the party is from reality.

Meanwhile, I'll wish for a Sanders/Warren or Sanders/Kucinich ticket... though realistically, he needs a young moderate up coming Democrat to broaden his appeal... and let's face it, odds are it'll be Clinton, whom I fear the Republican's first day of action will be to try an impeach her over the email and Benghazi... I mean we've had what? 3 or 4 times as many hearings on how she handled Benghazi than we had over 9/11, even though there are tons of fishy things going on with that too (without having to go into crazy conspiracy theories). So go... Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.

Yes, Baccarin is in like, all of them, and @eric3579 I'm pretty sure that's what's intended.

http://collider.com/deadpool-sex-scene-ryan-reynolds-morena-baccarin/

GOP firmly on the side of ISIL, ISIS, Daesh whatever you want to call them...

Morons that would be our president running the EXACTLY play they want them to. Brought to you buy the same party/group that boycotts anything they disagree with almost ensuring its success and relevance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/17/ryan-other-hill-republicans-move-on-syrian-refugee-effort-with-states-having/?intcmp=hpbt1

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

meh. i don't think they actually added much. The scene with the hulk vs iron man was not believable, enjoyable - it was just another crappy action scene in a poorly constructed very unenjoyable movie.
saving ryan's privates is a good example of a difficult to watch scene because it wasn't filmed by a drone, it was filmed largely from the POV of being on the ground - as it was plausible and horrific it was a very upsetting and memorable scene. How can you really give a shit about superhero who are immortal kicking the shit out of a tin of metal.

Your video, MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - DOWNTOWN (OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Times Like These (Foo Fighters) - Ryan Adams - Sydney Opera has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Your video, Saving Private Ryan's Omaha Beach - Art Of The Scene, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This review was better than I expected. BTW - who's the chick doing all that running - looks like that girl from "Felicia's Journey" with Bob Hoskins. BTW - Bob Hoskins is dead, but didn't hang himself like in Felicia's Journey. Can't be Evangaline Lilly cause she's an Elf. Maybe it's Dana Kirkpatrick - the chick race car driver. If it is she should get a line where they're escaping in some starwars space ship where she says: "Can't this thing go any faster? Who made this piece of crap?" Then the ship goes to light speed and she has an orgasm like Meg Ryan in "Sleepless in Sheattle."