Christoph Dollis gives us our daily dose of shutdown blues.

Yesterday I posted about how the GOP would be fired from Taco Bell and got this comment from Christoph Dollis:

This post is nonsense.

The members of congress were elected to exercise their best judgment, including when not to fund programs. Elections have consequences. They won – in the house.

He’s right: the post sucked.  It sucked because the metaphor was bad.  What I described was a union which, as it was pointed out, are pretty good things (usually).  My father posted an excerpt from a friend of his that captures it better:

So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine. Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.” Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do???

Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the fucking job.

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Bill is a fucking jackass.

Ding!

And oh, you lovely commenters came in and set him straight with all the grace of an expert fencer.  Here’s Arakasi:

Your comment is nonsense

The funding for ACA is not up for debate. It is funded. If the House wishes to change this, they are allowed to pass a bill. Now that bill still has to get past the Senate and the President, but that is the way our government works

As for “elections have consequences”, RobMcCune came thundering in:

You know, there have been 40 some attempts to repeal the ACA, and they just don’t have the votes.

 Elections have consequences.

Case in point, Obama winning a second term. Actions also have consequences, and shutting down the government in a childish temper-tantrum is going to have severe consequences for millions of Americans. So much for their “best judgement.”

Yes, elections do have consequences.  That’s a lesson for the party that lost the Presidency by 7 million votes, which lost the Senate by 5 million votes, and even lost the House by 1.7 million votes.  The people who were elected passed the ACA into law.  The Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.  But now a small faction of one body of government has claimed the power to make others suffer until fruits of democracy are subverted.

Elections have consequences, and we should harbor no love for people who cheat to avoid them – which is exactly what the Republicans are doing.

Patheos Atheist LogoLike What Would JT Do? and Patheos Atheist on Facebook!

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X