The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28433)

richlevy 12-22-2012 10:30 AM

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.

Quote:

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.
Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Adak 12-24-2012 06:20 AM

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.

regular.joe 12-24-2012 09:42 AM

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.

tw 12-24-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 845127)
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.

xoxoxoBruce 01-02-2013 12:31 PM

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.

Ibby 01-02-2013 01:05 PM

Daily Kos is having a fucking field day over republican infighting and self-destruction today.

These posts were consecutive today

It's civil war time for House Republicans

Peter King says anyone from New York or New Jersey would be nuts to support House Republicans

A delicious roundup of conservative-on-conservative violence

Ibby 01-02-2013 02:30 PM

followed by

Peter King shocked—shocked!—that being a heartless bastard is a Republican value actually

and

Chris Christie rips Boehner and House Republicans over refusal to provide Hurricane Sandy relief

Spexxvet 01-02-2013 04:17 PM

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.

classicman 01-04-2013 05:00 PM

Bullshit. The relief bill was soaked with pork from the senate shitheads. Direct your ire at them. It would be more accurate.

Lamplighter 01-22-2013 12:35 PM

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:

richlevy 01-22-2013 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 849537)
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.

BigV 01-22-2013 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 849537)
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.

lookout123 01-23-2013 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 849537)
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?

xoxoxoBruce 01-23-2013 02:35 AM

Or maybe they weren't invited.

DanaC 01-23-2013 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 849623)

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.

Trilby 01-23-2013 06:55 AM

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.

glatt 01-23-2013 07:53 AM

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.

Trilby 01-23-2013 08:10 AM

that's really dirty work.

it's also the Republican way.

Lamplighter 01-23-2013 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 849611)
Quote:

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:
Quote:

and the re-Pubic's are saying it's a Democrat holiday.
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.

Lamplighter 01-23-2013 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 849537)
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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 849623)
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.

BigV 01-23-2013 05:56 PM

@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 01-23-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 849810)
@Lamplighter.
No, my quote stands.
<snip>

OK, thank you for the reprimand.

Peace.

lookout123 01-23-2013 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 849798)
@ 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.

BigV 01-23-2013 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 849680)
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.
Quote:



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.

piercehawkeye45 01-24-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 849680)
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-col...te-republicans

BigV 02-21-2013 08:12 AM

Turns out the Republican governor of Florida has decided that "ObamaCare" is a good idea after all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgot...ew-care-about/

tw 02-21-2013 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 853865)
Turns 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.

tw 03-01-2013 05:51 PM

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.

tw 03-05-2013 11:24 PM

From The Register of 5 Mar 2013:
Quote:

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.

IamSam 03-05-2013 11:41 PM

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

ZenGum 03-06-2013 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamSam (Post 855666)
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.

tw 03-09-2013 03:22 AM

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,
Quote:

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,
Quote:

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:
Quote:

... 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.

Griff 03-09-2013 06:47 AM

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.

Griff 03-09-2013 07:13 AM

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.

glatt 03-09-2013 07:34 AM

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.

Lamplighter 03-09-2013 07:47 AM

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.

tw 03-10-2013 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 856061)
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.

Griff 03-10-2013 08:36 AM

In the absence of Federal guidelines, North Dakota does the responsible thing.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...a-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.

tw 03-10-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 856258)
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.

Griff 03-10-2013 03:08 PM

No. It requires a warrant just like a manned aircraft.

ZenGum 03-10-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

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".

tw 03-10-2013 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 856281)
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.

Griff 03-10-2013 07:30 PM

hmmm... over-public roadways maybe?

tw 03-10-2013 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 856320)
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?

xoxoxoBruce 03-10-2013 08:39 PM

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.

IamSam 03-10-2013 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 856337)
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.

xoxoxoBruce 03-10-2013 10:07 PM

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:

tw 03-10-2013 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 856350)
I saw it going the other way a couple years later

It still keeps running away from you? What did you do to it?

xoxoxoBruce 03-10-2013 11:07 PM

Oy, I'm glad it couldn't talk. :smack:

glatt 03-11-2013 08:27 AM

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.

infinite monkey 03-11-2013 09:42 AM

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.

tw 03-11-2013 10:16 PM

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.

Lamplighter 03-12-2013 09:11 PM

The News Tribute

Quote:

A poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center
found that around 8 in 10 of both gun owners and people without guns favor
extending background checks to private gun sales.

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
Quote:

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.
<snip>
The panel also voted 14-4 for a measure providing an additional $40 million annually
for school safety improvements like classroom locks and training for teachers.
Four Republicans joined Democrats in backing that measure,
which initially called for a higher figure that was reduced in bargaining
between Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
NPR
Quote:

Last week, the committee voted 11-7 for a bill that would make
gun trafficking a federal crime carrying long prison terms.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa was the sole Republican supporter.

That measure would also crack down on straw purchasers,
people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.

xoxoxoBruce 03-12-2013 11:27 PM

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.

Quote:

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.

Undertoad 03-13-2013 05:28 AM

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.

IamSam 03-13-2013 11:47 AM

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.

xoxoxoBruce 03-13-2013 12:11 PM

The reality is most guns are untraceable, even legally bought guns that haven't changed hands.
Quote:

"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:

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2013 09:15 AM

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.

Lamplighter 03-16-2013 10:02 AM

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
Quote:

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.
“Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective.”
<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.
.

DanaC 03-16-2013 10:19 AM

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.