Dem Congress Moves to Repeal the House Fairness Rules

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I never said... that you said it wasn't an example. I said that you claimed it was insufficient, which you did. This is because you are unable to admit that you're wrong.

You realize that your post only proves my point, right? Of course the Democrats don't buy into the states rights thing, that was the whole point of my original post, genius. The minority party uses states rights as a shield against majority federal power. The federal majority power tramples state's rights as these rights are a check on their own power. Thanks for the help!

So you admit your claim is false then? Just because your weak example got shot full of holes does not mean your initial claim was somehow suddenly true. Liberals have not been for state's rights in quite some time yet you tried to claim they were if they were in the minority. It's just not true.

Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.

If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?

:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I never said... that you said it wasn't an example. I said that you claimed it was insufficient, which you did. This is because you are unable to admit that you're wrong.

You realize that your post only proves my point, right? Of course the Democrats don't buy into the states rights thing, that was the whole point of my original post, genius. The minority party uses states rights as a shield against majority federal power. The federal majority power tramples state's rights as these rights are a check on their own power. Thanks for the help!

So you admit your claim is false then? Just because your weak example got shot full of holes does not mean your initial claim was somehow suddenly true. Liberals have not been for state's rights in quite some time yet you tried to claim they were if they were in the minority. It's just not true.

Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.

If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?

:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

It speaks a lot about the level of discourse on here that you had to include a pre-emptive statement like that. Some people on here absolutely feed on taking 1 thing you said and posting about it, along with 2 things you didn't say and then think they "wtf pwnz0r'd u".

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I never said... that you said it wasn't an example. I said that you claimed it was insufficient, which you did. This is because you are unable to admit that you're wrong.

You realize that your post only proves my point, right? Of course the Democrats don't buy into the states rights thing, that was the whole point of my original post, genius. The minority party uses states rights as a shield against majority federal power. The federal majority power tramples state's rights as these rights are a check on their own power. Thanks for the help!

So you admit your claim is false then? Just because your weak example got shot full of holes does not mean your initial claim was somehow suddenly true. Liberals have not been for state's rights in quite some time yet you tried to claim they were if they were in the minority. It's just not true.

Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.

If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?

:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

The federal marriage amendment is about states rights; its about preventing some asshole judge from forcing the laws of Massachusetts onto the other 40+ states.

 

[Lemon law]

Silly me, here I thought this whole thread was about the house changing its rules to limit the power of the GOP super minority to endlessly stall legislation.

And now suddenly we are talking about the democratic Senate and its majority repealing the Filbuster, something beyond the entire scope of the thread, and something totally not yet in evidence.

The only thing in debatable evidence is the fact that the American public was not happy with the GOP for ignoring the mandate message sent them in 11/2006, as the GOP misused it bigger minority to neuter the legislative branch and prevent it from stopping the stupid policies of GWB&co.

And what did it buy the GOP on 11/2008?

Getting a clue some of you GOP clueless, go ahead, mindlessly obstruct everything again, and come the election of 11/2010, how many GOP members will be left in the next Congress?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

CAD, you're just a kool aid drinker who can't distinguish between the marketnig propaganda of the Republicans and actual policy. "Small spending" too, right?

The only times I hear much about the GOP an states' rights are on such excellent examples as when they hid their pandering to racists by not saying they were opposing civil rights for the crass political reasons they really were (and the same applied to southern democrats before they switched to the Republican party over race politics), but instead opposed the federal government forcing change in the south on the basis of 'states' rights', because those mobs with shotguns and torches battling US federal marshalls when they tried to escort black children to register for school were just angry contsitutitonal scholars defending a legal principle, nothing to do with racism.

Or more recently, when, after many years of the federal government setting mininmum standards for pollution, and some states like California passing higher standards for their own states with bigger pollution problems, and routinely receiving wavers from the federal government to do so, the Bush administration, taking money from and representing polluters, denying the wavers and going to court to California to treat the federal standards as a *maximum* standard California was not allowed to exceed. Ya, states' rights.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.

If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?

:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

I know you'll never admit that you're wrong. You've already lost, badly. If you want to keep flailing, that's your business, but it's not supported by reality. You tried to fight me, inadvertently supported my argument because you didn't understand the topic, and then tried to save face.

It's okay. You lost. I don't expect you to admit it, but I won't be participating in this any longer. You're CAD after all.

 

[palehorse]

one step forward, two steps back... our whole Congress is fucked up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Of course my claim was not false you moron. The entire purpose of my post was that neither party was specifically for states rights, that they only supported them when in the minority because it was politically convenient. If you notice, the first paragraph where I stated my point, I didn't even use political party names, just 'in power' and 'out of power'. There was a good reason for that. Your mission is to figure out what that reason was.

If you understood the original post, or the purpose of the example, you would see that both strongly support my original point. The fact that you wrote a 'rebuttal' that only further reinforced my position shows that you understand neither. Don't you see that you're arguing for my side and then calling me an idiot for having it?

:roll: Again - it doesn't matter how you try to twist it - the claim just doesn't hold water. Conservatives do actually actively support state's rights. No - not "always" since you'll likely try to claim they don't and cite one lame example - but it certainly is part of the ideology. And when Conservatives support or oppose something because of state's rights - it has nothing to do with whether they are the minority or not. But hey like always- continue on with your ignorance.

I know you'll never admit that you're wrong. You've already lost, badly. If you want to keep flailing, that's your business, but it's not supported by reality. You tried to fight me, inadvertently supported my argument because you didn't understand the topic, and then tried to save face.

It's okay. You lost. I don't expect you to admit it, but I won't be participating in this any longer. You're CAD after all.

lol, ok - if you think I "lost" then so be it. I've tried to help you with your ignorance but you refuse to look at what you claimed and how ridiculous it is. Par for the course with your types...but atleast I tried to help you...

 

[Jhhnn]

Back on topic, this seems to be a pertinent bit of information-

Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Rules Committee, called the change a "modernization" of the House rule. He said Republicans has used the recommit tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, compared with 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...isan-fight-over-rules/

Repubs knew they were playing with fire, playing obstructionist games... and they got burned.

Repubs could have done the same thing when they were in the majority, but Dems had the good sense not to push it that far.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much sums up the Repubs' way of doing things lately- push it til it breaks or until they get slapped down, which is what the electorate and now the House majority have found it necessary to do...

 

[JSt0rm]

so these is reasonable after all. So to those who were against this do you always believe these neo-con websites? Aren't you angry that they try to deceive and distort things so that you will become fearful and mad?

 

[frostedflakes]

Seems like a reasonable change, I think it's pretty obvious that the motion to recommit has been abused by the minority party in recent years.

However, I don't know if I like the removal of term limits for committee chairs.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back on topic, this seems to be a pertinent bit of information-

Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Rules Committee, called the change a "modernization" of the House rule. He said Republicans has used the recommit tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, compared with 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...isan-fight-over-rules/

Repubs knew they were playing with fire, playing obstructionist games... and they got burned.

Repubs could have done the same thing when they were in the majority, but Dems had the good sense not to push it that far.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much sums up the Repubs' way of doing things lately- push it til it breaks or until they get slapped down, which is what the electorate and now the House majority have found it necessary to do...

The only thing worse than a democrat, is a taxachussits democrat.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back on topic, this seems to be a pertinent bit of information-

Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Rules Committee, called the change a "modernization" of the House rule. He said Republicans has used the recommit tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, compared with 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...isan-fight-over-rules/

Repubs knew they were playing with fire, playing obstructionist games... and they got burned.

Repubs could have done the same thing when they were in the majority, but Dems had the good sense not to push it that far.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much sums up the Repubs' way of doing things lately- push it til it breaks or until they get slapped down, which is what the electorate and now the House majority have found it necessary to do...

The only thing worse than a democrat, is a taxachussits democrat.

The only thing whinier than a Republican in the minority, is a Republican who gets a taste of his/her own medicine.

 

[Lemon law]

As spidey07 makes the personal opinion assertion that "The only thing worse than a democrat, is a taxachussits democrat."

When the American people, at the ballot box, have already decided that the worst possible thing is an obstructionist GOP. Agree with spidey 07 and win one vote, ignore the message of the collective American voter again, and there may not be a GOP left after the election of 11/2010.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Not as bad as it could have been...
http://www.rules.house.gov/111...11_hres_ruleschnge.pdf
House rules for the 110th congress so you can compare and find out what all the 'strike this' and 'strike that' is about.

Rules changes should be posted up here in plain english soon

Good stuff:

1. More transparancy in the earmark process
2. Outgoing members can not negotiate employment contracts in secret
3. Have to vote yes or no... can't hold the button open so you can change your mind at the last minute
4. No more lobbyists in the congressional gym - To include former members who are now lobbyists
5. More oversight on Homeland Security


Meh stuff:

1. Took the "his's" and "he's" out of the language used in the rules - Replaced them with "the Clerk" or "the Speaker" or some other gender neutral term.
2. Creation of committee on global warming.
3. Removed the 2/3 vote requirement to suspend the committee call on Calendar Wednesday
3a. The Speaker can entertain a motion that the Speaker can declare a recess on Wednesday (I had to google the crap out of this to find out what it was)


Not so good stuff:

1. Stripping the minority party of the motion to recommit
2. Elimination of term limits for committee chairmen

 

[frostedflakes]

The motion to recommit is still available, they just changed the rules so its more difficult to use the motion to kill legislation.

 

[Craig234]

Nice lest you posts, but I'd group it differently:

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Not as bad as it could have been...
http://www.rules.house.gov/111...11_hres_ruleschnge.pdf
House rules for the 110th congress so you can compare and find out what all the 'strike this' and 'strike that' is about.

Rules changes should be posted up here in plain english soon

Good stuff:

1. More transparancy in the earmark process
2. Outgoing members can not negotiate employment contracts in secret
3. Have to vote yes or no... can't hold the button open so you can change your mind at the last minute
4. No more lobbyists in the congressional gym - To include former members who are now lobbyists
5. More oversight on Homeland Security
6. Stripping the minority party of the motion to recommit
7. Elimination of term limits for committee chairmen
8. Took the "his's" and "he's" out of the language used in the rules - Replaced them with "the Clerk" or "the Speaker" or some other gender neutral term.
9. Creation of committee on global warming.



Meh stuff:

1. Removed the 2/3 vote requirement to suspend the committee call on Calendar Wednesday
2. The Speaker can entertain a motion that the Speaker can declare a recess on Wednesday (I had to google the crap out of this to find out what it was)


Not so good stuff:

Curtailing the Republicans *excessive* obstructionism is a very good thing. I'm all for their rights that are appropriate as a minority party, but not the games these bozos play.

You are a global warming denier? Or you just think we're doing too much about it now?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back on topic, this seems to be a pertinent bit of information-

Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Rules Committee, called the change a "modernization" of the House rule. He said Republicans has used the recommit tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, compared with 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...isan-fight-over-rules/

Repubs knew they were playing with fire, playing obstructionist games... and they got burned.

Repubs could have done the same thing when they were in the majority, but Dems had the good sense not to push it that far.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much sums up the Repubs' way of doing things lately- push it til it breaks or until they get slapped down, which is what the electorate and now the House majority have found it necessary to do...

The only thing worse than a democrat, is a taxachussits democrat.

Look out guys! Taxachusetts is so heavily burdened that it is almost exactly in the middle for tax rates by state! (23rd out of 50)