Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train
Not too many years ago, the Republican party was a well oiled machine. With majorities in both houses and control of the White House, members of both houses moved almost in lockstep.
Today, the Republican party seems to be in disarray. The recent miscalculation that had the Republican Senate leader
filibustering his own proposal demonstrated the amount of political miscalculation and desperation present in the Republican Senate caucus.
McConnell was hoping to put Democrats in the awkward position of having to vote for ceding Congress’s authority over the debt ceiling to the president. As he put it in his morning remarks, “by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants by as much as he wants, he showed what he’s really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit.”
Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada objected, putting Democrats in the position of blocking a vote on their president’s proposal. Yet within hours, Democrats sensed a way to turn the tables – and were ready to call McConnell’s bluff.
They returned to the floor and offered to bring the matter up for a vote immediately, concluding that, politically speaking, they would be happy to argue that fixing the debt ceiling permanently was the fiscally responsible thing to do – even at the cost of congressional authority.
So what did Mitch McConnell do, facing a vote on his own suggestion from just hours before?
He offered two magic words – “I object” – and filibustered his own suggestion.
A few weeks later, the Speaker of the House, who has a real majority instead of a simple obstructive mechanism, attempted a similar maneuver. He attempted to push through his own budget proposal, weighted heavily but not entirely with provisions favorable to his party's positions and without agreement from the Democrats, hoping to force a veto from the President and to label the President obstructionist. He failed to get a majority of votes
from his own party, forcing a very public failure which highlighted party divisions to the public.
Had there been a vote on Republican House Speaker John Boehner's "Plan B" to avert the so-called U.S. fiscal cliff on Thursday night, it would not have been close. He was probably 40 to 50 votes short of the number he needed to avoid a humiliating defeat at the hands of his own party, according to rough estimates from Republican members of Congress and staff members.
When the Democrats were a minority party under Bush Jr., I do not believe that I ever saw this level of self delusion and infighting.
Bohner has done a poor job as Speaker of the House. No doubt about that. No matter what happens with the fiscal cliff, his days as Speaker appear to be numbered.
Worse, the Republican party leader, have been making mis-steps, quite regularly. The party can't move forward when it's kicking itself in the shins on a regular basis.
The biggest problem with the Republican party is that enough of their voting base is obstructive to their goals. Most republicans I know, out here in the world, want the US to be a great country...they want great schools, primary and secondary, they want a great economy, they want great infrastructure for roads, water and electricity to support a country as great as the US. The weird thing is that they refuse to pay for it. And now that we are in debt up to our ears, no one wants to bite the long term bullet and live with less. Way less, the fiscal cliff is not going to ruin our economy....it's about time we got honest with bankers, who are a bunch of fear based kids any ways, it's time we made them get honest with value, worth, and our debt. It's time we stopped handing out bags of money to places like Afganistan, Iraq and Pakistan. It's time to pay for and invest in our own country. But wait, does that mean that I have to pay TAXES?!?! and down the Republican toilet bowel spiral we go.
Bohner has done a poor job as Speaker of the House.
Boehner was doing his job of negotiating a solutoin. He and Obama had an agreement long ago. Then Eric Cantor stabbed Boehner in the back (as Replublicans did to Gingrich over ten years ago). Boehner was forced to due what no honest negotiator does. He phoned Obama to say he was reneging on the deal. As a result, Boehner and Obama were not talking for weeks. Can you blame Obama? Boehner was not negotiating with good faith? And Boehner thought he was representing the house majority. Unfortunately too many are followers of Limbaugh and Norquist. A political agenda that says we want America to fail.
Problem is simple. Honest negotiators deal with facts. Ideologues negotiate only with a political agenda. Boehner, who wanted to negotiate in good faith, instead, found himself being stabbed in the back just like what happened to Gingrich when negotiating for his Contract with America with Clinton.
Ideology said it is important to harm America so that Obama will fail. Boehner could never get around that extremist political agenda.
It's all moot in Washington, just a dog & pony show. Where the Teapublicans are directing their efforts is at the state level, governorships and state legislators, so they can gerrymander districts to consolidate power.
They've been doing this successfully for awhile with good results... for them, not for us. They can do this because those left wing hippies and Cadillac driving welfare queens don't pay attention to mid-term and local elections.
Republicans values require everyone who had damage from Sandy to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. That pussy Christie better get with the program, or he won't be invited to the next republican convention.
Bullshit. The relief bill was soaked with pork from the senate shitheads. Direct your ire at them. It would be more accurate.
What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.
For George, I can understand it because it just shows what a little man he is/was.
But Republicans couldn't be more un-patriotic than to try to make any U.S. President's Inauguration into a partisan issue.
But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.
:eyebrow:
What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.
Romney is a private citizen. Since he holds no office, I don't believe that he has any reason to attend. I don't know what the protocol is for the losing candidate.
Bush's father is pretty sick and cannot attend, so I can sort of see him not attending.
What's with the Repubicans ? --snip--
and the re-Pubic's are saying
--snip
Now, I'm all for foolin around, I read a book once on the subject of humor and liked it. Maybe you're just joking around--if so--I am sorry I missed the joke. However...
Dude. Please don't do shit like this. It was immature and unhelpful when other dwellars resorted to this kind of childish namecalling. Repeating such a mistake has zero upside. It makes you look like a fool. Don't talk like a fool and expect to be treated seriously.
What's with the Repubicans ? George W. doesn't attend the Inaugation!
Romney and Bohner doesn't show either, and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.
For George, I can understand it because it just shows what a little man he is/was.
But Republicans couldn't be more un-patriotic than to try to make any U.S. President's Inauguration into a partisan issue.
But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.
:eyebrow:
or it could mean they simply have no respect for the man or his policies. or they don't like his shoes. or his wife. or maybe they just wanted to go fishing. or wash their hair.
Really, why does it matter? Seeing Obama sworn in with all the pomp and circumstance traditionally built into the event may be your wet dream, but for others it may not be all that thrilling, so why would they go?
Or maybe they weren't invited.
Really, why does it matter? Seeing Obama sworn in with all the pomp and circumstance traditionally built into the event may be your wet dream, but for others it may not be all that thrilling, so why would they go?
Because fairly, or unfairly, it makes them look like petulant losers instead of statesmen engaged in the great game.
The inauguration of the President is important regardless of who is actually taking the oath. For a nation so jealous of its traditions and hard won political identity, it seems very strange for leading figures from the losing party not to attend. It seems pointed.
what Dani said. They look like petulant children.
they're gonna take their ball and go home.
go ahead; Boehner is a complete joke and the rest of them are tired old white men who already made their millions---they don't need to court anybody anymore-esp. a black dude.
What's pissing me off this morning? The Virginia Republicans are cheaters. Fucking cheaters.
The Virginia State Senate is split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. On Inauguration Day, one Democrat went to Washington DC to participate in the Inauguration. So while he was out of town, on a federal holiday, the
Virginia Republicans pushed through a surprise bill (with only 30 minutes of floor debate) that would redistrict Virginia and take
6 Virginia State Senate seats away from Democrats, and make the Republicans have a solid majority in the Virginia State Senate. The Virginia House is already Republican, so they will most likely pass the Senate's bill, and the Governor is a Republican too. He is criticizing the partisanship of this bill, but refuses to say that he won't sign it into law.
The fucking cheater Republicans in Virginia have consolidated their power through cheating even as the voters in the state are Democrats by statistically significant margin. The 2012 Virginia election went to Obama 51.2% to the Republicans 47.3%.
I want to know why the Virginia Senate is even in session on Inauguration Day. That seems very disrespectful to me. The bill passed 20 to 19, with that one Democrat away at Inauguration and not voting.
It's pathetic that the only way the Republicans can hold on to power in Virginia is to cheat. And it seems to be working.
that's really dirty work.
it's also the Republican way.
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
What's with the Repubicans ? --snip--
and the re-Pubic's are saying
--snip
Now, I'm all for foolin around, I read a book once on the subject of humor and liked it.
Maybe you're just joking around--if so--I am sorry I missed the joke. However...
Dude. Please don't do shit like this.
It was immature and unhelpful when other dwellars resorted
to this kind of childish name calling. Repeating such a mistake has zero upside.
It makes you look like a fool. Don't talk like a fool and expect to be treated seriously.
I'm not really disagreeing with your comments.
Words DO matter.
But at times the use of a word is so subtle it doesn't get through the fog.
For example, your quote should have been the full sentence:
and the re-Pubic's are saying [COLOR="DarkRed"]it's a Democrat holiday.[/COLOR]
Languages are fluid and this is an example of what how Republicans use the word.
Most people now don't notice the difference, but there is a political message
in the use of "Democrat" as an adjective, not as a noun.
Check out Wikipedia's section on it's use as an
epithet.
Maybe after this tit-for-tat, the next time a Republican uses the word "Democrat",
the true intent of their message will be more apparent.
What's with the Repubicans ?
<snip>
But then, maybe a black U.S. President being inaugurated on a
federal holiday celebrating a black hero of civil rights is more
telling about today's Republican Party than it first appears.
:eyebrow:
or it could mean they simply have no respect for the man or his policies.
or they don't like his shoes. or his wife. or maybe they just wanted to go fishing.
or wash their hair.
Really, why does it matter? <snip>
@ Lookout:
It matters in the same sense you probably learned in the AF.
You showed respect and saluted the rank, not the person in the uniform.
It also matters in the sense that Members of Congress are elected
to serve as representatives of all their district or state.
Their person opinions, unlike yours or mine as private citizens,
do not merit disrespectful or racist behavior, particularly when
it comes from the leadership of the Republican Party.
@Lamplighter.
No, my quote stands.
When other people talk shit, I take it to them. When you repeat their shit, that's up to you--I have no desire to perpetuate it. You said "re-Pubics" said this and that. My complaint is your use of language, not theirs.
I do agree that the increasingly common use you describe above is misuse, I just decline to fuel their fire. Those who use it that way sound stupid or small or mean or all of the above and that's their privilege. I did see it. I did ignore it. I commented on your words, because I can speak to you and your deliberate use of language.
@Lamplighter.
No, my quote stands.
<snip>
OK, thank you for the reprimand.
Peace.
@ Lookout:
It matters in the same sense you probably learned in the AF.
You showed respect and saluted the rank, not the person in the uniform.
It also matters in the sense that Members of Congress are elected
to serve as representatives of all their district or state.
Their person opinions, unlike yours or mine as private citizens,
do not merit disrespectful or racist behavior, particularly when
it comes from the leadership of the Republican Party.
Last time I checked the president, senate, and house are not in a chain of command. Respecting the rank is irrelevent. I'm not an elected official so my opinion and actions aren't worth sand at this point, but when I wore the uniform I would have saluted Obama if in his presence. Today? I wouldn't hold the fucking door open for him. To be fair I wouldn't for most of the slime on either side of the aisle either. He's just a man. I owe him nothing and neither do Boehner and whoever else decided not to pose for the cameras.
If, in their estimation, there was nothing to lose by showing up then I see no problem in their absence. It's their call. to be fair, they had nothing to gain by attending either. The hard left would still hate them, the hard right would still exalt them and I would still feel the way I do about all of these men and women. Whatever.
and please do me a favor and drop the racist bullshit. People can despise his policies and dislike the man without being racist. I'm fairly certain BigV and many other dwellars hated GWB, and that certainly wasn't do to his being white. It's a lazy way to discredit and dehumanize those who don't agree with you and yours.
What's pissing me off this morning? The Virginia Republicans are cheaters. Fucking cheaters.
The Virginia State Senate is split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. On Inauguration Day, one Democrat went to Washington DC to participate in the Inauguration. So while he was out of town, on a federal holiday, the Virginia Republicans pushed through a surprise bill (with only 30 minutes of floor debate) that would redistrict Virginia and take 6 Virginia State Senate seats away from Democrats, and make the Republicans have a solid majority in the Virginia State Senate. The Virginia House is already Republican, so they will most likely pass the Senate's bill, and the Governor is a Republican too. He is criticizing the partisanship of this bill, but refuses to say that he won't sign it into law.
The fucking cheater Republicans in Virginia have consolidated their power through cheating even as the voters in the state are Democrats by statistically significant margin. The 2012 Virginia election went to Obama 51.2% to the Republicans 47.3%.
I want to know why the Virginia Senate is even in session on Inauguration Day. That seems very disrespectful to me. The bill passed 20 to 19, with that one Democrat away at Inauguration and not voting.
It's pathetic that the only way the Republicans can hold on to power in Virginia is to cheat. And it seems to be working.
I don't think the Republicans are limiting their goals to "holding on to power in Virginia".
Here's another story about the same group of legislators and how they're manipulating the rules to increase their leverage by changing how Electoral College votes are distributed. These new State Senatorial districts you describe glatt, they're going to be the basis for distributing electoral votes. They're reaching for presidential impact by giving real national currency to the changes in state districts you describe.
Perhaps recognizing the limitations of keeping voters from the polls, Republicans have designed a new strategy for 2016: Selective changes to the electoral college that only favor Republican presidential candidates.
Currently, in all but two states, electoral college votes are allocated on a winner-take-all stasis. Republicans, who for years have toiled to capture the low interest, backwater of U.S. politics, state legislatures, to control redistricting of congressional seats, now want to leverage selectively their advantage to rewrite the rules of presidential elections. Their proposal is to award electoral votes proportionally by congressional district, the very districts they gerrymandered, stuffing as many Democrats as possible into the fewest districts possible. This is how Republicans have solidified their advances in congressional elections; now, in a select number of battleground states where they control the legislatures and the congressional delegations, they want to award electoral votes by congressional district thus off-setting the trends in popular vote favoring Democrats.
What's pissing me off this morning? The Virginia Republicans are cheaters. Fucking cheaters.
The Virginia State Senate is split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. On Inauguration Day, one Democrat went to Washington DC to participate in the Inauguration. So while he was out of town, on a federal holiday, the Virginia Republicans pushed through a surprise bill (with only 30 minutes of floor debate) that would redistrict Virginia and take 6 Virginia State Senate seats away from Democrats, and make the Republicans have a solid majority in the Virginia State Senate. The Virginia House is already Republican, so they will most likely pass the Senate's bill, and the Governor is a Republican too. He is criticizing the partisanship of this bill, but refuses to say that he won't sign it into law.
The fucking cheater Republicans in Virginia have consolidated their power through cheating even as the voters in the state are Democrats by statistically significant margin. The 2012 Virginia election went to Obama 51.2% to the Republicans 47.3%.
I want to know why the Virginia Senate is even in session on Inauguration Day. That seems very disrespectful to me. The bill passed 20 to 19, with that one Democrat away at Inauguration and not voting.
It's pathetic that the only way the Republicans can hold on to power in Virginia is to cheat. And it seems to be working.
Well, they made Stephen Colbert's alpha dogs of the week. You should be proud...
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423163/january-23-2013/alpha-dog-of-the-week---virginia-state-senate-republicansTurns out the Republican governor of Florida has decided that "ObamaCare" is a good idea after all.
Maybe they suddenly remembered that the concept was originally proposed and promoted by conservative Republican thinks tanks.
But then that would be viewing the product rather than believe political rhetoric. So maybe some Republicans decided they do not want America to fail after all. Or maybe they just rediscovered their pre-frontal cortex.
Extremists say they want America to fail. And so another benchmark happens today. An example of what happens when too many are brainwashed by political rhetoric rather than use their prefrontal cortex.
Why could I so easily see through the myths of Saddam's WMDs? One powerful source of honesty were four reports from Frontline. History has repeatedly demonstrated that Frontline is a critical source of knowledge.
Frontline goes directly to people involved in our current economic Cliffhanger. Every day in the news are soundbytes and rhetoric. What are facts behind that spin?
Frontline from PBS.org lets the players say what they were really doing and discussing.
After a round of golf, Obama and Boehmer sat down for a talk. (BTW, guess who won. The team of Boehmer and Obama.) Boehmer then suggested hammering out a most signifianct and dangerous agreement that would really solve America's economic problem. Obama agreed to his proposal - the Grand Bargin. Until the wackos (ie Eric Cantor) discovered Boehmer and Obama were trying to make America prosperous.
What preceeded and followed? Most have heard snippets, soundbytes, or dots in the news.
Frontline's Cliffhanger is where the players connect those dots. Frontline demonstrates why barginning has been perverted by wacko extremists.
Boehmer has a problem. His position as Speaker of the House was so threatened after the Grand Bargin was discovered by wacko extremist Republicans. So Boehmer had to back off from all future negotiations. At one point, he refused to take Obama's phone calls. Boehmer is now preaching rhetoric and lies of Eric Cantor, Rush Limbaugh, and Norquist. Why is he talking so differently? No more Grand Bargin is possible now that he was cornered by Republican extremists. Boehmer was at risk by similar tactics that undermined Gingrich. These wackos remains a problem because too many Americans are brainwashed by rhetoric that has one purpose - to make America fail. So that Obama will fail.
Frontline's Cliffhanger is especially useful for observers outside the States to understand what is really meant by Washington soundbytes currently reported the news.
From The Register of 5 Mar 2013:
US lawmaker blames bicycle breath for global warming gas
A Washington state representative has uncovered a previously under-reported source of greenhouse gas: huffing and puffing cyclists.
Ed Orcutt, who lists "Tax relief" at the top of his legislative priorities and who was 2000's Washington Young Republican Federation Man of the Year, emailed the owner of a Tacoma, Washington, bike shop who had written him to protest a proposed tax on bicycles, part of a larger state transportation bill.
Although he noted that he was "not a fan" of many tax proposals, Orcutt argued that "it only makes sense that bicyclists would also be required to pay for the 'roads' they use when they are actually biking on them." He then added his belief that two-wheeled transport is polluting the environment:
"You claim that it is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride."
Why did Saddam have WMDs? Why do tax cuts not recreate a (predicted) recession? Why is global warming an evil trick from the liberal media? Why do wacko extremists need all research into gun violence banned? Why can a woman not get pregnant from a rape?
Wacko extremists know the truth. Invent facts to prove it. After all, ideology knows what is true.
Bicyclists are clearly a most common source of global warming.
Well, he finally admitted the existence of global warming. That is progress.
So we solve global warming by raping women. Then kids will not be born to grow up and ride bicycles. Their political agenda says it must be true.
Heh! If the Republicans think cyclists are bad, what about all those joggers? What about hikers and walkers, not to mention cross country skiers? And then there's all those culprits who go work out at the gym. And speaking of heavy breathing... Well, I'll let Bruce explain about that.
I guess the environmentally aware must now become couch potatoes who have taken a vow of celibacy. That would also solve the abortion problem and us women would be spared vaginal ultrasound exams.
Thank you, Republicans. We knew you would finally come through for everyone at last.
sent by - what else? A bicycle nessenger guy
I guess the environmentally aware must now become couch potatoes who have taken a vow of celibacy.
The internet. Saving the planet one lonely slob at a time.
During the election, extremist Republicans tried to win by preventing people from voting. By inventing voter fraud and other complications. It only made minorities angrier. The Economist of 9 February 2013 said,
The problem for the party is that it continues a defensive, backward-looking, and ultimately losing strategy of the last election in which Republicans tried to keep non-whites voters from voting rather than engaging with them. Instead of trying to thwart the popular vote, Republicans might be a lot better off trying to win it.
Reagan's 11th Commandment said, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". But the party's extremist situation has become scary. From The Economist of 14 February 2013,
On the face of it party grandees and anti-establishment groups - such as the Club for Growth or sundry tea party outfits - are arguing about races that were lost in 2010 and 2012.
The establishment points to candidates backed by outside groups who threw away winnable races, notably in the Senate. The list is extensive. In Delaware in 2010 there was Christine O'Donnell, an erratic pro-chastity activist whose tea-fuelled campaign at one point ran TV ads denying that she was a witch. In Missouri in 2012 there was Todd Akin, a fierce social conservative whose campaign imploded after he claimed - against all medical evidence - that women subjected to what he called "legitimate rape" rarely fall pregnant, because their bodies have ways to "shut that whole thing down".
... the establishment (most prominently in the form of a new fighting fund backed by Karl Rove, ...) has started looking for new, Akin-style troublemakers. Steven Law, the head of the new Rove-backed fighting fund, the Conservative Victory Project, has named Steve King - an anti-immigration hardliner from the House of Representatives who is pondering a Senate run in Iowa - as someone with a "Todd Akin problem". Mr King's antics include building a model border fence in the House chamber (electrified, he noted: as we do "with livestock"), and calling immigration a "slow-motion terrorist attack".
Another fighting fund, run by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, says it will intervene in primaries to defend moderates - or what its boss Steve LaTourette ... from Ohio, calls the "governing wing of the Republican Party". ... the Main Street fund is looking at the House primary in South Carolina's first district, where ... Mark Sanford, a disgraced former governor, [is] launching a come-back bid.
... the candidacy of Paul Broun, a member of the House of Representatives, physician and big-game hunter, who argues that President Barack Obama is a Marxist bent on destroying the free enterprise system. Mr Broun ... was filmed telling a group of Baptist hunting enthusiasts that, looking back on years of scientific training, he had come to realise that: "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell." Despite some sniggering in the national and international press, Mr Broun cruised to re-election, though ... 4000 locals reportedly wrote in the name of Charles Darwin on their ballot papers.
... the real fight underway within the Republican Party is still more vicious:
... establishment Republicans and insurgents broadly share the goal of avoiding Akin-style losers. Their really poisonous disagreement involves Akin-style winners. Before he was undone ... Mr Akin was a six-term member of the House of Representatives, maintaining a posture of insurgency via hardline votes and clashes with party leaders. He won his last House election with 68% of the vote. It is the collective power wielded by Republicans from such safe districts and their distaste for compromise (strongly reinforced by fears of primary challenges if their purity wavers), that really divides establishment Republicans from the insurgent right ...
... the Karl Roves ... could also be charged with hypocrisy, as they throw their hands up in horror at candidates like Mr Akin. After all, Mr Rove and his like once embraced the same religious forces that empowered Mr Akin, using gay-marriage ballots and other gimmicks to drive up Republican turnout at the 2004 election, blurring divisions between social and economic conservatives in ways that still harm the party among centrist voters.
Moving on to Reuters on 14 Feb 2013, freshman Texas Senator Cruz:
... has suggested that Hagel's nomination was endorsed by Iran, and that Hagel was not being forthcoming enough about his finances.
Before the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee voted to back Hagel's confirmation on Tuesday on a party-line, 14-11 vote, Cruz angered lawmakers in both parties by suggesting, without giving evidence, that Hagel might have taken money from countries such as North Korea.
That drew a rebuke from Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who said Cruz had "gone over the line."
It also prompted a warning to Cruz from a fellow Republican, John McCain of Arizona, ...
"No one on this committee at any time should impugn his character or his integrity," McCain said of Hagel, a fellow veteran of the Vietnam War.
In reply to a Ryan Paul question, John Brennan suggested a drone might be necessary to avert another WTC type attack. Paul, a tea party extremist, intentionally misrepresented his answer to claim Brennan advocates using drones on the students at Kent State, patrons in a cafe, or Jane Fonda.
Well Republican moderates had enough. Senators McCain and Graham openly confronted Ryan's foolishness. Graham said Ryan's antics cause him to change his vote; to vote for Brennan.
A war to save the Republican party from wackos has become public. Campaign funds are established so that Republicans can campaign against other Republicans. A violation of a Reagan principle. Because extremist ideology has replaced adult thinking.
For once Rand sounded a little like the best part of his Dad. This administration has expanded its use of drones with little regard for international law, boundaries, and frankly human life. They are into targeted assassinations which have the advantage of avoiding messy trials. The question needed asking.
Rand Paul Talked About Drones More in One Day Than Congress Ever Has
In total, Paul (and, to a lesser extent, other Senate speakers) said the word 489 times — 22 percent more than the term had been used on the record in the preceding twelve years.
Our elected officials have not been having an open discussion about the ethical use of this technology.
Yeah. I don't know much about the guy but I was pleased that he pulled off that stunt and got the Administration to say they won't use drones to kill peaceful US citizens on our own soil. Kinda pathetic. But that's where we are.
There are 3 issues:
... drones flying over foreign countries, and the killing of American citizens without indictment or trial
The latter is a police matter, the former is not.
Rand Paul just getting a smidgen of publicity was the third.
There are 3 issues:
One issue was forgotten. Congress long ago should have constructed guidelines for the use of drone. They did their usual nothing. Worse, Congress does not even discuss doing that research. Specific purposes for using drones domestically exist. Congress is currently leaving law enforcement to make their own guidelines.
Some Congressmen want to make political hay rather than do their jobs; rather than define those guidelines.
In the absence of Federal guidelines, North Dakota does the responsible thing.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/bill-limiting-drones-passes-north-dakota-house-60-31/
Except as provided in section 3 of this Act, a law enforcement agency may not use an unmanned aircraft for surveillance of a person within the state or for the surveillance of personal or business property located within the borders of the state to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct, or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant issued by a court which satisfies the requirements of the Constitution of North Dakota. Except as provided in section 3 of this Act, a law enforcement agency may not use an unmanned aircraft for surveillance of a person within the state or for the surveillance of personal or business property located within the borders of the state to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct, ...
So its completely legal if the chopper carries a man but illegal if the chopper is unmanned. That sounds much like Frazier and the Board of Director blaming Paterno without doing any investigation or research.
No. It requires a warrant just like a manned aircraft.
Except as provided in section 3 of this Act
I couldn't find an explanation of section 3 at the link. I hope it is about a warrant and/or probable cause, rather than having a "cop hunch".
No. It requires a warrant just like a manned aircraft.
So a chopper that locates suspected car thieves, does surveillance, or other information pertaining to criminal conduct require search warrants? When did that happen? Helicopters uses in Cops that never required a search warrant. And must now have search warrants because drones need one?
Wording in that N Dakota law defines how law enforcement uses manned choppers.
hmmm... over-public roadways maybe?
hmmm... over-public roadways maybe?
Stolen cars parked in and bank robbers hiding in the backyards of private property. What was once called hiding in plain sight now requires a warrant? If the laws that define manned choppers were good enough, then why do drones need new laws?
But if they are doing traffic surveillance, or a bunny population count, and happen to see someone being bad, can they shoot? I mean with a camera of course.
But if they are doing traffic surveillance, or a bunny population count, and happen to see someone being bad, can they shoot? I mean with a camera of course.
They can only shoot bunnies gone bad. The Supreme Court is still out on whether they can shoot people who are still driving Gremlins.
Hey now, there's nothing wrong with Gremlins. I put 140,000 miles on one then gave it to a needy teenager. I saw it going the other way a couple years later (recognized my paint job), and all the lights were working, it had license plates, but I don't know if it way inspected because it didn't have a windshield to put the stickers on. :haha:
I saw it going the other way a couple years later
It still keeps running away from you? What did you do to it?
Oy, I'm glad it couldn't talk. :smack:
Gremlins were ok cars. My cousin had one. Huge engine in a smallish car. Lots of power. Kind of ugly in hindsight, but most cars back then look ugly today.
And you flicked on the high beams by stepping on a button on the rusted out floor. Made it a challenge when the floor was getting spongy from rust, and pressing on the button would just push the whole assembly into the floor.
A guy friend in HS had a Gremlin he 'souped up.' Nowadays I guess you'd say he pimped his ride.
Sometimes he had to clutch start it. I remember being at the fair and all of us pushing his car trying to get some speed up.
I remember cars having the high beam thing on the floor.
I took a friend's Gremlin for a day to fix it. One immediate task was to get rid noise inside the dashboard. I eventually removed the entire front panel. And still could not get to bolts that held the entire dash board to the frame. They were only finger tightened for good reason. It was virtually impossible to get a wrench on it.
Well I made something to eventually tighten it. Then learned another lesson about AMC. They used same connectors for multiple harnesses. ( No good car makes that mistake.) Got two connectors mixed up. Fortunately, my friend's uncle owned the AMC dealer. So they gave me access to the wiring diagrams.
The car was fun to drive. But I found reams of problems (and noises) all directly traceable to bad design and manufacturing practices.
BTW, all domestic cars back then had high beams on the floor.
By the time Courts decide it is legal to shoot Gremlins, those cars definitely will no longer exist.
The News Tribute
A poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center
found that [COLOR="DarkRed"]around 8 in 10 of both gun owners and people without guns favor
extending background checks to private gun sales.[/COLOR]
Majorities of gun owners oppose banning assault weapons,
while most without firearms favor the prohibition.
About 3 in 10 Republicans said they own guns, about double the rate of Democrats.
It also found that two-thirds of NRA members support expanded background checks.
So then ...
Senate Committee Approves Expanding Background Checks For Gun Sales
The Associated Press reports that the committee cast a 10-8 party-line vote, [COLOR="DarkRed"]with all Republicans opposed[/COLOR],
on the measure to expand a requirement of background checks for gun sales between private parties.
<snip>
The panel also voted [COLOR="DarkRed"]14-4[/COLOR] for a measure providing an additional $40 million annually
for school safety improvements like classroom locks and training for teachers.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Four Republicans joined Democrats in backing that measure,[/COLOR]
which initially called for a higher figure that was reduced in bargaining
between Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
NPR
Last week, the committee voted [COLOR="DarkRed"]11-7[/COLOR] for a bill that would make
gun trafficking a federal crime carrying long prison terms.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa was the sole Republican supporter[/COLOR].
That measure would also crack down on straw purchasers,
people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.
[COLOR="DarkRed"][/COLOR]
The cognitive dissidence built up between being an obstructionist and doing the logical thing, must cost them any pleasure from the first two martinis of the day.
The Associated Press reports that the committee cast a 10-8 party-line vote, with all Republicans opposed, on the measure to expand a requirement of background checks for gun sales between private parties.
I heard most of the bitching in the wilderness was about the two private party sales. Obviously this would nail straw purchasers selling to street thugs. But it also meant if Joe Sixpack agrees to sell one of his guns to his son, neighbor, or hunting buddy, they both have to travel to an FFL holder, do the paperwork/background check, pay for this service, and possibly pay sales tax on the deal.
If legitimate sales are made more difficult, there will be more illegitimate sales. More guns will be reported stolen or lost, and the market for untraceable guns and saturday night specials will increase.
I agree that if good old boy Charlie wants to sell a gun to good old boy Bubba who just wants a shotgun to go 'coon hunting, the paperwork that would be required is ridiculous. But what if Bubba is actually a member of the Mexican Mafia? :eek:
As the saying goes "Only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man who wants to buy that gun."
The market for untraceable guns will increase - no question. But honest gun owners or just those who fear imprisonment by the Feds, will not be selling their guns under the table to shady characters - especially shady characters who pretend that they haven't just crawled out from underneath a rock.
The laws of supply and demand will ensure that the cost of an illegal gun will sky rocket. I was listening to a report on NPR about gang violence in the schools. Several gang members said that they got their guns for free, just for joining a gang. These kids were like 13 or 14 years old!
If higher gun prices on the black market makes it too costly to hand out a free gun to a 13 year-old, the background check law will not have been enacted in vain.
The reality is most guns are untraceable, even legally bought guns that haven't changed hands.
"There is a perception -- even among law enforcement agencies -- that if you send a serial number from a gun up here, that we plug it into a computer and the name of a gun owner pops out, as if there's a national registration system," says Charles Houser, who has been chief of the center since 2005. "There's no such thing."
No such thing, because federal law prohibits the creation of a national database of gun purchases. That ban was first slipped into an appropriations bill in Congress in 1979 and became permanent law in 1986, in a law sponsored by two strong supporters of gun rights, Idaho Republican James McClure and Missouri Democrat Harold Volkmer. Both men passed away in 2011.
The ban on a federal gun sale database has been strongly supported by the powerful National Rifle Association. The NRA told us it "is opposed to any registry of law abiding gun owners."
So workers at the National Tracing Center are left with an antiquated system to trace 350,000 guns a year, requiring them to review by hand tons of paper records and 500 million entries on microfilm. Critics say it's the law enforcement equivalent of the horse and buggy.
This is outrageous. :mad:
That is a great point. The big difference between guns and drugs (often used as an analogy for failed prohibition/regulation) is that guns start out legal and can be registered. Drugs start out illegal and remain illegal, making them impossible to trace.
Is this hypocrisy, Republican politics
du jour, or just a man
whose "sacred values" only apply to other families, and not his own ?
NY Times
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: March 15, 2013
G.O.P. Senator Says He Has a Gay Son, and Backs Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON — Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, a rising national star in the Republican Party,
announced on Friday that he has a gay son and could no longer justify his opposition to same-sex marriage.
<snip>
In a series of interviews and an op-ed article published in The Columbus Dispatch,
Mr. Portman, at times nervously wringing his hands, said that he did not want his son Will,
who is 21, treated any differently because of his sexuality.
<snip>
Mr. Portman was a sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
that is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court, with arguments scheduled for this month.
That case, he said, was a factor in his decision to speak out.<snip>
“At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted
in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” he wrote in the op-ed.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective.”[/COLOR]
<snip>
I realize this is how things often work in legislatures...
a person is elected to office and then is confronted by a situation in their own family.
and is then willing to change their support for particular legislation.
I have seen this happen with funding for research and/or support
for rare diseases, mental health services, suicides, etc.
I am very glad Senator Portman has changed his mind,
but at the same time it makes me angry that he did not think
about the children of other parents when he advocated for DOM.
Then again, maybe Mr Portman is being used this time
as a stalking horse by the Republican leadership.
.
The experiences of theoretical others are never as powerful as those of people close to us. If it's not a stalking horse move then it's a brave one. he could have just gone quiet about these issues. If it's your own kid it personalises it. You can sympathise with someone else and their children but you don't feel their pain in the same way.
Hypocrisy thy name is
Steve Katz.
Katz, in his position on committees for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, has a duty to his constituents to personally investigate the problem. :rolleyes:
@Griff: It's interesting to me is that such an event is already labelled...
Last year, he voted against legalizing medical marijuana,
although maybe this will be his [COLOR="DarkRed"]Portman moment[/COLOR].
The assemblyman sits on Assembly committees for
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, as well as Higher Education.
Yeah, that's interesting isn't it.
"Higher education" ... giggles...
It's so often the way, isn't it? The loudest voices against something usually turn out to be up to their eyeballs in it.
In the same vein, I've seen some recent internet rumours that Phelps of the WBC is gay or had gay experiences in the past. No kiddin? :eyebrow:
Declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls provide a fresh insight into his world. Among the revelations - he planned a dramatic entry into the 1968 Democratic Convention to re-join the presidential race. And he caught Richard Nixon sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks... but said nothing.
~snip~
By the time of the election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks - or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had "blood on his hands".
~snip~
When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon.
The president knew what was going on, Nixon should back off and the subterfuge amounted to treason.
~snip~
Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon.
So they decided to say nothing.
The president did let Humphrey know and gave him enough information to sink his opponent. But by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency. So Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway.
So for the sake of politics, Nixon spent 22,000 American lives, and god knows how many Vietnamese, in the next 5 years of war.
Pissing on Nixon's grave is high on my bucket list. :mad2:
"I'm not gay. So I'm not going to marry one"
You'd think that would be a reason why straight people wouldn't have any reason to oppose gay marriage, but instead it was the reason
Saxby Chambliss gave for why he wants it to be illegal.
I say let 'em get married but they're not allowed to throw rice. That preserves the sanctity of traditional marriage. :haha:
This is the nature of today's elected Republicans .
US News & World Report
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
4/3/13
First Amendment doesn't apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion
Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have introduced a bill declaring
that the state has the power to establish an official religion
— a direct challenge to the First Amendment.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The bill [*] was introduced Monday by two Republican representatives
from Rowan County, north of Charlotte, and sponsored by seven other Republicans.
The party controls both chambers of the North Carolina Legislature.
[/COLOR]<snip>
[*] The article has a link to the Bill
And:
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.
He wants to charge someone with sodomy for having sex with an underage girl. Presumably he'd have been fine with it if they'd done it missionary-style.
I fucking hate Cuccinelli. Normally I don't fucking hate the political opposition, but he's such an asshole about it.
This is the guy who
subpoenaed emails and other records of scientists at UVA because he wanted to refute their research on climate change.
What business an attorney general has getting involved in scientific research, I still don't understand.
I'm afraid he's going to be our next governor. Nobody votes in the non-presidential elections, so the Republicans have a chance to take control at the state level. Ugh.
This is the nature of today's elected Republicans .
US News & World Report
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
4/3/13
First Amendment doesn't apply here: N.C. lawmakers push bill for state religion
[*] The article has a link to the Bill
I honestly thought this was an April Fools joke. Well, there
are fools involved.....
These are the same people who rail against attempts to implement Sharia law in the US. What do they think they are setting the stage for....?
I fucking hate Cuccinelli. Normally I don't fucking hate the political opposition, but he's such an asshole about it.
This is the guy who subpoenaed emails and other records of scientists at UVA because he wanted to refute their research on climate change.
What business an attorney general has getting involved in scientific research, I still don't understand.
I'm afraid he's going to be our next governor. Nobody votes in the non-presidential elections, so the Republicans have a chance to take control at the state level. Ugh.
I got a letter from the Democratic Governors Association warning about the Tea Party push for control of governorships and state houses, with a particular worry about Cuccinelli this year. They said the polls are dead even at the moment, in VA.
I fucking hate Cuccinelli. Normally I don't fucking hate the political opposition, but he's such an asshole about it.
<snip>
I'm afraid he's going to be our next governor. Nobody votes in the non-presidential elections, so the Republicans have a chance to take control at the state level. Ugh.
Where, Oh where, is Larry Flint and his $1million rewards when you need him ?
Lying sack of shit department.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who has been raising fears that expanding background checks would bring about a national gun registry, conceded Wednesday that the legislation doesn’t actually do that. But he warned that the bill would encourage future efforts to allow a registry.
Federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. And the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation makes it a felony, punishable by a fine and 15 years in prison. TPM asked Cruz on Wednesday morning how the bill would lead to a registry.
“I don’t disagree that on its face, the currently pending legislation does not purport to create a national gun registry,” Cruz said. But he argued that the bill wouldn’t achieve the desired results without a registry and motivate gun control supporters to push for the creation of one.
:eyebrow:
The State of MO may not be able to issue drivers licenses if
this goes through.
Yep another repub run away train. Rather than pass legislation to direct a state agencies policies or business practices and take the risk of not getting it all my way. Lets just get rid of the whole damn thing. Very childish.
Hypocrite update:
Katz gets charges dropped, because politician not regular human.
Hypocrite update: Katz gets charges dropped, because politician not regular human.
And someones going to call him on it. And he's going to claim that his personal life and his job have nothing to do with each other, which is bullshit.
We elect (hire) these schmucks because we expect them to represent us. That means that they are supposed to take their experience as normal human beings from the same geographic area and with presumably similar experiences to us and use those views to work on our behalf. And then we go ahead and insulate them from the consequences of the stupid laws that they support based on political expediency.
They're not the stupid ones....we are for letting the system get screwed up to this point.
BTW, saw your HillBilly/HillWilliam tag. Two of my coworkers were discussing the origin of the term this week.
The Appalachian region was largely settled in the 18th century by the Ulster Scots, protestants who migrated to the Irish province of Ulster during the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. The majority of these people originated in the lowlands of Scotland. In America, the Ulster Scots became known as the Scotch-Irish. Harkins believes the most credible theory of the term's origin is that it derives from the linkage of two older Scottish expressions, "hill-folk" and "billie" which was a synonym for "fellow", similar to "guy" or "bloke".
Although the term is not documented until 1900, a conjectural etymology for the term is that it originated in 17th century Ireland for Protestant supporters of King William III during the Williamite War.[1] The Irish Catholic supporters of James II referred to these northern Protestant supporters of "King Billy", as "Billy Boys". However, Michael Montgomery, in From Ulster to America: The Scotch-Irish Heritage of American English, states "In Ulster in recent years it has sometimes been supposed that it was coined to refer to followers of King William III and brought to America by early Ulster emigrants…, but this derivation is almost certainly incorrect… In America hillbilly was first attested only in 1898, which suggests a later, independent development."[2]
Looks like some fuzzy beginnings. Etymology is pretty interesting though. Our thoughts are governed by the words we have for organizing them.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=h&p=19&allowed_in_frame=0Once more the Republicans are found wanting...
This time in their handling of their so-called "I.R.S scandal"
The full letter (PDF) to House Oversight Committee Chairman, (R)Darrell Issa, is
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/EEC_to_Issa_IRS_692013.pdf"]here[/URL].
Atlanta Journal Constitution
From Reuters: By Jay Bookman
June 10, 2013
<snip>
In an official interview transcript released on Sunday
by Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings,
the [I.R.S.] manager said he and an underling set aside "Tea Party" and "patriot" groups
that had applied for tax-exempt status because the organizations
appeared to pose a new precedent that could affect future IRS filings...
Investigators asked (IRS manager John) Shafer if he believed
the decision to centralize the screening of Tea Party applications
was intended to target "the president's political enemies."
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do,
other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,"[/COLOR]
the manager answered, according to a transcript released by Cummings.
Committee Chairman, (R) Darrell Issa, who has claimed
that the interviews point back to Washington,
but has so far refused to release full transcripts.
Cummings has also released a letter to U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa,
chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
harshly criticizing Issa for what he called "a series of unsubtantiated allegations
against the president, the White House and senior administration officials
with little or no evidence to support your claims."
In short, Cummings called [COLOR="DarkRed"]Issa blatantly dishonest in his management of the committee.[/COLOR]
Moreover, he went on to provide a point-by-point, damning dissection of the evidence
collected but not yet released by the committee involving the IRS.
He also urged Issa to release full transcripts of interviews with IRS employees
involved in the controversy.
If Issa, acting as committee chair, does not release the full transcripts by the end of the week,
Cummings has said that he will take it upon himself to do so.
When do we start chasing Obama's penis?
It should be easy to take him down over Syria and the NSA but let's face it we have a one party system with two branches, substantive issues need not be addressed. I'm sure they're chasing the penis though.
I'm surprised. You have to choose between the lesser of evils.
I would have thought abortion would be a cure for premature masturbation.
Also note that only male fetuses are considered to be feeling pleasure when their hand is between their legs.
(R-SC)Lindsey Graham predicted the Republicans were going
to do something "dramatic" on immigration.
He said he didn't know what, but it would be dramatic !
Well, here it is....
Chicago Tribune
6/20/13
Senate immigration deal would double number of U.S. border agents
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal agents on the U.S.-Mexican border
would double to about 40,000 under a deal reached on Thursday
in the Democratic-led Senate to draw more Republicans to a
landmark immigration bill headed toward anticipated passage.
Some questioned the costs and benefits of up to [COLOR="DarkRed"]$50 billion in the extra [/COLOR]
border security, which also will include high-tech surveillance
equipment such as manned and unmanned aerial vehicles,
radar and seismic devices.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]With a Mexico-U.S. border of 1969 miles, that's about 1 Federal agent every 260 feet[/COLOR]
Will the funding come from cutting foodstamps?
That, plus as of laws passed today, it will come from savings
by restricting when legal abortions can be performed.
...before to 6 weeks
in North Dakota signed by (R) Gov. Jack Dalrymple
or,
in Iowa on a case-by-case basis, at the personal discretion of (R)Gov. Terry Branstad.
The Republicans have been busy this week... maybe due to super-full moon ?
Back to
the IRS thing for a moment...
Is it possible that the cure is going to be worse than the disease ?
The IRS has set up a voluntary process for groupsthat
have been waiting for tax-exempt status for more than 120 days
[COLOR="DarkRed"]to "self-certify" that they will comply with key rules[/COLOR] limiting their political activity.
Such groups have to agree that they will not spend more than 40%
of their time or money on political campaign activities.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In exchange, they can win automatic tax-exempt status.[/COLOR]
Sure, that'll work out well, because no one would ever cheat on the IRS !
The quote above is from this article...
USA Today
Deirdre Shesgreen
6/23/13
IRS: Other 'inappropriate' screening of groups done
WASHINGTON — Internal Revenue Service agents in Cincinnati
used additional "inappropriate" lists to flag certain tax-exempt applications
for extra scrutiny, IRS Principal Deputy Commissioner Danny Werfel said Monday.
He declined to say what criteria or terms were on the additional watch lists,
but congressional Democrats released a document showing that IRS
[COLOR="DarkRed"]agents targeted groups with "progressive" in their names.[/COLOR]
"Common thread is the word 'progressive'," the November 2010 IRS document says.
"Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican."<snip>
The IG audit said that of 298 organizations given extra scrutiny, about 96 were tea party groups.
The report did not specify why the other 202 applications were singled out.
The November 2010 IRS document, released by Democrats
on the House Ways and Means Committee, shows an entry titled "progressive"
and advises agents that such groups' activities "appear to lean toward
a new political party" and may not be eligible for tax-exempt status.
In a news release, the Ways and Means Committee Democrats said
they have verified that some of the 298 organizations examined by the Inspector General
were liberal organizations. Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the panel, said
[COLOR="DarkRed"]he would ask the IG why that information was omitted[/COLOR] from his initial report
and ask for a new hearing on the issue.
Oh, by the way... regarding Werfel quote above about "self certification":
Werfel [also] said the agency can always review these
groups' activities afterward, to make sure they are in compliance.
There are moments in legislative proceedings when someone must "think on their feet".
Last night, the Texas Senate demonstrated this to
a world of viewers
while Senator Wendy Davis was filibustering the latest circus on abortion.
But Sen Davis was only one of three heroines of the night.
Heroine # 1
#StandWithWendy Trends Online During Texas Senator's Abortion Filibuster
Without putting the issue to a vote, Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst ruled
that an attempt by Davis to talk about a previous sonogram bill in the context of SB5
was not "germane" to the SB5 bill.
Heroine #2
Senator Judith Zaffirini brought up the rule that the topic of "germaneness" must be
brought up three times or more before a strike could be issued;
however, at that point, the acting chair, Senator Robert Watson, dismissed her point of order
as having come after the ruling on Davis' topic was made.
Now enters Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Heroine #3 to deliver a perfect "estocada"...
[YOUTUBE]dnDO9nifI2M[/YOUTUBE]
"At what point," Senator Leticia Van de Putte asked in the wake of the overridden objections,
"must a female senator raise her voice or hand to be recognized over male colleagues in the room?"
Throughout the night the public in attendance frequently disrupted the proceedings
with chants of "Let Her Speak," making it so hard to hear on the Senate floor
that they had to be ordered out of the courtroom at one point.
But at the last minute, the crowd noise proved to be the real deciding vote.
Tensions were visibly high, and as the final vote to dismiss the filibuster and pass the bill began,
at just ten minutes until midnight, the noise of the crowd rose to a fever pitch,
in one last desperate attempt to disrupt the assembly and forestall the debate.
On the floor was utter chaos.
UPDATE: Wendy Davis and the Texas Democratic Party confirmed that Senate Bill 5 is dead.
Overnight, she's gone from being nobody to being discussed as a serious candidate for governor. God it would be nice to finally get rid of Rick Perry...
Why do wacko extremists think that hate of gays, hate of immigrants, muslims are evil, and imposing their religious beliefs on all others will make them popular? Well it does work on brainwashed disciples. Adults who only know what they are told to believe. Their parents were told to "lynch the negro". Were also just as easily brainwashed by that extremist rhetoric. And also became just as unpopular.
Or did they? People such as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond became the darlings of people who hate gays, blame immigrants, disparage innovation, fear muslims, and impose their religion on all others.
UPDATE: Wendy Davis and the Texas Democratic Party confirmed that Senate Bill 5 is dead.
But not before the Republicans tried to fraudulently alter the timestamp on the vote to make it seem to have occurred before the deadline.
And now, Mr Brooks, have you ever used the word "mutt" ?
NY Times
DAVID BROOKS
Published: June 27, 2013
A Nation of Mutts
<snip>
Moreover, up until now, America was primarily an outpost of European civilization.
Between 1830 and 1880, 80 percent of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe.
Over the following decades, the bulk came from Southern and Central Europe. In 1960,
75 percent of the foreign-born population came from Europe, with European ideas and European heritage.
Soon, we will no longer be an outpost of Europe, but a nation of mutts,
a nation with hundreds of fluid ethnicities from around the world, intermarrying and intermingling.
Americans of European descent are already a minority among 5-year-olds.
European-Americans will be a minority over all in 30 years at the latest, and probably sooner.
<snip>
Because high immigration is taking place at a time of unprecedentedly
low ethnic hostility, we’re seeing high rates of intermarriage.
This creates large numbers of hybrid individuals, biracial or triracial
people with names like Enrique Cohen-Chan.
These people transcend existing categories and soften the social boundaries between groups.
Will someone please tell David his star has faded.
This creates large numbers of hybrid individuals, biracial or triracial
people with names like Enrique Cohen-Chan.
[YOUTUBE]_I_43IeRtr8[/YOUTUBE]
Soon, we will no longer be an outpost of Europe, but a nation of mutts
Already there......
[YOUTUBE]bZ-ru03J2OQ[/YOUTUBE]
Back during the Nixon days, there were "operatives" in charge of "dirty tricks".
They were young fellows, Republicans, that spent their pre-election time
finding ways to embarrass the Democrats.
Sometimes, their tricks worked, sometimes backfired, and sometimes
they were found out...to the embarrassment of the G.O.P.
Now, some such Republicans have matured into the Congressional leadership.
Can we take a look at Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, for a minute ?
Washington Post
Dana Milbank
June 28, 2013
Darrell Issa and the overblown scandals
This is how a scandal implodes:
<snip>
Documents released by Ways and Means committee Democrats this week show that the IRS,
in addition to targeting tea party groups, also had “Be on the Lookout” (BOLO) lists
for groups using descriptors such as “progressive,” “health care legislation,”
“medical marijuana,” “paying national debt” and “green energy.”
Finally, evidence surfaces that the investigator stacked the deck.
Tuesday night, the Hill newspaper quoted a spokesman for Treasury’s inspector general,
Russell George, saying the group was [COLOR="DarkRed"]asked by Issa “to narrowly focus on tea party organizations.”
The inspectors knew there were other terms, but “that was outside the scope of our audit.”[/COLOR]
Certainly, something went badly wrong at the IRS that caused groups
to be targeted because of ideology. But it’s nothing like the conspiracy Issa cooked up
in which the president and his men supposedly used the tax authority to attack their political foes.
<snip>
Shortly before the 2010 election, Issa told Rush Limbaugh that Obama
“has been one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times.”
He later said Obama isn’t “personally corrupt” but his administration is.
Issa then set out to prove it.
He led a probe into the failed “Fast and Furious” gun sting
by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Issa declared that “it went all the way to the White House,” insisting that the plan
was approved “at the highest levels of the Obama appointees,”
and that the Justice Department “has blood on their hands.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The Justice Department inspector general determined that Attorney General
Eric Holder didn’t even know about the program until after it was shut down.[/COLOR]
After the failure of Solyndra, a government-aided solar company,
Issa probed Energy Department loan guarantees, saying
“I want to see when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers
... that it wasn’t because there were large contributions given to them.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The committee documented no cronyism and no presidential involvement.[/COLOR]
Issa probed the response to Freedom of Information Act requests
by the Department of Homeland Security, saying the matter
“reeks of a Nixonian enemies list, and this committee will not tolerate it.”
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Nothing Nixonian surfaced.[/COLOR]
After the killing of U.S. officials in Benghazi, Libya, Issa accused then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton of giving false information to Congress when
she said she wasn’t involved in denying the Libyan diplomats’ security requests.
He also said that it was “perhaps the White House” that later changed talking points
to make it appear that the assault had begun as a protest.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]It turned out Clinton wasn’t involved in the security decision
and the White House wasn’t behind the change in the talking points.[/COLOR]
.
Darrell Issa seems bound and determined to prove the validity of the Peter Principal.
Obama is finally learning to play the game by rules the Republicans will understand...
USA TODAY
David Jackson,
July 11, 2013
White House pledges veto of GOP farm bill
<snip>
"Traditionally, farm bills are enacted by a partnership of rural lawmakers interested
in agricultural programs and urban supporters of food stamps and other public nutrition programs."
<snip>
House Republicans are scheduled to vote on their own farm bill Thursday,
but the White House has already threatened a veto.
The Democrat-run Senate is also unlikely to pass the House Republican farm bill
that would expand a crop insurance program, but does not include food stamps for the poor.<snip>
Typical Republican behavior of late...They will pass this House Bill,
and then take their bat-n-ball and go home for summer recess.
.
Love the red pen, but have you ever read a bill of say, 300 pages? Every page will typically refer you to another part of the bill, and that part of the bill, will refer you to one or more other parts. You probably read some of them before, but you need to reread them again, in this new context.
They are typically complex legal documents. Even if you read 300 pages per day, you might very well not finish a full reading of a 300 page bill, in a week, since every page requires a re-read of several sections, in the new context.
No one had read Obamacare fully, before it was passed. Most had not even managed a half-decent overview of it, and it's implications on an industry (health care), that makes up in total, nearly 1/3rd of our economy.
Public opinion was turning against Obamacare, so it had to be rammed down our throats, and some Senators and Representatives, had to be blatantly bribed with $$$ promises.
There is no earthly reason to lump a farm aid bill, with non-farm aid matters. The unearthly reason to do so, is so a LOT of welfare can be covered over as "farm aid", instead of welfare for non-farmers.
This is very handy for the Democratic party. They love the poor so much. They want a lot more of them, and under the past several liberal Presidents and Congresses - by god, it's working!
There is no earthly reason to lump a farm aid bill, with non-farm aid matters.
The farm aid bill is government welfare to big corporations. As a result, American now pays about $140 million to Brazilian farmers annually. A fine imposed on America due to illegal 'corporate welfare' in that existing bill.
The farm bill is almost entirely welfare to big corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland. A right wing research organization (Cato Institute) even discusses this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
Why do we waste energy and money on ethanol? Corporate welfare. Even that only exists because charity to big corporations is more important than science, reality, and the advancement of America.
We have a serious problem. Due to an economy created by 'enrich the rich' legislation, we know have an increasing number of people even working in poverty. And now dependent on food stamps. They must be evil. Instead we must protection welfare to corporations. And continue the policies that have created our economic malaise.
The farm bill is welfare to big agriculture - corporations.
They are typically complex legal documents. Even if you read 300 pages per day, you might very well not finish a full reading of a 300 page bill, in a week, since every page requires a re-read of several sections, in the new context.
Very true, it's impossible to do a comprehensive read through. In the bill writers defense, the sections of the bill(or another bill) they refer to were probably hashed in subcommittee and maybe even court tested for language.
No one had read Obamacare fully, before it was passed.
Bullshit, just nobody who could vote on it. We spend millions for congressional staff to do just that, and explain to the drones we elect what it says. And business spends billions to do the same. You can be sure every syllable was thoroughly parsed.
Public opinion was turning against Obamacare...
Why? Because of all the Chicken Littles screaming the sky is falling, for their various and often devious reasons. So the confused public hearing growling from inside the cave, says back up, don't go in there.
There is no earthly reason to lump a farm aid bill, with non-farm aid matters. The unearthly reason to do so, is so a LOT of welfare can be covered over as "farm aid", instead of welfare for non-farmers.
Au contraire, the farm bill is more than just giving large farm corporations millions of dollars, and a few bucks for the little guys. A large portion of that hard to read legalese pertains to the government stabilizing markets/price floors, by buying excess production... can you say government cheese.
I admit there is a whole lot of hiding shit in unrelated bills, and should be stopped. But in this case it would be logical... ok, as logical as any government plans, to use the stuff they bought to help feed the people they've deemed worthy of not starving. So you see, it's all tied together.
I actually deliver a daily piece of this action. The bulk of the bill is free money for Big Ag but they occasionally do good by people.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/care/
CACFP plays a vital role in improving the quality of day care for children and elderly adults by making care more affordable for many low-income families.
Through CACFP, more than 3.3 million children and 120,000 adults receive nutritious meals and snacks each day as part of the day care they receive.
Bullshit, just nobody who could vote on it. We spend millions for congressional staff to do just that, and explain to the drones we elect what it says. And business spends billions to do the same. You can be sure every syllable was thoroughly parsed.
Don't you remember the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), saying that the bill should be voted on now, and we'll find out what's in the bill, later?
Absolutely, our Congress did NOT have a chance to read through the bill before they voted on it. Even with the help of their staff, all they could do was peruse through parts of it. This was widely discussed on the conservative talk shows, and all the Senators and Reps who were interviewed all agreed, they had not had time to read through it all. That's one reason why they were so upset. They did not know the complete contents of the bill, before they had to vote on it.
I'm just thrilled that we are making more and more people, dependent on the federal government. Because we know there could never be a 30-40% fraud rate in any of their programs.
If it's one thing we need to do to raise our standard of living, it's put a few more million people, onto welfare programs - yep! That will really help! :rolleyes:
Yeah, welfare is for corporations! Because they never try to cheat the government.
Don't you remember the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi), saying that the bill should be voted on now, and we'll find out what's in the bill, later?
Sure, and agree it was a stupid remark made in frustration with congressmen whining about not having time to read it, using that to try and drag out the process for month after month after month.
In truth her remark meant nothing, everyone of those cocksuckers knew exactly what they were voting for after the staff and more importantly the lobbyists briefed them.
Because of the concerted effort by the political overlords wanting Obama would fail, and the tremendous power of the insurance, drug, and medical device suppliers, the only way to make it happen was to pass an imperfect bill and then make adjustments. A truly bipartisan effort in favor of the voters, could slowly wrest the power back from the lobbyists and build a world class system of medical care for everyone.
Yeah, welfare is for corporations! Because they never try to cheat the government.
You mean like GE paying no corporate income tax?
Sure! But who MADE THE LAWS that make all those exemptions possible for GE?
Our corrupt politicians in Washington, that's who!
I want to blame GE, but they're just big enough, and smart enough, to use the legal exemptions, already in place. They did NOT make them the law of the land.
Corporations SHOULD limit their legal liability (taxes). So should we. Our politicians should QUIT pandering to everything the corporations want, so they can get $$$ for their next election.
We are LONG overdue for election reform in this country.
Our corrupt politicians in Washington, that's who!
Close. Four "our" read "their" and for "corrupt" read "tame".
I want to blame GE, but they're just big enough, and smart enough, to use the legal exemptions, already in place. They did NOT make them the law of the land.
See above. See also Lobbyist, campaign contribution.
Still, you're largely right. (man, that's twice in two days! WTF?) If voters allow themselves to be suckered by the corporate funded ad blitz into electing a bunch of lobby-puppets, well, they get the government they deserve.
I understand the frustration for any US voters who actually pay attention and take things seriously.
I pay attention but I'm learning not to take things seriously. Empires fall, we're just in a unique position to watch. This is high entertainment if you keep your distance.
I pay attention but I'm learning not to take things seriously. Empires fall, we're just in a unique position to watch. This is high entertainment if you keep your distance.
I keep trying to get this point across to my Dad, who laments the downfall of America every time we talk. It's inevitable. Someone else will be in power next. The human race will go on, just like Celine Dion's heart...
Most Republicans don't want a different result - they want to keep right on delaying the start of Obamacare.
Personally, I'd like to see a good NHS (National Health Service), but good to me, means it runs in a few county wide pilot projects first, while they work the kinks out of it. One thing nobody wants is a NHS that's got a lot of things wrong with it! Set it up, let it prove it's value in some pilot projects, and THEN implement it for the entire country.
And the cost of our health care will increase quite a bit, because there are a lot of people now with very minimal health care. Now, (one way or another), they would be covered.
And this idea that employers can opt out -- NO. We're all in this together, or it's crap. Workers at McDonalds, etc., all need health care, just as bad as anyone else.
We had a huge boost from WWII, while GB, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan (and Korea in their war), all were seriously hurt. It's natural that other countries would start closing the gap, after all these years since 1945.
Most Republicans don't want a different result - they want to keep right on delaying the start of Obamacare.
Personally, I'd like to see a good NHS (National Health Service),
but good to me, means it runs in a few county wide pilot projects first,
while they work the kinks out of it.
One thing nobody wants is a NHS that's got a lot of things wrong with it!
Set it up, let it prove it's value in some pilot projects, and THEN implement it for the entire country.
<snip>
For now, I'll only take issue with this one paragraph.
Pilot projects have been run, but some people
either don't want to admit to their success,
or don't want to admit to their success.
Kaiser Permanente started during WWII... that's about 60+ years of "pilot project-ing".
Obamacare is closely modeled on this and similar health care programs.
All the things you hear about being included in Obamacare can be found in the KP health care coverages.
... no charges for preventative services such as immunizations
... no charges for diagnostic testing, such as lab tests
... no charges for diagnostic services, such as x-rays
... fixed costs of co-pays for "in hospital" surgeries, drugs, physician care, etc.
... no exclusion for pre-existing conditions
... no cap on total / annual care
... on and on, etc., etc.
As an example, my wife just came home last Sunday from having a
"full knee replacement" surgery + 2 days in hospital
(including free parking, private room with TV, meals, meds, etc.)
+ take-home cold-water pump to prevent/reduce swelling,
+ scheduled Physical / Occupational Therapy for 2 months post-surgery, etc. etc.
-------- [COLOR="DarkRed"]our total co-pay cost was $215.00 + $28 for post-discharge pain meds.[/COLOR]
If Kaiser Permanente can run such a health care provider program
in Washington, Oregon, and California for 60+ years,
how much more "pilot projecting" do you feel would be necessary
to switch Republicans over to supporting Obama ?
... Oh, I meant to say "over to supporting Obamacare ?" ;)
Here is just
one link to KP,
Medical Plans For Every Need And Budget.
Get Free Online Quotes Now!
[ATTACH]44842[/ATTACH]
but I'm sure it's easy to find more.
One problem with small scale pilots of health provision is that you don't get the economy if scale to bring prices down and more importantly you don't have leverage at the research and price setting stages.
The nhs in the uk is one of the workd's biggest single employers and the purchasing power it wields gives it a lot weight with phaceutical companies. It's one of the reasons the uk punches far above its weight in research
And development if new drugs.
I'm familiar with Kaiser. I used to be on it. Overall, I give Kaiser good marks, but I'll tell you a little anecdote:
My foot (bottom of) was starting to hurt more and more, as I walked on it. Every day just a bit worse than the day before. Finally, went to Kaiser.
The doctor, looked at it, twisted my foot all around (ouch!) and took X-rays. Then twisted it around some more, for good measure. (Yes, it STILL hurts when you do that!). Couldn't do anything, had no idea what was causing it. Nothing they could do (no, I don't want your pain pills, although it was tempting).
Next day, foot hurt badly again. Went to a little Podiatrist's office. The RECEPTIONIST guides me into a little exam room, and ask to see the foot. She is going to report to the doctor, what she sees. **
She takes one glance at it, says "Oh, it's a lajkdf;ljkf (some kind of plantar wart that grows inward, instead of outward).
Doctor comes in a bit later, says "Oh, it's a lajkdf;ljkf", and says "how are you with pain?"
I say "I'm acquainted". :(
Doc says, "hold on and we can fix this really quickly." He grabs a surgical blade, and the receptionist and the doc help anchor my foot so it won't squirm, and he cuts it out. Slap a 3x3 gauze on it, and I'm out the door in 20 minutes, for $30, iirc.
Kaiser did fine with others, I know. Some serious failures, of course, but that was the doctors greed, not Kaiser's. I believe there's a big difference between a Kaiser model of practice, and the model that Obamacare must follow. Of course, I note that our Congress will not be using Obamacare, for their own medical care. I wonder why?? :rolleyes:
**As I was leaving, I found out the receptionist was the doc's daughter, and was studying Podiatry.
I believe there's a big difference between a Kaiser model of practice, and the model that Obamacare must follow.
What is the big difference that you cite ?
... other than the obvious "nation-wide" vs "area -wide",
and Federal $ vs employer/individual $, etc
If you want to talk about
existing incompetent or greedy MD's
and/or MBA Hospital Adminstrators, I think those would be points
in favor of implementing Obamacare.
Of course, I note that our Congress will not be using Obamacare, for their own medical care. I wonder why?? :rolleyes:
That's, like many of your complaints, is not true.
Of course, I note that our Congress will not be using Obamacare, for their own medical care. I wonder why?? :rolleyes:
If you want to argue that Congress is insulated from the real world, you have no argument. Which is why they can vote AGAINST Obamacare, because they will never have to worry about
losing their homes to pay for crippling medical bills.
This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.
The Republicans have offered nothing constructive to this process after the passage of the bill. They are zero engaged in fixing it, only scuttling it. At this point, they have gone beyond constructive criticism, passed through principled resistance, took a long leisurely trip through pandering, and have reached a heretofore unknown plateau of obstructionism - political masturbation.
So while the great conservative white male circle jerk of opposition to ObamaCare continues, energy is taken away from more productive pursuits.
Obama spoke during his campaign, about bringing us together. Unfortunately, his acts have served to exploit and enhance our class, political, and racial differences. Remember the "Rich should pay their fair share", bull shit? Like the rich don't pay what the law requires??
We now know that the IRS instructions to hold up conservative 501(c)[3] groups from being approved, was NOT done by "some rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati", as the President's spokesman stated. No, it was directed by Obama's political appointee, to the IRS, in Atlanta, GA. If you know any IRS agents, they don't DO rogue. They're by the book, people.
Here's another one:
When GM went bankrupt, and was re-born, several dealerships had to be closed.
Obama's directors made sure EVERY single dealership that was allowed to stay in business, was a donor to the Democratic Party. All except for ONE black guy. Does that SOUND to you like someone who is trying to "bring us together"?
What about the Dreamer act that Obama passed (in violation of law and custom), while the Congress was still in session, but not available to pass his bill into law? (and would not have done it).
If he wanted support for a nationalized health care bill (and I agree, we need it), then why not STOP LYING about the cost of it, and give Congress time to study it before they have to vote on it.
In other words, work with Congress, instead of fighting against it.
Whether it's Fast and Furious, The Benghazi attack, the IRS targeting conservatives, or about Obamacare, Obama has lied, lied, and lied some more. I don't expect politicians to always tell the truth - because they talk too much, and have to win elections - but this is Obama's last term in office (no matter what), and he's still lying to us.
And of course, he's ruining the economy, through his damn heavy intrusion of government, into the private sector.
We can't get cheap Canadian oil down a pipeline, WHY? Yes, the Canadians would like to sell it to us, but they will sell it to China, if Obama doesn't change his mind.
History won't be kind to Obama. Well, the media loves him, but historians who are not Obama fan boys, will know better.
You mean like GE paying no corporate income tax?
--snip
Obama spoke during his campaign, about bringing us together. Unfortunately, his acts have served to exploit and enhance our class, political, and racial differences. Remember the "Rich should pay their [SIZE="6"]fair share[/SIZE]", bull shit? Like the rich don't [SIZE="6"]pay what the law requires[/SIZE]??
--tl;dr
Are you saying that the fair share in this case is zero?
I didn't bother giving the bulk of your post any real attention because until you correct this misunderstanding/misdirection that "fair share"=="what the law requires", your arguments are built on sand. Implying that those two concepts are the same is bullshit, putting words in the President's mouth is bullshit.
There are galactic differences in class, politics, and racial prejudice and ignorance, some of which are well documented here. Pointing them out and encouraging discussion is not exploitation, and if those differences are enhanced for you, repent and close those differences.
But V, he heard it on the radio, it must be true. :haha:
funny, I was just thinking that I owe Adak a thanks for providing me such a concise digest of what's being reported on that end of the talk radio spectrum. I do listen myself on a fairly regular basis, maybe once a week. But it's exhausting listening to commercial after commercial with only the scarcest particles of news to break the monotony. Certainly there is plenty of opinion, and tha's fine, editorial input is--no--can be very useful. But the whining and double standards and poutrage (thanks Happy Monkey, I freakin love that word) are not what good editorials, much less good journalism is made of.
funny, I was just thinking that I owe Adak a thanks for providing me such a concise digest of what's being reported on that end of the talk radio spectrum.
I agree. Instead of a trash compactor, he's a trash talk compactor.:D
It's amazing how the Republicans are being led by talk radio. I listen to MSNBC, which has a lot of liberal commentators, and I don't always agree with them. Nor do I see them promoting filibusters.
We really need a sarcasm smiley....
I have tuned in to Fox radio occasionally. Of course I also watch the highlight reels in liberal and mainstream media.
And of course the more egregious displays by lawmakers make the news.
I will say that someone needs to show me an example of liberals so enamored of their commentators as conservatives are of theirs. I see Huffington and Maddow on panels, but I don't see the kind of response that Limbaugh got at CPAC, mostly because liberals don't
have a CPAC.
Gathering liberals is like herding cats, mostly because the definition of liberal is 'broad minded'. I give every conservative complaint some consideration. The ones I reject immediately are the ones I have already rejected.
For example, I'm sure there are conservatives who actually believe that we could construct and maintain
a wall on our southern border in a cost effective manner that would completely negate the need to do anything on immigration reform if it were only high enough, strong enough, with landmines, turrets, and whatever stretching across 2000 miles.
While monitoring of borders makes sense, the idea of an impenetrable physical barrier is a fictional ideal.
Hey, it worked in Berlin, didn't it?
Definitely need a sarcasm smiley.
But the Berlin wall is a good example. It only had to cover 96 miles. Take the following and multiply by 20.
The top of the wall was lined with a smooth pipe, intended to make it more difficult to scale. It was reinforced by mesh fencing, signal fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, barbed wire, dogs on long lines, "beds of nails" under balconies hanging over the "death strip", over 116 watchtowers,[54] and 20 bunkers. This version of the Wall is the one most commonly seen in photographs, and surviving fragments of the Wall in Berlin and elsewhere around the world are generally pieces of the fourth-generation Wall. The layout came to resemble the inner German border in most technical aspects, except the Berlin Wall had no landmines and no spring-guns.[48]
FYI, I own a piece of the Berlin wall.
@Bruce, you're right!: Congress will be replacing their health care plan, with Obamacare. I love it! :D
If you make up a list of those who have exemptions from it however, you'll be quite surprised how many there are.
I got tired of listening to the griping about Obamacare, long ago. I have just been changing the channel on the radio when it's the subject, lately.
Are you saying that the fair share in this case is zero?
NO! I'm saying people (everyone), will ALWAYS want to pay the least legal amount that they can - just human nature.
Our politicians have been corrupted by special interests who offer to help pay for their reelection next time, if they'll support some special exemption (for something), which will favor their business.
Over the decades, we've accumulated 100's (if not thousands), of these special tax exemptions, which are basically never rescinded. They just go on and on, year after year.
So GE can legally use a bunch of these exemptions, to pay $0 taxes. And that is hellishly WRONG! :mad: But it's also legal. And as long as it's legal, it will be done.
To get a fair tax system, we need to remove 90% of those exemptions - but that would upset the politicians who want their reelection contributions - so we never get it. :greenface
I didn't bother giving the bulk of your post any real attention because until you correct this misunderstanding/misdirection that "fair share"=="what the law requires", your arguments are built on sand. Implying that those two concepts are the same is bullshit, putting words in the President's mouth is bullshit.
You should read what I wrote, and that IS A QUOTE, from the President, report on the BBC, CNN, Reuters, and all the major news services I've seen. You need to open your eyes, and read, my friend.
There are galactic differences in class, politics, and racial prejudice and ignorance, some of which are well documented here. Pointing them out and encouraging discussion is not exploitation, and if those differences are enhanced for you, repent and close those differences.
Here's some points for you to ponder:
1) I was raised in the Deep South, This was in the days of segregation (separate schools, separate drinking fountains, Jim Crow laws, Democrats running everything down South, etc. Although I'm white, I have forgotten more about racial issues, then you'll ever learn. ;)
2) Every country has large differences in class, politics, etc. Obama has not just discussed them, he has stirred them up - as Saul Alinsky, (the famous community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals", strongly advises doing).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
Alinsky wasn't just A community organizer, he was THE community organizer, in the black communities of Chicago. You know that Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago before he was elected Senator, right?
Saul's tactics included a lot of violence and chaos, against the city, state, or federal government. Acts that put the target on their back foot, so you could take advantage of any crisis that developed, as a result. You wouldn't be wrong to say that Saul's teachings and influence, were a big part of the reason for the race riots in the black community, during the 60's and 70's.
Some of this was just common sense, if you use a US vs. THEM kind of framework for thinking about it. But Saul took it a good deal further than others, and so does Obama.
As the President, and the one in charge of the head of the Dept. of Justice, (which is looking into prosecuting Zimmerman), Obama the lawyer, knows damn well that he should stay silent about the Zimmerman case.
He even said as much when he earlier said the jury had spoken, etc.
But now we have this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23387496
Anyone with any sense knows Obama's just increasing the odds that Zimmerman will be killed by someone who has been motivated by the Presidents new conference comments.
As someone who knows the black community intimately, AND is a former Constitutional instructor at the University level. Obama KNOWS what he's doing, and he knows what the effect of will be, and he knows it's WRONG.
For him, it's another little subject, to take the news media away from his IRS scandal, so he's anxious to take advantage of it. Which is more the pity, because Obama sounds sincere, and can give a really good speech, sometimes.
Why Steve King can't support immigration reform:
"For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” he continued. “Those people would be legalized with the same act."
He can't get the image of skinny people with muscular calves out of his head, apparently.
So, the US gets it's own pool of super-legged desert-traveling cargo haulers. Certainly can't say they're lazy.
UPS now routes their trucks to avoid left turns.
The Conservatives took note of this.
Now, their routes all turn right to Alinsky.
They are
still looking for a different result....
NY TIMES
JONATHAN WEISMAN
July 23, 2013
House G.O.P. Sets New Offensive on Obama Goals
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are moving to gut many of
President Obama’s top priorities with the sharpest spending cuts in a generation
and a new push to hold government financing hostage unless the
president’s signature health care law is stripped of money this fall.
<snip>
In the Senate, Republicans are circulating a letter to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada,
the majority leader, warning [COLOR="DarkRed"]they will not approve any spending measure
to keep the government operating after Sept. 30 if it devotes a penny
to put in place Mr. Obama’s health care law.[/COLOR]
Signers so far include the No. 2 and No. 3 Republican senators, John Cornyn of Texas
and John Thune of South Dakota, as well as one of the party’s rising stars, Marco Rubio of Florida.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[ATTACH]44953[/ATTACH]
They only agree on funding level for Homeland Security.
Why Steve King can't support immigration reform...
He can't get the image of skinny people with muscular calves out of his head, apparently.
He's doubling down.
King insisted the claim is "not something that I'm making up" in an interview with Radio Iowa on Tuesday.
"This is real," King said. "We have people that are mules, that are drug mules, that are hauling drugs across the border and you can tell by their physical characteristics what they’ve been doing for months, going through the desert with 75 pounds of drugs on their back
He can tell you're a drug mule by looking at your calves.
Well sure, that's easy... brown calves are drug mules, white calves are honest upright citizens. :rolleyes:
[ATTACH]45030[/ATTACH]
NY Times
ROBERT PEAR
August 2, 2013
House Votes to Bar I.R.S. Action on Health Law
WASHINGTON — In its last action before a five-week summer recess,
the House took another jab at President Obama’s health care law on Friday,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]voting to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service
from enforcing or carrying out any provision of the law.[/COLOR
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Under the law, the I.R.S. will play a key role. It will provide tax credits
to low- and moderate-income people to help them buy private insurance.
It can impose penalties on people who go without insurance and on larger employers
that fail to offer coverage to full-time employees.<snip>[/COLOR]
But Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said,
[QUOTE]“Neither the I.R.S. nor the Department of Health and Human Services will have access to medical records
or other personal history, no access whatsoever.”
Mr. Levin said that Republicans, in their zeal to undo the health care overhaul, were neglecting other important issues.
“This bill is nothing more than a continuation of the Republicans’ blind obsession
with repealing the Affordable Care Act,” Mr. Levin said. “Their mission is to destroy, not implement, health care reform.”
[/QUOTE]
Will someone please go get my G-son...
"I'm not going to argue with you " :eyebrow:
NY Times
August 6, 2013
“It’s a serious misstep,” said Liz Brimmer, a Republican strategist
in Wyoming and former chief of staff to former Senator Craig Thomas, a Republican.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“Allegedly poaching in a state where being a resident sportsman is,
by law, an earned privilege. Wyoming people will take this very seriously.[/COLOR]”
According to state records, Ms. Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney,
bought the $24 game and hunting license in August of 2012 at Westbank Anglers in Teton Village.
She had moved to the state the previous May.
She is also listed on the application of having lived in Wyoming for 10 years.
Ms. Cheney and her spokeswoman declined requests for an interview.
But she told the Star Tribune in Casper, which first reported the story with The Associated Press,
“The clerk must have made a mistake. I never claimed to be a 10-year resident.”
She also said she was unaware of the one-year residency requirement.
[ATTACH]45164[/ATTACH]
[SIZE="2"]
This is a retraction of my above postings with this image[/SIZE]
I am hereby retracting my previous posts which accused the Republicans
of mental illness in their voting 40 times to repeal Obamacare.
A friend and I were talking, and he pointed out that the Republicans were following
a perfectly logical pathway to benefit their most special interest group.
The logical basis for these 40 votes has been posted previously in a different thread,
here.
:rolleyes:
I love the results of this poll:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-louisiana-gopers-unsure-if-katrina-response-was
Almost a third of Louisiana Republicans blame President Obama for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina even though it was 3 years until he was President.
The American Conservative Union
opposes science in general.
GOP sponsor resource supplementation Bill for food industry.
NY Time
Ron Nixon
9/19/13
House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps
WASHINGTON — House Republicans narrowly pushed through a bill on Thursday
that slashes billions of dollars from the food stamp program, over the objections of Democrats
and a veto threat from President Obama. <snip>
The bill, written under the direction of the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia,
would cut $40 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]It would also require adults between 18 and 50 without minor children
to find a job or to enroll in a work-training program in order to receive benefits.
It would also limit the time those recipients could get benefits to three months.[/COLOR]
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 4 million people would be removed
from the food stamp program under the House bill starting next year.
The budget office said after that, about 3 million a year would be cut off from the program. <snip>
A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday found that the program had kept
about 4 million people above the poverty level and had prevented millions more
from sinking further into poverty.
The census data also showed nearly 47 million people living in poverty
— close to the highest level in two decades.
Those 60 and over are encouraged to enlist now.
Det. Thorn: It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people.
They're making our food out of people.
Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food.
You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!
Hatcher(aka Eric): I promise, Tiger. I promise. I'll tell the exchange.
Det. Thorn: You tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher.
You've gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people!
We've gotta stop them somehow!
Well everyone knows that all of those on food stamps are just lazy freeloader who buys lobster and king crab and sushi! ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP_izYhdehY
Amazing how the Republicans get the same talking points for every hot button issue. Whether it's limiting access for the poor to health care, especially women's reproductive health, cutting food stamps or WIC and SNAP, drug testing anyone getting financial or food assistance, voter ID and promoting Christian beliefs in public schools and government, they all feel the same.
Today's problem: poor people aren't going to get free food.
Yesterday's problem: poor people are obese.
I'm
just
saying.
The Republicans are just solving one problem with another.
They are such good people... always looking out for the less fortunate.
I'm just saying.
Wendy Davis is going to run for
Texas governor.
It's still unlikely she'll win, but at least her chances will be a little better running against a new Republican and not Rick Perry. That asswipe is stepping down, thank God, most likely to pursue another Presidential bid. Don't you fuckers elect him, you hear me? Don't you do it.
We are near the last stages of the GOP-driven government shut down.
The GOP needs to call in Penny from the Big Bang Theory as a management consultant.
Penny was able to convince Sheldon about the danger in antagonizing his waitress.
Maybe she could also convince the House Republicans the dangers of antagonizing
their own Congressional staff members by deleting their health care.
:rolleyes:
For those of you who do not watch Rachel Maddow, and do not watch Fox 5 news out of Virginia...
Try
this link + 15 sec ad.
Duggars campaign for Cuccinelli in Woodbridge,
have tough time remembering McAuliffe's name
Fox 5
10/16/13
Then, you may/may not wish to uncover my wife's NSFW comment below...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
My wife said: [COLOR="White"]"That woman must have f***ed his brains out"[/COLOR]
There are several reports in the press about the schism
within the GOP since the shutdown/debt ceiling.
Some are reporting an actual division of the Republican Party.
I'm curious how the NRC will employ their usual "dirty trick"
and/or "turn strength into weakness" in this process.
Here is one recently implemented strategy to protect GOP incumbents...
The Guardian
10/18/13
[SIZE="2"]Is the Republican party's effort to win black voters just skin-deep?[/SIZE]
After Romney's loss in 2012, the RNC made great play of wooing minorities.
Erika Harold exposes how thin that commitment is
When it's convenient to their diversity "story-telling",
the Republican National Committee loves black Republicans.
After Mitt Romney got whacked in the 2012 presidential election
because he ignored minority voters, the RNC pledge[d] it would
engage with minority voters and support more candidates of color.<snip>
Ask black Republican Erika Harold; she can tell you all about it.
The former Miss America 2003 and Harvard Law School graduate, Harold had the audacity
to challenge white, male, first-term Representative Rodney Davis in a GOP primary
for Illinois' 13th congressional seat – and is witnessing the party machine's discrimination up-close and personal.
The Illinois Republican party refused to give Harold access to the GOP data center.
Formerly called the "voter vault", the data center is where the RNC stores
voting information for all voters in the country, which it makes available
to the 50 state parties for free. Candidates are given access to the database to target donors and voters.
In response to Harold's request, the state central committee,
which governs the Illinois GOP, issued a new policy at its 5 October meeting.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The new policy stated that challengers to any Republican incumbent
would not be given access to the voter database. [/COLOR]
However, the policy did permit county chairs to give access to
county voter data at their own discretion.
How convenient for the white incumbent, Davis.
Will we be hearing about "candidate fraud" and "candidate ID cards".
You have to admit, there's a difference between trying to talk some number of black voters into voting for a white guy (they can only gain, if incrementally,) and expecting racist white voters to vote for a black woman (they can lose their existing base, big time.) The GOP just knows their members.
Today is the day... SNAP feels the brunt of the true spirit and intent of the GOP.
The average monthly benefit per household last year was $278.
A family of 4 will receive $36 less in Food Stamps each month
due to this cut, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The government recognizes that recipients previously received
enough food stamps for only the first 27 days of the month.
Now, they will run short after the first 3 weeks each month.
Stateline
Jake Grovum
11/1/13
How Food Stamp Cuts Affect Your State
Benefits are being reduced by about 5 percent beginning Nov. 1 for all of the
nearly 47.7 million Americans on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.<snip>
The cuts severely curtail the federal funds that have flowed
into local communities and businesses through the states.<snip>
The reductions will be acutely felt in states with a higher food stamp population,
particularly in the dozen states where one in five residents is collecting benefits.
(For state-by-state data on the distribution of the cuts and
how many people are affected in each state, see Stateline’s interactive.)
Note, the interactive link above will take you to a screen like this,
which shows each state's numbers of children and elderly affected by the GOP intransigence.
The GOP is proposing an additional $40,000,000,000 ($40 billion) cuts over the next 10 years.
... HAPPY THANKSGIVING and MERRY CHRISTMAS too...
:confused: LL, why is Oregon the third biggest big food stamp state?
Without looking it up somewhere, I'd guess the following... not in any particular order.
Rural populations that depended on the extremely depressed timber industry
Rural coastal populations that rely on the fishing industry
Rural coastal populations that rely on the tourist industry
... all coastal business is very cyclic and/or has suffered in recent years.
Native Americans (reservations)
- but this may be changing with the new gambling casino incomes
Oregon has a fairly liberal attitude towards the homeless,
but I'd be surprised if that is a truly a significant number
- even tho we know other states do put a small number of homeless
or otherwise disabled people on buses with one-way tickets to PDX.
Otherwise, we also know that Portland is midway between Seattle and California,
and has mild winters so the homeless/unemployed are our "rain birds"
- as opposed to our better off "snow birds" that travel south over the winter.
Beyond that, I'd look at just the general unemployment in PDX as
a result of loss of jobs in manufacturing as the major group.
The GOP has just learned the hard way that what goes around comes around.
The GOP is resorting to name-calling... but Reid has just told the GOP: GFYS.
Harry Reid gave plenty of warning back when Ted Cruz made his threat
of "filibuster vs government shut down".
Harry Reid also gave warning days ago when Lindsey Graham made his threat
of stopping all Senate approvals for "judgeships vs Benghazi"
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Remember Lindsey Graham's political manoeuvre of blocking ALL of Obama's nominees ....
[/COLOR]
NY Times
BILL CARTER and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
11/8/13
CBS to Correct Erroneous Report on Benghazi
Undoubtedly, the GOP will now attempt to make reprisals regardless of who might get hurt.
Eventually, they will succeed at something, and round and round we will go.
Very generous of you to say that the GOP has learned something.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
Harry Reid is still an ass. This is not a good thing for the country. It makes those currently in power,and their supporters happy. I doubt they will agree when the shoe is on the other foot... Time will tell.
Harry Reid is still an ass. This is not a good thing for the country.<snip>
Classic, I basically agree with you. It was an "unfortunate" action.
I've read that historically, the dear, upstanding, GOP Vice President Richard Nixon
tried to do the same thing (twice), but Senate members didn't let him get away with it.
But seriously, aside from name-calling, what would
you have Reid do ?
This came directly from the tactics of current several GOP senators,
...and specifically from one, [R-SC] Lindsay Graham, who openly and publicly
[COLOR="DarkRed"]promised to filibuster all nominees[/COLOR], regardless of the person or the position
until he got his way on a completely unrelated political issue (Benghazi).
But seriously, aside from name-calling, what would you have Reid do ?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/cnn-fact-check-senate-cloture-votes/
This was from 3 1/2 years ago.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/
A less partisan and more up to date viewpoint, but with less information about the structure of Congress at the time.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
There is a point at which reasoned opposition becomes an attempt at nullification. On one hand the Republicans complain about being weak in foreign affairs and on the other hand they attempt to weaken him domestically. They complain about his lack of accomplishments domestically.
Well, the good news is that part of that whole lack of accomplishments domestically is now being handled. It will still end up in a gerrymandered House, but there will now be actual votes on issues and voters can see where their senators stack up.
I'd love to hear what Ann Coulter is saying about this. When the Democrats used it, the partisan princess was all about how the filibuster had no Constitutional basis. Did she stay consistent or did she backpeddle her big ass?
The GOP has just discovered the Second Law of Thermodynamics
NY Times
CARL HULSE
December 13, 2013
Boehner’s Jabs at Activist Right Show G.O.P. Shift
WASHINGTON — While Speaker John A. Boehner was harsh in his public criticism
of conservative advocacy groups opposed to a new bipartisan budget deal,
his attack on the organizations was even more pointed when he was behind closed doors.
“They are not fighting for conservative policy,” he continued, according to accounts of those present.
“They are fighting to expand their lists, raise more money and
grow their organizations, and they are using you to do it. It’s ridiculous.”
<snip>
In addition, some congressional leaders are no longer willing to
remain silent to avoid antagonizing important political partners.
They have seen a clear downside to the rising influence of outside conservative organizations
that promote divisive primary fights, producing flawed candidates who lose winnable seats to Democrats.
<snip>
Conservative leaders said they viewed Mr. Boehner’s attacks as tantamount to
a declaration of war and accused him of trying to change the subject from a budget plan
that increases spending and sacrifices earlier hard-won fiscal victories by House Republicans.
<snip>
The lesson to be learned is:
When the Speaker of the House appoints someone to a Committee,
don't criticize the work of that person coming out of that Committee.
To do so is just politically dumb ! :facepalm:
The 3rd WOW in one week !
Democrats have won 5 top elected positions in Virginia... WOW !
Virginia Republican state Sen. Mark Obenshain conceded the attorney general’s race
Wednesday afternoon, ushering Democrat Mark Herring into office and
giving Democrats their first clean sweep of the top five statewide offices since 1969.
Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/mark-obenshain-mark-herring-virginia-attorney-general-race-101285.html#ixzz2nsSboFDtChris Christie has so far garnered something of an amusing reputation in the media
... at least for a GOP governor and presidential hopeful.
But New Jersey is New Jersey, and politics there are brutal.
There are several examples in Christie's past that show how he operates
...and here is one more.
Wall Street Journal
Ted Mann And Heather Haddon
1/8/13
Christie Aide: 'Time for Some Traffic Problems'
A top aide to Gov. Chris Christie told an executive at the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey it was [COLOR="DarkRed"]"time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee"[/COLOR]
before the authority closed lanes onto the George Washington Bridge in September,
triggering a week of massive traffic jams, documents show.
The aide, Bridget Anne Kelly, sent the email, dated Aug. 13, to David Wildstein,
a political ally of the governor who was the authority's director of interstate capital projects.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Mr. Wildstein, replied: "Got it."[/COLOR]
The email exchange is the clearest sign that a series of lane closures on the bridge in September
were carried out at the behest of high-ranking members of Mr. Christie's administration.
It is in contrast with the original explanation for the closures
— that they were part of a mishandled traffic study by Mr. Wildstein,
a career political operative and friend of Mr. Christie's for years.
<snip>
Maybe this is seemingly a trivial political dirty trick.
But Christie's public ridicule of accusations that his "staff were not involved"
actually shows how he actually operates ... 'support me or suffer the wrath'
[YOUTUBE]kp9BJxFHDYI[/YOUTUBE]
This controversy was exposed by the NY Times about 1 month ago. Intentional harm to Ft Lee traffic was a front page story that also included other events. For example, a NJ State Republican Senator, who did not say something good enough about Christie, suddenly found his legislation blocked including a judge sponsorship. Another NJ Congressman said some things good and bad about Christie. Gov Christie is keenly and daily aware of what others say. And what is happening in his administration. So this Congressman, who was up for a Judgeship, immediately found himself struck from the list. And at least two of his relatives who do business with or work for the state had their jobs immediately terminated that week.
Can we attribute any of this to Christie? No. The only reason this NY Times article was ignored: no smoking gun. But that article inspired the legislature to investigate. An NJ Congressional investigation discovered e-mails that confirm what the NY Times reported a month and ago and that the NJ Governor publicly denied back then.
A bully will be vindictive to the weak. And will make a big deal about working with others he cannot bully. Christie does this well because,
as noted previously, he is a shrewd politician. Shrewd does not mean honest or having political integrity. It only says he is excellent at manipulating most of us.
Did he make a mistake? Normally a politician will reject these accusations with a few comments and little fanfare. Instead, Christie did a 2 hour press conference. I remember previous politicians spending so much time denying an accusation: ie Nixon and Watergate. Was that overly long press conference harmful. Had it been another politician, I would have called it a major mistake. But this is Christie. Interesting is if so much time in denial results in a state wide pardon or a sudden suspicion of a man who has a bully's history.
You gotta have a program to know the players....
USA Today
Bob Jordan, Asbury Park (N.J.)
January 10, 2014
Some access lanes from Fort Lee, N.J., to the
George Washington Bridge were closed for 4 days in early September.
• • • Players in this chapter of Christie's bridge scandal
• Patrick J. Foye, Port Authority executive director
• William E. "Bill" Baroni Jr., deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until last month.
• David Samson, chairman of the Port Authority Board of Commissioners
• Scott Rechler, vice chairman of the Port Authority's Board of Commissioners
• Philippe Danielides, senior advisor to the Port Authority's chairman, David Samson
• Robert Durando, George Washington Bridge general manager
• David M. Wildstein, the Port Authority's director of interstate capital projects until last month
• Darcy Licorish, Port Authority Police captain
• Bridget Anne Kelly, Gov. Chris Christie's deputy chief of staff for legislative and intergovernmental affairs from April to Thursday when she was fired
• Mark J. Sokolich, mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., a Democrat who did not endorse Christie's re-election bid
Here is a PDF file of [COLOR="DarkRed"]635 pages[/COLOR] of documents under subpoena:
http://www.app.com/assets/pdf/B3217417110.PDF
... and here is one of the soon-to-be-famous emails:
[ATTACH]46459[/ATTACH]
BUT, the general rumor is that this email was entirely "false indignation", and intended to ultimately be made public
as Foye's own defense from the brewing storm.