Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is getting a vote getting their way?
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election?
They're asking for a vote. It's not complicated. very different than "getting their way."
When Pelosi was the Speaker, she didn't give a flying fuck what the Republicans asked for, and folks couldn't applaud her enough. They wanted her to care even less!
Now they're in the minority, this is how they respond?
This is how you guys want to run shit in the House?
Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
They're asking for a vote. It's not complicated. very different than "getting their way."
When Pelosi was the Speaker, she didn't give a flying fuck what the Republicans asked for, and folks couldn't applaud her enough. They wanted her to care even less!
Now they're in the minority, this is how they respond?
This is how you guys want to run shit in the House?
Fuck's sake.
Pelosi explicitly criticized the Hastert rule while she was speaker of the house, spool.
If you're going to try to shame people into "both sides are shit," at least do it based on something factual.
Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
It wasn't abuse of power when Pelosi was Speaker. You think she gave a shit what the minority GOP wanted?
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
There a lot of voters who want something done about gun control in this country, but the Republicans are more interested in serving the NRA than they are the people.
They're asking for a vote. It's not complicated. very different than "getting their way."
When Pelosi was the Speaker, she didn't give a flying fuck what the Republicans asked for, and folks couldn't applaud her enough. They wanted her to care even less!
Now they're in the minority, this is how they respond?
This is how you guys want to run shit in the House?
Fuck's sake.
Pelosi explicitly criticized the Hastert rule while she was speaker of the house, spool.
If you're going to try to shame people into "both sides are shit," at least do it based on something factual.
hahah
she still used it though. She didn't give a fuuuuuck.
Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
It wasn't abuse of power when Pelosi was Speaker. You think she gave a shit what the minority GOP wanted?
It's not abuse now.
"I’m the Speaker of the House…I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."
"I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say ‘the majority of the majority does this or that. We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
It wasn't abuse of power when Pelosi was Speaker. You think she gave a shit what the minority GOP wanted?
It's not abuse now.
Pretty sure she gave the minority a metric fuckton of concessions in the Stimulus, Bailout, and Healthcare bills.
Pretty sure Obama, Reid, and Pelosi actively solicited proposals from the GOP for a couple of years there.
But sure keep fucking that chicken, see how it works out for you.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
Good. I have no problem with your view as long as it's consistent.
I'd be furious if the situation was swapped. I don't like politicians hiding from their votes or refusing to put their stance on the record with a vote.
Considering "No Fly No Buy" is an anti-terrorism measure, I think it should focus on assault weapons, since that appears to be the current model. I think that would go a long way towards making the bill both palatable and able to withstand the NRA lawsuit that will absolutely follow the passage of any new gun law.
So that's three major things: restrict assault weapons only, easy (and free) path to erroneous removal, and use the "select" list. That to me is a measured response to what happened. It's not gonna end gun violence, it's not gonna gut the 2nd Amendment, it's not gonna get struck down, and it's not gonna allow excessive government overreach.
Mostly though I'm just...amazed at what we're seeing. This is awesome
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
It wasn't abuse of power when Pelosi was Speaker. You think she gave a shit what the minority GOP wanted?
It's not abuse now.
"I’m the Speaker of the House…I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."
"I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say ‘the majority of the majority does this or that. We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."
Quotes from one Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
and then as Minority leader she mocked Boehner and said he was the weakest speaker in modern history because he passed bills out of the House in violation of the Hastert rule. And you need look no farther than the ACA vote to see how she ran things as Speaker.
She didn't give a shit about freezing out the minority, and didn't give a shit about taking shots as Minority leader, both for using the Hastert rule and for ignoring it.
This'd be a good complaint if there was an actual way to get a good compromise with the GOP, which is at record levels of bullshitery. Which is saying something. People's patience do have limits.
And it's not like the Republicans haven't done stuff like this before in the past. In fact, I'd say they've done worse. For example
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is part of how they will try to do that.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
They have more dignity than the Republicans, who have incidents in the past - like shutting down the government. Literally. For nothing.
If Republicans want respect they need to actually earn it.
Not that Republicans can't do protests like this of their own, they're free to go ahead. I may not agree with their goals, but protests are a right in this country. Ironically the GOP has a bad history with protesting in the past from Reagan to W.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Cite.
This is about the Dems wanting a bill to be voted on, so they agree with you. They want to do their jobs, and the Republicans do theirs. That's what they were elected for.
If 80% of my party's voters wanted a bill passed on something, and my party refused to do anything about it, and the other party protested to try to get the bill at least voted on?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones, but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices.
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders opposed the motion to adjourn the House, arguing that Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling is hurting the American economy. They have refused to leave the floor after the adjournment motion passed at 11:23 a.m., and they are busy bashing Pelosi and her fellow Democrats for leaving town for the August recess.
But C-SPAN, which has no control over the cameras in the chamber, has stopped broadcasting the House floor, meaning no one was witnessing this except the assembled Republicans, their aides, and one Democrat, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has now left.
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
So you can totally be on the list and not have your sale denied.
This is technically true. But (at least per the summaries of the bill I've seen) the government doesn't have to justify any decision to deny. So it seems likely that few if any sales would actually be approved.
Likely based on what exactly other then your own supposition?
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
It's their job to serve the people, and 4 out of every 5 people want gun control.
So you can totally be on the list and not have your sale denied.
This is technically true. But (at least per the summaries of the bill I've seen) the government doesn't have to justify any decision to deny. So it seems likely that few if any sales would actually be approved.
Likely based on what exactly other then your own supposition?
Don't play the pollyanna dude.
They will deny every sale until the SCOTUS demands that they stop fuck-acting with the 5th Amendment.
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
It's their job to serve the people, and 4 out of every 5 people want gun control.
It's their job to serve their specific districts, not The People.
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
No, that's why I asked.
Sure, it was a shitty thing to do. But the two incidents are hardly identical, the Democrats here want the exact opposite.
Where are you questions for the Republicans wanting not to vote for a bill? It's really simple to get this over with, all they have to do is do their job.
So you can totally be on the list and not have your sale denied.
This is technically true. But (at least per the summaries of the bill I've seen) the government doesn't have to justify any decision to deny. So it seems likely that few if any sales would actually be approved.
Likely based on what exactly other then your own supposition?
Don't play the pollyanna dude.
They will deny every sale until the SCOTUS demands that they stop fuck-acting with the 5th Amendment.
So you can totally be on the list and not have your sale denied.
This is technically true. But (at least per the summaries of the bill I've seen) the government doesn't have to justify any decision to deny. So it seems likely that few if any sales would actually be approved.
Likely based on what exactly other then your own supposition?
Common sense and the degree of due diligence that the government has shown in the past when it comes to terrorism.
If the government was concerned enough about someone to put them on a watch list in the first place, chances are they won't be thrilled about them now walking around with a gun. Why wouldn't they deny the sale when there is essentially no downside to doing so?
+3
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
So, Spool is upset with Democrats doing the same thing the Repubs did, and has no problem with a majority absolutely running roughshod over a minority? Yeah, sounds like a Republican.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
You've also been very optimistic about it working that they'll vote too, in contrast to everyone else in the thread. So much so people were unsure why they devoured the benefit of a doubt. I don't see you offering that benefit of a doubt to the Dems here.
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
No, that's why I asked.
Sure, it was a shitty thing to do. But the two incidents are hardly identical, the Democrats here want the exact opposite.
Where are you questions for the Republicans wanting not to vote for a bill? It's really simple to get this over with, all they have to do is do their job.
Right right, you're repeating the "do your job" thing as the main talking point angle? As though their job as the Majority is to let the Minority set the legislative agenda if they pitch enough of a fit.
I don't have any questions for the Republicans not wanting to vote on this bill. Unless it's the Collins bill from the Senate? That one might be tolerable.
If it's the same shitshow from the Senate Democrats, I'm entirely satisfied with their refusal.
Anyhow, the two incidents are completely identical: The Democrats, in the minority, can't get their way, so they upend good order and the legislative process with no regard for the way the body should function. They're perfectly willing to trash the democratic process to get their way.
Respect for the office demands that they end this nonsense, but today they have none.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Please.
What is pathetic or childish about a peaceful sit-in demanding a vote? Not even passage of a bill, but a vote on a bill. A bill on regulating the purchase of firearms, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every single year.
Is it that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths aren't worth the time of the House? No.
Is it that the measures proposed are unpopular? No, they're overwhelmingly popular.
Is it that the bill couldn't pass? No, I think sufficient blue and swing district Republicans know that it would hurt them politically to vote against the bills.
It is that the bill is inconvenient to the Republican party? Boo fucking hoo.
If you don't want to be on the wrong side of a protest of massively unpopular action, don't be on the wrong side. Or at least have the commitment to back it up. But lacking the moral character to be unwilling to remain silent and have blood on your hands or the moral fortitude to stand by your actions that doesn't make protest "pathetic and childish."
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
You've also been very optimistic about it working that they'll vote too, in contrast to everyone else in the thread. So much so people were unsure why they devoured the benefit of a doubt. I don't see you offering that benefit of a doubt to the Dems here.
Right right, you're repeating the "do your job" thing as the main talking point angle? As though their job as the Majority is to let the Minority set the legislative agenda if they pitch enough of a fit.
I don't have any questions for the Republicans not wanting to vote on this bill. Unless it's the Collins bill from the Senate? That one might be tolerable.
If it's the same shitshow from the Senate Democrats, I'm entirely satisfied with their refusal.
Anyhow, the two incidents are completely identical: The Democrats, in the minority, can't get their way, so they upend good order and the legislative process with no regard for the way the body should function. They're perfectly willing to trash the democratic process to get their way.
Respect for the office demands that they end this nonsense, but today they have none.
All they have to do vote no on bills they don't like. The Dems just want the bills to get voted on, end of. This isn't about whether they want the bill passed, it's about the voting - period.
You do realize my examples upthread mean the GOP don't have the moral high ground on this, right? They've done exactly the same thing and worse*, yet somehow the Dems are worse.
The difference is this time the Dems want to do their jobs on voting, they are not identical events. Which is what they're supposed to do.
* personally, I consider shutting the government down much, much worse than having a sit in protest to vote for bills
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Please.
What is pathetic or childish about a peaceful sit-in demanding a vote? Not even passage of a bill, but a vote on a bill. A bill on regulating the purchase of firearms, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every single year.
Is it that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths aren't worth the time of the House? No.
Is it that the measures proposed are unpopular? No, they're overwhelmingly popular.
Is it that the bill couldn't pass? No, I think sufficient blue and swing district Republicans know that it would hurt them politically to vote against the bills.
It is that the bill is inconvenient to the Republican party? Boo fucking hoo.
If you don't want to be on the wrong side of a protest of massively unpopular action, don't be on the wrong side. Or at least have the commitment to back it up. But lacking the moral character to be unwilling to remain silent and have blood on your hands or the moral fortitude to stand by your actions that doesn't make protest "pathetic and childish."
oh god the Blood On Our Hands thing. Give me a fucking break.
The bill won't stop any thousands of unnecessary deaths, but it will shit on due process and deny brown people their Constitutional rights (2nd and 5th).
They clearly aren't popular enough to get the House GOP to ask the Speaker for a vote.
I'm on the correct side of this protes, because I don't want the DoJ to put me on a list then deny me a thing I've a right to own, because they decided to put me on a list.
Then again I probably have nothing to worry about because I'm a white christian, not a brown muslim. but hey. Democratic Party to Muslim Americans: Get Fucked
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Please.
What is pathetic or childish about a peaceful sit-in demanding a vote? Not even passage of a bill, but a vote on a bill. A bill on regulating the purchase of firearms, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every single year.
Is it that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths aren't worth the time of the House? No.
Is it that the measures proposed are unpopular? No, they're overwhelmingly popular.
Is it that the bill couldn't pass? No, I think sufficient blue and swing district Republicans know that it would hurt them politically to vote against the bills.
It is that the bill is inconvenient to the Republican party? Boo fucking hoo.
If you don't want to be on the wrong side of a protest of massively unpopular action, don't be on the wrong side. Or at least have the commitment to back it up. But lacking the moral character to be unwilling to remain silent and have blood on your hands or the moral fortitude to stand by your actions that doesn't make protest "pathetic and childish."
oh god the Blood On Our Hands thing. Give me a fucking break.
The bill won't stop any thousands of unnecessary deaths, but it will shit on due process and deny brown people their Constitutional rights (2nd and 5th).
They clearly aren't popular enough to get the House GOP to ask the Speaker for a vote.
I'm on the correct side of this protes, because I don't want the DoJ to put me on a list then deny me a thing I've a right to own, because they decided to put me on a list.
Then again I probably have nothing to worry about because I'm a white christian, not a brown muslim. but hey. Democratic Party to Muslim Americans: Get Fucked
Nope, I'd rather not be on that side.
Wouldn't you like to make sure your reps are on the right side by having them vote?
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
You've also been very optimistic about it working that they'll vote too, in contrast to everyone else in the thread. So much so people were unsure why they devoured the benefit of a doubt. I don't see you offering that benefit of a doubt to the Dems here.
This doesn't make the first shred of sense.
It's simple - you're giving the Dems a harder time then the GOP refusing to vote for SCOTUS nominees.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
I believe that influencing the public is their job.
As well as being able to actually vote on legislation.
Their job as the minority party is most certainly not to get their way.
...is what this forum said a billion times when the Republicans were in the minority, and will again next January if they lose the Senate.
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans majority party to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election set the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives?
Yes
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
You've also been very optimistic about it working that they'll vote too, in contrast to everyone else in the thread. So much so people were unsure why they devoured the benefit of a doubt. I don't see you offering that benefit of a doubt to the Dems here.
This doesn't make the first shred of sense.
It's simple - you're giving the Dems a harder time then the GOP refusing to vote for SCOTUS nominees.
The Senate GOP is acting within the bounds of the office, though they're a bunch of cowardly snakes for refusing.
The House Democrats are clearly out of order, though they haven't stooped to disrupting regular business just yet.
Wonderful. Maybe you should win the fucking house then.
This is a pathetic and childish display more suited to the Democrats of the 1800s than those of today.
It's a disgrace. They should be embarrassed. And they should come to fucking order. You're in the minority party (is what this forum said a billion times in 2007) so suck it up and act like you have a shred of dignity or respect for your office.
I knew this shit was going to happen after Wisconsin Democrats fled the state to avoid doing their fucking jobs.
Please.
What is pathetic or childish about a peaceful sit-in demanding a vote? Not even passage of a bill, but a vote on a bill. A bill on regulating the purchase of firearms, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every single year.
Is it that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths aren't worth the time of the House? No.
Is it that the measures proposed are unpopular? No, they're overwhelmingly popular.
Is it that the bill couldn't pass? No, I think sufficient blue and swing district Republicans know that it would hurt them politically to vote against the bills.
It is that the bill is inconvenient to the Republican party? Boo fucking hoo.
If you don't want to be on the wrong side of a protest of massively unpopular action, don't be on the wrong side. Or at least have the commitment to back it up. But lacking the moral character to be unwilling to remain silent and have blood on your hands or the moral fortitude to stand by your actions that doesn't make protest "pathetic and childish."
oh god the Blood On Our Hands thing. Give me a fucking break.
The bill won't stop any thousands of unnecessary deaths, but it will shit on due process and deny brown people their Constitutional rights (2nd and 5th).
They clearly aren't popular enough to get the House GOP to ask the Speaker for a vote.
I'm on the correct side of this protes, because I don't want the DoJ to put me on a list then deny me a thing I've a right to own, because they decided to put me on a list.
Then again I probably have nothing to worry about because I'm a white christian, not a brown muslim. but hey. Democratic Party to Muslim Americans: Get Fucked
Nope, I'd rather not be on that side.
Bullshit it won't stop any deaths. But if you think that's the case, vote it down. Except you know that's bullshit and if you really thought this was a problem you'd oppose the no-fly list. Its transparent.
And that's just one of the bills they want a vote on. Right now anyone can buy a gun online or at a gun show with no checks. That's bullshit and it costs lives.
And yes its the Democratic party telling Muslims to Get Fucked. Oh wait.
Posts
I feel like everything you said except the last bit is correct.
It's not awesome, it's awful. It's a pure demonstration that if the progressives can't get their way, they're willing (again, see also: Wisconsin) to trash the system on they way to their goals.
It's a disgrace.
Is getting a vote getting their way?
Is it a-ok for the House Republicans to play politics with legislation by not bringing any bill to a vote that could potentially hurt them in an election?
When Pelosi was the Speaker, she didn't give a flying fuck what the Republicans asked for, and folks couldn't applaud her enough. They wanted her to care even less!
Now they're in the minority, this is how they respond?
This is how you guys want to run shit in the House?
Fuck's sake.
Can't get their way?
Are they protesting a bill not passing?
Or are they protesting a bill not being voted on?
One is a matter of one side not getting their way. The other is a matter of the majority abusing its power by not doing its job. Quit being a silly goose.
Yes
Pelosi explicitly criticized the Hastert rule while she was speaker of the house, spool.
If you're going to try to shame people into "both sides are shit," at least do it based on something factual.
It wasn't abuse of power when Pelosi was Speaker. You think she gave a shit what the minority GOP wanted?
It's not abuse now.
So I assume you're absolutely livid that Obama's Supreme Court nom hasn't gotten a vote, right? All in favor of them doing their job, right?
hahah
she still used it though. She didn't give a fuuuuuck.
"I’m the Speaker of the House…I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."
"I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say ‘the majority of the majority does this or that. We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."
Quotes from one Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
If you look in the SCOTUS thread you will see that yes, I've been highly critical of the Senate majority and believe that the latest nom should have gotten hearings and a vote.
Pretty sure she gave the minority a metric fuckton of concessions in the Stimulus, Bailout, and Healthcare bills.
Pretty sure Obama, Reid, and Pelosi actively solicited proposals from the GOP for a couple of years there.
But sure keep fucking that chicken, see how it works out for you.
Good. I have no problem with your view as long as it's consistent.
I'd be furious if the situation was swapped. I don't like politicians hiding from their votes or refusing to put their stance on the record with a vote.
and then as Minority leader she mocked Boehner and said he was the weakest speaker in modern history because he passed bills out of the House in violation of the Hastert rule. And you need look no farther than the ACA vote to see how she ran things as Speaker.
She didn't give a shit about freezing out the minority, and didn't give a shit about taking shots as Minority leader, both for using the Hastert rule and for ignoring it.
This'd be a good complaint if there was an actual way to get a good compromise with the GOP, which is at record levels of bullshitery. Which is saying something. People's patience do have limits.
And it's not like the Republicans haven't done stuff like this before in the past. In fact, I'd say they've done worse. For example
This is part of how they will try to do that.
They have more dignity than the Republicans, who have incidents in the past - like shutting down the government. Literally. For nothing.
If Republicans want respect they need to actually earn it.
Not that Republicans can't do protests like this of their own, they're free to go ahead. I may not agree with their goals, but protests are a right in this country. Ironically the GOP has a bad history with protesting in the past from Reagan to W.
Cite.
This is about the Dems wanting a bill to be voted on, so they agree with you. They want to do their jobs, and the Republicans do theirs. That's what they were elected for.
I'd switch parties. In a fucking heartbeat.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/08/house-dems-turn-out-the-lights-but-gop-keeps-talking-010724
You don't remember the WI Democrats leaving the state to avoid a quorum back a few years ago?
It's not their job to get a vote on every bill they want a vote on. That's not how the House has ever worked, and to suggest otherwise is just repeating the talking points.
Likely based on what exactly other then your own supposition?
It's their job to serve the people, and 4 out of every 5 people want gun control.
Don't play the pollyanna dude.
They will deny every sale until the SCOTUS demands that they stop fuck-acting with the 5th Amendment.
It's their job to serve their specific districts, not The People.
No, that's why I asked.
Sure, it was a shitty thing to do. But the two incidents are hardly identical, the Democrats here want the exact opposite.
Where are you questions for the Republicans wanting not to vote for a bill? It's really simple to get this over with, all they have to do is do their job.
Based on what?
Common sense and the degree of due diligence that the government has shown in the past when it comes to terrorism.
If the government was concerned enough about someone to put them on a watch list in the first place, chances are they won't be thrilled about them now walking around with a gun. Why wouldn't they deny the sale when there is essentially no downside to doing so?
You've also been very optimistic about it working that they'll vote too, in contrast to everyone else in the thread. So much so people were unsure why they devoured the benefit of a doubt. I don't see you offering that benefit of a doubt to the Dems here.
Right right, you're repeating the "do your job" thing as the main talking point angle? As though their job as the Majority is to let the Minority set the legislative agenda if they pitch enough of a fit.
I don't have any questions for the Republicans not wanting to vote on this bill. Unless it's the Collins bill from the Senate? That one might be tolerable.
If it's the same shitshow from the Senate Democrats, I'm entirely satisfied with their refusal.
Anyhow, the two incidents are completely identical: The Democrats, in the minority, can't get their way, so they upend good order and the legislative process with no regard for the way the body should function. They're perfectly willing to trash the democratic process to get their way.
Respect for the office demands that they end this nonsense, but today they have none.
Please.
What is pathetic or childish about a peaceful sit-in demanding a vote? Not even passage of a bill, but a vote on a bill. A bill on regulating the purchase of firearms, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every single year.
Is it that tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths aren't worth the time of the House? No.
Is it that the measures proposed are unpopular? No, they're overwhelmingly popular.
Is it that the bill couldn't pass? No, I think sufficient blue and swing district Republicans know that it would hurt them politically to vote against the bills.
It is that the bill is inconvenient to the Republican party? Boo fucking hoo.
If you don't want to be on the wrong side of a protest of massively unpopular action, don't be on the wrong side. Or at least have the commitment to back it up. But lacking the moral character to be unwilling to remain silent and have blood on your hands or the moral fortitude to stand by your actions that doesn't make protest "pathetic and childish."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This doesn't make the first shred of sense.
All they have to do vote no on bills they don't like. The Dems just want the bills to get voted on, end of. This isn't about whether they want the bill passed, it's about the voting - period.
You do realize my examples upthread mean the GOP don't have the moral high ground on this, right? They've done exactly the same thing and worse*, yet somehow the Dems are worse.
The difference is this time the Dems want to do their jobs on voting, they are not identical events. Which is what they're supposed to do.
* personally, I consider shutting the government down much, much worse than having a sit in protest to vote for bills
oh god the Blood On Our Hands thing. Give me a fucking break.
The bill won't stop any thousands of unnecessary deaths, but it will shit on due process and deny brown people their Constitutional rights (2nd and 5th).
They clearly aren't popular enough to get the House GOP to ask the Speaker for a vote.
I'm on the correct side of this protes, because I don't want the DoJ to put me on a list then deny me a thing I've a right to own, because they decided to put me on a list.
Then again I probably have nothing to worry about because I'm a white christian, not a brown muslim. but hey. Democratic Party to Muslim Americans: Get Fucked
Nope, I'd rather not be on that side.
Wouldn't you like to make sure your reps are on the right side by having them vote?
It's simple - you're giving the Dems a harder time then the GOP refusing to vote for SCOTUS nominees.
Vote for gun control bills.
The Senate GOP is acting within the bounds of the office, though they're a bunch of cowardly snakes for refusing.
The House Democrats are clearly out of order, though they haven't stooped to disrupting regular business just yet.
Bullshit it won't stop any deaths. But if you think that's the case, vote it down. Except you know that's bullshit and if you really thought this was a problem you'd oppose the no-fly list. Its transparent.
And that's just one of the bills they want a vote on. Right now anyone can buy a gun online or at a gun show with no checks. That's bullshit and it costs lives.
And yes its the Democratic party telling Muslims to Get Fucked. Oh wait.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+