This has been a really interesting discussion.

No worries, monster. I should have known that you didn't mean it personally, and I shouldn't have allowed the nonsense from the other thread to spill over into this one. It was really my bad for overreacting and not just taking your question at face value. FT(not Congressional)R, I posted a reply to what went down in that thread, here. Politically speaking, a good example of why an official Congressional Record of votes on Resolutions can be important, is to look at the Resolution to institute Martin Luther King Day as a National Holiday.

"In 1983, CBC member Rep. Katie Hall (D-IN) re-introduced the King Holiday legislation, H.R. 3706. In the House of Representatives and in the Senate, the bill was hotly contested. The major issues raised in the House was that the passage of the bill would elevate Dr. King to the status of the founding father, George Washington and that it would be too costly to grant federal workers an additional holiday.

"The holiday bill passed the House on a vote of 338-90 in August 1983. Despite bi-partisan support and support from the Senate leadership, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) led a bitter opposition to the bill in the Senate. Calling Dr. King a Communist, Helms circulated negative material in an effort to defeat the bill. Nevertheless, the Senate approved the bill by a vote of 78-22 in October 1983."

http://www.avoiceonline.org/mlk/legislation.html

Why is the Congressional Record of the votes on that Resolution important today (well, 3 years ago, actually)?

Then-Presidential candidate John McCain was one of the 22 Senators who voted against that Resolution. I, for one, am very glad it has turned into that! Thank you for helping make it so!

I refuse to participate in any thread that would have me as a poster.

Wily one. :p:

I'm putting my sig back.

On the other hand, you do not make a big deal when someone shoots a mad dog.

And that is what happened here. As my friend said, "they took out the trash".

Also, there is not much a bunch of fat politicians can do to honor men such as these seals. It is like a mouse honoring a lion.

Uday, I agree totally.

I do too, to be honest. Do I need to hand in my bleeding heart liberal card?

Montie has been healed of her possession by evil liberal demons. Hallelujah! One more has followed the light to enlightenment

Okay, here's the deal. I honestly couldn't care less if there's a freaking Resolution on record or not. If the subject had never come up, I assure you I wouldn't have even given it a second thought.

But once the Senate came together and passed a non-partisan Resolution, I thought, "How nice." Then I heard that John Boehner had defiantly refused to do so, and I was outraged.

So why was I outraged that Boehner refused to do something I wouldn't have cared had he not done in the first place?

Because once it was "out there" and the Senate had passed theirs, it became crystal clear to me that John Boehner was turning this into yet another ugly stab at our President because G-d forbid they acknowledge something he succeeded at. It wasn't about expediency or time better spent on more important legislation (they've only passed 3 fucking bills in the 4 months they've been in control as it is). It was an intentional slap in the face to our President. It was a "Screw You" if there ever was one. And I find that reprehensible.

That's why.

And you just so happen to some by the knowledge that this happened. Insignificant as you admit it is, you just happen to have heard about it. Not as though you had time to comb through a massive catalogue of the day's events from around the world, is it? Something more like, you turned on the TV/Radio or opened a newspaper and this OUTRAGE this BLOOD-BOILING OUTRAGE just, coincidentally (because nobody really plans what's in the news, do they?) just coincidentally happened to enter into your conciousness and induce this MOTHERFUCKING OUTRAGE AT THESE GODDAMN BASTARDS WHO ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!1 But of course you're not being manipulated or anything. You CHOSE to know about this, right? This pointless event which means nothing to you, and couldn't have possibly had any substantive effect on anything, ever. You CHOSE (right?) to be SO GODDAMN OUTRAGED at this non-event that there was no purpose in you hearing about. But of course, you're not being manipulated.



Right?

You know, it is possible for grown adults to hear or read a news story and formulate an opinion based solely on facts without having been "manipulated."

Did you bother to read the article I linked to right there in the OP? If you had, you would have found differing opinions on the issue being represented by Democrats in the house, one of whom said: So tell me, was he, or the writer of the piece trying to "manipulate" me into thinking it was no big deal?

Jesus FUCK you've got some raging assholes on this forum. Perhaps my time away was best left that way.

Sorry guys, I'm outta here again. This isn't the kind of political debate I was seeking out. This is just plain rudeness, and frankly, I have no desire to put up with it.

Peace, Out.

OK; but, we get to keep Casper as our free gift with your trial offer.

Stick around Jill. I need some friends. Apparently mine are all arseholes. ;)

JSOC it to me, JSOC it to me, JSOC it to me.

Oh, well done People. The Cellar strikes again.

Why the nastiness and aggression? Someone makes perfectly reasonable points and gets shat on again.

Ffs.

@ Flint: that post is so arrogant. You've basically accused Jill of having no mind of her own and only being interested because she's been manipulated by the press. And not only arrogant but aggressive too.

Personally, I think she made some interesting points. Her arguments stack up more firmly than the counter-argument (to me) in this thread: I have not been bombarded by news on this issue. I am basing my response entirely on what's in this thread. I have seen not one single news report about this issue. It is entirely possible to form this opinion without having it shoved fully formed into your brain by journalists. Try tackling the actual issue instead of making personal attacks.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I'm millimetres away from leaving myself right now. I am so sick of this shit.

I think you should take it up with Flint Dana. Better women than I have tried before. ;)

Anyway, Jill wont leave. She knows I, at least, think she's sexy...and smart...and everything I aspire to be. :)

Don't leave me this waaaaa...ay e ay! I can't survive...

Sorry, I'll shut up now. I've been drinking.

I think she has already decided to leave actually.

Naw...she will still post. At least, I hope she will. She's a cool chick.

Flint just pissed her off, and let's face it, who hasn't Flint pissed off?

yeah. I think it probably just followed too close on the heels of the previous debate. Straw and camel's back.

Oh buttfuck Flint in the mouth.

Hey Flint, where's your outrage at the outrage that's expressed in terms of demons and whores and demonwhores? You just pop up to get snippy with someone who actually has something to say?

jill fucked up. She should've shown her ass then Flint would've respected her up and down the street. Though, having a personality and a mind of her own might trump that admiration.

Flint's selective outrage at the outrage is outrageous. OUTRAGEOUS!!!1!!

See, jill, some in the Cellar like the women to be SEEN and not HEARD.

as Dana said: ffs

Have you noticed that flint has devolved from participating in the substance of a discussion to merely attacking individuals?

Wow. This is an excellent post and really has me re-thinking a LOT of my interaction and communication techniques/habits. I'm not saying this in relation to anyone in specific, but just how I, as a female raised largely in the 70's of Ameria, feel she MUST tailor/stifle herself to even be considered to be HEARD.
This was an ah - ha moment for me - one of many that I've recently had/been able to make a connection.

Thank you, Infinite Monkey. I feel a bit different today because of your post.

I think Speaker Boehner was in a tough spot and took the easy way out.

He is dealing with a freshman class of mostly Tea Party members who, IMO, not only have little or no respect for the institution of Congress as it presently exists (and has for 200+ years) but also a disdain for Obama that goes beyond policy differences. Sure, the institution has many faults, but their slash and burn approach is purely ideological and not a very pragmatic way of addressing the larger issue.

My impression is that the TP crowd has no interest in consensus building or compromise and the resolution was an issue that I assume Boehner figured was not worth pissing them off over, saving those chips for bigger battles to come.

The resolution that was proposed in House commended the forces on site, the intel community and, heres's the problem IMO, both Bush and Obama equally.

I make that assumption based on some of their personal remarks/press releases that I have seen that give all the credit to Bush.

As to these same members of Congress on the issue of wasting time on such purposeless resolutions, I would point to the fact that they have spent hours and days on resolutions and floor speeches to kill the Affordable Care Act, knowing full well that it has no chance of passage in the Senate. A clear of waste of time.

I think this discussion has run its course, much of it in an ugly manner by a few.

Now come back, please. :)

If you come back I'll tell you tales of my days of bartending at the country club when Boehner was just then schmoozing his way up the ladder and I got to watch the Richie Rich's crawl up his ass!

I hope you feel different in a good way?

I hold you in high esteem, deservedly so. :)

After rereading, I still don't see the issue the R's have. Pass the damn thing and get back to work. There is much to be done. I'm more than a lil pissed about this now. There isn't a lot of coverage on the issue, but it is wasting time on something that has nothing to do with the real issues at hand - Jobs, economy, deficit/debt...

STFU & get to work.

From what I've heard, the "rules" committee (which is more of a sort-of-guidelines-if-the-speaker-wants committee) of the House, at the start of the current legislative session, declared that the House would no longer vote on resolutions to honor or recognise people, groups, or events, using the bloat of resolutions honoring everything from little-league baseball teams to military operations to civil rights leaders as the rationale. And I can't say I disagree with the sentiment - even though it takes hardly any time and has no policy impact, the hundreds of bills congress passes honoring or recognising who- or whatever is a little ridiculous.
But such a categoric refusal to vote on ANY bill honoring ANYTHING is a little much. This is the kind of event that the congressional record and the idea of passing resolutions to honor people is MEANT FOR. it's either a political ploy or an extreme and fundamentalist point of view on the negativity of ANY AND ALL resolutions EVER that honor shit.

I'd like "Political Ploys" for $500. please.

When everything gets honored it does rather water down the value of being honored, which, IMO, should be reserved for things like what the SEALs done did.

Special Olympics notwithstanding, we are not all winners worthy of special mention and honor.

Damn. Seriously? Who knew?

SPOILER ALERT:


Dana, I know you are probably feeling a bit stunned, it was a double whammy for me because I found that out at the same time I learned there was no easter bunny. It made for a rough year.

I'm sorry, what? What about the Easter Bunny? OHMIGOD, wtf happened to the Easter Bunny!?

He ran away with post # 327.

Nooooooo! Come back!!!!!!


That twat still owes me an egg.

You can have my ovaries?!?

Are they made of chocolate?

I am though. Me me me me me infnity.

We'll see how hypocritical they are when a repubican does something praiseworthy.
No, they're made of locators.

Haahahaahhhahhahahahahaa...that was funny. Say that again! That was one of those jokes where the premise is so ludicrous you have to laugh, right? What's that called again? :lol:


:mecry:

They're made of pain and anguish! You bastids.

After reading this sad, hateful thread I've decided to post this poem here. It explains how I feel about myself and this thread and the Cellar, as it has been these past few days. I'm not being cheeky or tongue in cheek. I'm being honest about my feelings.

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I agree Bri. The second coming is nigh. When the Republican control both houses and the presidency, then the dawn of the era will begin

i knew someone would shit all over my post.

Why try?

The dawn of what era? The Age of Nefarious? :eyebrow:

yeah. I'm really only interested in chocolate.


@ bri: awesome poem.

This is the dawning of the age of nefarious, age of nefarious
NE FAR EEEEEEE ous

Yes sir, that is what I was going for. ;)

I believe classic crystallized it best, first when he said the refusal of the House to pass a similar bill is because the leadership does not want to acknowledge a political point for their political opponent.

They have LOUDLY made their political point of their own, though. I find their refusal petty.

You totally missed the point, then.

Somebody, somewhere, actually chooses what is shown on the news. This part, you have no control over.

Your reaction, this discussion, and everything else is completely based on the fact that this was ON THE NEWS TO BEGIN WITH. I ask again. Have you been manipulated? I'm not questioning your ability to interpret a news story. I'm questioning whether this was news to begin with.

Flint makes an important observation that, having been in the lie-making industry for 30 something years, I can personally corroborate.

What you see as "news" is often not even based on actual events.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (a lot of things happen). I'm saying: who cares?

If it had no other purpose than to intentionally outrage people, why was it shown? Why were news consumers outraged, and why did this discussion happen? To further the cause of political divisiveness? Mission Accomplished.

Meanwhile, many things that were actually important passed by without comment. The news is largely nonsense.

I'm not saying you said it didn't happen. I'm saying that what you see on 'the news' is not only chosen by someone with some sort of agenda, it often isn't even fact. And, even in the best of cases it is only one side of a complex story.

As a friend of mine says, "There's what He said, and there's what She said, and there's what really happened."

And I agree about the one purpose being political divisiveness. Another thought I usually have is "Who stands to profit from this story and in what way?" You can usually follow the money trail back to the source.

Pooka always says "There are THREE sides to every story." Meaning, what your friend said.



Dude, are you banging my wife?

doesn't matter.

Jill is gone.

Well, there's what she said, and what I say, and what... wait? What? No way man. She's married.

Yeah, she's a real hep cat, daddy-o.

People are free to make their own decisions.

I read the opening post Flint. I read the article and saw the site at which the article is posted. I also read your post addressed directly to Jill.

She may have missed your point. I certainly missed your point. I contend that the reason the point was missed is that you don't really make that point in your post. It is LOUDLY proclaiming about how she came to HEAR about it, and lots OF OTHER STUFF about her state of mind, ESPECIALLY about being MANIPULATED, etc., etc. The point "is this news?" is never made in your first post. That's why it was missed.

You even go so far as contradict yourself in your following post.

--OR--
Which one is it? Are you asking if she's been manipulated or are you confident in her ability to interpret news stories? Contradiction.


But as for your complaint about your point, this question:
does not show up in your first post. No one can get a point you don't make man.

I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self-explanatory. The end.

I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self explanatory. The end.

See? Works for *EVERYBODY*, but that is how learning stops. If you end your side of the discussion, then I can't learn anything more about you or your thought process. What you've written is *not* self explanatory, a person's words need the actual person to explain them.

If you say A, and I say, hm.. I don't see it. And you just leave it there, tha's fine, cool. My (apparently incorrect) understanding will remain similarly unchanged. But I'll wonder what was the purpose of your remarks. Were you trying to inform me, amuse me, persuade me? Were you just thinking out loud with none of these intentions? I don't know. I'm just left with what I've got.

and I've got an image of what I've already said, plus one of you with a closed mind.

communication is the sending and receiving of information. Lots of sending here, but a lamentable lack of receiving.

Read the post again and imagine that it is about what I said it is about. I meant exactly what I said.

right.

I did read all of that, more than once. In every reading, the subject (largely omitted in your quoting) is "you", Jill, since you were addressing her. The object was her understanding, her knowledge and the provenance of that knowledge.

Your point is made obliquely at best and the most direct reference to the insignificance of this item and its news-un-worthiness is in the negative "...nobody does plan..do they?". the quote you show might have been what you wrote when you were thinking "Man, this is such a non-issue, why all the fuss in the first place?", but what came out was very different.