[markjo]

Seriously, do we really want this guy as House Speaker?

Asked if America would be less safe if Homeland Security funding dropped off, Boenher answered: "If ands or buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas."

[Lord Dave]

That's not arrogance that's "I don't want to go on record answering this question because either way it'll fuck me up badly."

[Rushy]

Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?

[Saddam Hussein]

Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?

That's exactly what he did, isn't it?

[Rushy]

Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?

That's exactly what he did, isn't it?

He did, but not in the traditional political way. The traditional political way is to draw out a five minute response about topics tangentially related to the question.

[Lord Dave]

Would you prefer that he make up some sort of bullshit response or dodge the question entirely like pretty much any other politician presented with such an asinine question?

That's exactly what he did, isn't it?

He did, but not in the traditional political way. The traditional political way is to draw out a five minute response about topics tangentially related to the question.

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

[Rushy]

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

...This is possibly the dumbest thing posted on a forum that has Thork as a regular poster. I'm amazed.

[Lord Dave]

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

Why was the question dumb?  It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.

[Rushy]

Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

...This is possibly the dumbest thing posted on a forum that has Thork as a regular poster. I'm amazed.

Do you ever do anything other than this?

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

Why was the question dumb?  It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.

Do you think he can answer that question? I don't.

[Lord Dave]

Rushy admires the art of saying nothing.

I admire his ability to bluntly put that the question was dumb. Most politicians are too busy telling people the question is dumb without just saying it. I guess it just goes to show you that giving a long answer that says nothing really does pull the wool over people's eyes. Politicians treat the public like children and hilariously enough the public gets mad when it doesn't get treated that way.

Why was the question dumb?  It boiled down to "do we really need the DHS?" Which I think is rather valid.

Do you think he can answer that question? I don't.

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

[Rushy]

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

It is a dumb question. It's asking him to, at worst, predict the future, and at best, be fully aware of the department's subjective impact on its own roles without ever having worked in that department. If the person asking was really interested in the DHS' impact, they probably should have referred to a specific role it plays and how that function has or hasn't changed since its inception. Asking a vague question like "ARE WE SAFER?!" makes no sense. It's the difference between asking if Border Patrol makes the country more or less safe... or asking if the Border Patrol statistically lowers the amount of illegal immigrants. One is a vague, open ended question that is just conjecture, the other is a real topic.

[Tau]

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

It is a dumb question. It's asking him to, at worst, predict the future, and at best, be fully aware of the department's subjective impact on its own roles without ever having worked in that department. If the person asking was really interested in the DHS' impact, they probably should have referred to a specific role it plays and how that function has or hasn't changed since its inception. Asking a vague question like "ARE WE SAFER?!" makes no sense. It's the difference between asking if Border Patrol makes the country more or less safe... or asking if the Border Patrol statistically lowers the amount of illegal immigrants. One is a vague, open ended question that is just conjecture, the other is a real topic.

It is literally Boehner's job to figure out what effect various things have on the country. If he legitimately has no position on that question, he isn't doing his job. Which is true, but still.

[Lord Dave]

I don't know if he can.  But the inability to answer a question does not make it a dumb question.  Someone may be able to answer it.  Or maybe no one can.  Either way, I think it's a question we should ask.  Do we need the DHS or is the system we had before good enough?

It is a dumb question. It's asking him to, at worst, predict the future, and at best, be fully aware of the department's subjective impact on its own roles without ever having worked in that department. If the person asking was really interested in the DHS' impact, they probably should have referred to a specific role it plays and how that function has or hasn't changed since its inception. Asking a vague question like "ARE WE SAFER?!" makes no sense. It's the difference between asking if Border Patrol makes the country more or less safe... or asking if the Border Patrol statistically lowers the amount of illegal immigrants. One is a vague, open ended question that is just conjecture, the other is a real topic.

It is a vague question, no doubt.  But that's their jobs: to take all the various question and impacts and condense it into a Yes or no vote.  "Are we safer" is just a short form of "Does the Department of Homeland Security do the tasks they are assigned better than the various departments acting as they did before." It's a question he should be able to answer, especially as someone who needs to vote on justifying how much (if any) money should be spent on it.

And since be should have access to all the various attacks and plots that the DHS has foiled over the years, he should be able to answer the question with some accuracy.

[Rushy]

It is literally Boehner's job to figure out what effect various things have on the country. If he legitimately has no position on that question, he isn't doing his job. Which is true, but still.

No, it isn't. It is his job to vote on subjects based on both expert and voter block opinion. It is impossible for one man to know everything about every subject, which means it is impossible to be a politician and know 100% of the facts of things you decide. This is why I'm quite tired of seeing college students scream out "HURR DURR SENATOR SO AND SO IS ON THE SCIENCE TEAM AND HE DON"T KNO SCIENCE!" Replace science with X subject and you get a bunch of crying nitwits angry that politicians don't know anything except politics. There is good reason that Congress has an entire army of experts at their beck and call. Ask those experts, don't ask the politicians, they're not going to know very much.

It is a vague question, no doubt.  But that's their jobs: to take all the various question and impacts and condense it into a Yes or no vote.  "Are we safer" is just a short form of "Does the Department of Homeland Security do the tasks they are assigned better than the various departments acting as they did before." It's a question he should be able to answer, especially as someone who needs to vote on justifying how much (if any) money should be spent on it.

And since be should have access to all the various attacks and plots that the DHS has foiled over the years, he should be able to answer the question with some accuracy.

I don't read "are we safer" as the question you extrapolated it to and John Boehner probably didn't either.

[markjo]

It is literally Boehner's job to figure out what effect various things have on the country. If he legitimately has no position on that question, he isn't doing his job. Which is true, but still.

No, it isn't. It is his job to vote on subjects based on both expert and voter block opinion.

Incorrect.  As Speaker of the House, Boehner is in a leadership position.  Flippant answers to questions of national security are not what one would expect from a man 2nd in line to the presidency.

...in the United States, the Speaker of the House is a leadership position and the office-holder actively works to set the majority party's legislative agenda. The Speaker usually does not personally preside over debates, instead delegating the duty to members of the House from the majority party. The Speaker usually does not participate in debate and rarely votes.

[Rushy]

Speaker of the House is not 2nd in line to the presidency... the vice-president is.

Also, it wasn't a question of national security. It was a vague question asking him to make something up, so he didn't.

[juner]

Speaker of the House is not 2nd in line to the presidency... the vice-president is.

Also, it wasn't a question of national security. It was a vague question asking him to make something up, so he didn't.

Imagine you have a line of succession to the current president. The first person in that line is the VP. The 2nd person is the Speaker of the House. You obviously knew that, but wanted to make a point anyway, which failed.

And I am glad you have such low expectations of your political representatives.

[Saddam Hussein]

Who cares about the question, anyway?  The real issue here is how inappropriate it is for Congress to be using their duty of keeping the country running smoothly as some kind of bargaining chip for their own political gain.  What are they going to do next?  Threaten to cut funding for the Department of Education if Obama doesn't reverse his position on gay marriage?  Threaten to declare war on China unless Obama endorses the Republican candidate in the next presidential election?  It's ridiculous.

[Rushy]

Imagine you have a line of succession to the current president. The first person in that line is the VP. The 2nd person is the Speaker of the House. You obviously knew that, but wanted to make a point anyway, which failed.

I imagine if there is a line for the presidency, then the president is the first one in line.

And I am glad you have such low expectations of your political representatives.

I expect them to garner their voter's and expert's opinions on a subject and vote in that manner. I don't expect them to answer vague questions on broad subjects. At least he gave a politically correct answer, the saying I've always heard is "If ifs and buts were fruits and nuts we'd all live in California"