I am tired of Senators and Representatives not voting!

[Pliablemoose]

It wouldn't bother me so much, but when an important piece of legislation comes down, they keep saying (both sides of the aisle) didn't have time to read it, but voted anyway:|

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger


* Also, please don't assume I'm "right wing" because I don't endorse Kerry or whatever criteria you used.

Oh come oooon. :roll:

You are on the right end of the spectrum NO DOUBT.

Most of the people that claim to be independent and above the fray are in fact right-wingers when you look at their beliefs and what they say. It's sort of like tasteslikechiken. For some reason you guys are in self-denial about being on one side of the spectrum, I assume you think it's more noble or intelligent or something like that.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: overclock
Concerning the bill with multiple items, that is fishy. One bill per item. No tack ons that do not pertain to the main bill itself. Too much back scratching going on.

Agreed. If these Senators and Representatives feel they can't vote on some issues because of line items, why aren't they proposing and fighting for legislation to get rid of it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Who is they? I'm talking in gereral, I guess you are just trying to attack Kerry and Edwards? Give it a rest alredy.

Stating facts is considered personal attack now? Give it a rest.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If they voted you would still have to waste time reading about how they voted. So it doesn't make any difference.

No, because you don't read about people who do their job, only people that shirk it.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
* Also, please don't assume I'm "right wing" because I don't endorse Kerry or whatever criteria you used.

Oh come oooon. :roll:

You are on the right end of the spectrum NO DOUBT.

Most of the people that claim to be independent and above the fray are in fact right-wingers when you look at their beliefs and what they say. It's sort of like tasteslikechiken. For some reason you guys are in self-denial about being on one side of the spectrum, I assume you think it's more noble or intelligent or something like that.

Sure, I'm right-wing on some issues (economic), left on some (social). That's why I'm a Libertarian. You don't see me arguing against gay marriage or for harsher drug laws, do you? No. I piss off just as many Republicans as I do Democrats here. I'm an EOE. Sorry I don't fit as neatly into your narrow little stereotypes, as you do into mine.

 

[Spencer278]

So I'm supposed to vote for Bush because kerry did't sjow up to vote on bills when the out come is already know?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
* Also, please don't assume I'm "right wing" because I don't endorse Kerry or whatever criteria you used.

Oh come oooon. :roll:

You are on the right end of the spectrum NO DOUBT.

Most of the people that claim to be independent and above the fray are in fact right-wingers when you look at their beliefs and what they say. It's sort of like tasteslikechiken. For some reason you guys are in self-denial about being on one side of the spectrum, I assume you think it's more noble or intelligent or something like that.

Sure, I'm right-wing on some issues (economic), left on some (social). That's why I'm a Libertarian. You don't see me arguing against gay marriage or for harsher drug laws, do you? No. I piss off just as many Republicans as I do Democrats here. I'm an EOE. Sorry I don't fit as neatly into your narrow little stereotypes, as you do into mine.

You DO fit into one of my stereotypes. As I suspected, you are the type that likes to be above the fray and different for the sake of it and for your ego. Libertarians are on the right-wing of the spectrum irregardless of their social positions. The fact that most libertarians usually vote republican is only one sign of this. Before the Republican party was hi-jacked by religious nuts you guys were its core. You're still a big element of it. Hence you are right-wing and there is no reason to pretend like you are in the middle or an independent thinker.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
So I'm supposed to vote for Bush because kerry did't sjow up to vote on bills when the out come is already know?

/me looks to see who suggested that, but can't find it. Maybe that's why you didn't quote anyone?

/me sends you a copy of the game, "Jump.. to Conclusions" for you to practice with at home. :roll:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Sure, I'm right-wing on some issues (economic), left on some (social). That's why I'm a Libertarian. You don't see me arguing against gay marriage or for harsher drug laws, do you? No. I piss off just as many Republicans as I do Democrats here. I'm an EOE. Sorry I don't fit as neatly into your narrow little stereotypes, as you do into mine.

You DO fit into one of my stereotypes. As I suspected, you are the type that likes to be above the fray and different for the sake of it and for your ego. Libertarians are on the right-wing of the spectrum irregardless of their social positions. The fact that most libertarians usually vote republican is only one sign of this. Before the Republican party was hi-jacked by religious nuts you guys were its core. You're still a big element of it. Hence you are right-wing and there is no reason to pretend like you are in the middle or an independent thinker.

*shrug* Ok. Now what about the topic of this thread? Any input to that?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Sure, I'm right-wing on some issues (economic), left on some (social). That's why I'm a Libertarian. You don't see me arguing against gay marriage or for harsher drug laws, do you? No. I piss off just as many Republicans as I do Democrats here. I'm an EOE. Sorry I don't fit as neatly into your narrow little stereotypes, as you do into mine.

You DO fit into one of my stereotypes. As I suspected, you are the type that likes to be above the fray and different for the sake of it and for your ego. Libertarians are on the right-wing of the spectrum irregardless of their social positions. The fact that most libertarians usually vote republican is only one sign of this. Before the Republican party was hi-jacked by religious nuts you guys were its core. You're still a big element of it. Hence you are right-wing and there is no reason to pretend like you are in the middle or an independent thinker.

*shrug* Ok. Now what about the topic of this thread? Any input to that?

Good. I will continue to point it out to others when you try to pass yourself on as not right-wing.

Yeah, I don't see what the fuss is about unless someone can show that there is a detrimental effect of this.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Lets see, in the present administration - as well as ALL previous administrations,
the President NEVER vote, he either signs a passed bill or he vetos it.
The Vice President ONLY votes to break a tie, usually in favor of party doctrine.

In the past when Cheney was a Congressman he didn't have a really great record either.

Bush has never held an office where he had to vote, only a Governship and White House Residency.

Now lets examine whether or not some votes are pertanent, NOTE: I said pertanent, not important.

In the Senate there are 100 Senators that will vote on bill in full meetings.
some 'procedural' vote need 67 to pass and continue. If it already has 80 why bother ?
All that will happen is that it will either look /Better' because more favored it, or you can
protest it on the record - but it is a moot point of protest, it just doesn't matter.

Once the threashold is met - for all purposes it's over.

Close and important issues are another mater, and those HAVE been voted on
by both Kerry and Edwards, the other fluff is 'Feel Good' bullshit, don't waste my time.

 

[b0mbrman]

It doesn't bother me because I support Kerry-Edwards and rationalize what I think is right or wrong based on what's big in the news re: my candidate

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
[
Good. I will continue to point it out to others when you try to pass yourself on as not right-wing.

Yeah, I don't see what the fuss is about unless someone can show that there is a detrimental effect of this.

How is getting paid (from taxpayer's pockets) for not doing your job not detrimental? Man, I've got it all wrong if that's the case. Here I am working for my paycheck, when I could be sleeping.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk
[
Good. I will continue to point it out to others when you try to pass yourself on as not right-wing.

Yeah, I don't see what the fuss is about unless someone can show that there is a detrimental effect of this.

How is getting paid (from taxpayer's pockets) for not doing your job not detrimental? Man, I've got it all wrong if that's the case. Here I am working for my paycheck, when I could be sleeping.

No, it's more analogous to you being paid for posting on P&N while you work (probably because you don't have something critical to do).

Politicians are "paid" to do more than just vote. I think a better analogy is that of a doorman. His job is to open doors. He does it when someone's there. But you want him to do it even when nobody's entering or leaving the building.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Politicians are "paid" to do more than just vote. I think a better analogy is that of a doorman. His job is to open doors. He does it when someone's there. But you want him to do it even when nobody's entering or leaving the building.

Um, no. Your analogy is wrong. It would be like a doorman that only opens the door for ~30% of the people over a 20-year period. I have no ploblem with someone slacking off when there nothing pressing to be done, but not when they miss the vast majority of their tasks (like voting.)

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Politicians are "paid" to do more than just vote. I think a better analogy is that of a doorman. His job is to open doors. He does it when someone's there. But you want him to do it even when nobody's entering or leaving the building.

Um, no. Your analogy is wrong. It would be like a doorman that only opens the door for ~30% of the people over a 20-year period. I have no ploblem with someone slacking off when there nothing pressing to be done, but not when they miss the vast majority of their tasks (like voting.)

Fine. I could have a better analogy. What about someone who needs to help move boxes. But some boxes are light enough that others can do the job for them. There's no reason the guy needs to move a light box if there's someone else to do it as long as he helps move the heavy boxes. In other words, whether a bill gets passed by 10 or 50 votes, it really doesn't matter.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Fine. I could have a better analogy. What about someone who needs to help move boxes. But some boxes are light enough that others can do the job for them. There's no reason the guy needs to move a light box if there's someone else to do it as long as he helps move the heavy boxes. In other words, whether a bill gets passed by 10 or 50 votes, it really doesn't matter.

Ooo.. Ooo.. How about this? There's this guy with a limp and a mole on his left cheek. His mother is of Irish decent, but he never knew his paternal grandfather. And say he's got this job at a shoe-making factory in Guatemala. But instead of going to work one day, he decides to have an expresso with lots of cream, but not enough to make it messy. And then there was this ex-con who worked at the department store across the street from the cafe where the first guy was getting coffee. Ok, no let's say that it is a Tuesday afternoon (eastern standard time) and the weather is warm, but slightly overcast.

Now isn't *that* more like the issue of Senators not voting?

Aren't analogies fun? If you guy was hired just to move boxes, then he should be helping. Not doing the job you were hired to do is wrong. If you can't see that without a contrived analogy, then I'm sorry. You are one of the first ones to complain that Bush spent several month in Texas at the first of his term. Isn't is safe to say that not all his duty has to take place in DC? How does you box-mover analogy address that? Is it not a double standard fro to condemn him, but support extreme non-voting senators? Why not?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger


Aren't analogies fun?

Only when they're accurate.

If you guy was hired just to move boxes, then he should be helping.

But there's no injury! The job is still done!

Not doing the job you were hired to do is wrong.

That's not the issue. Concentrate. The issue is whether a harm comes of it.

You are one of the first ones to complain that Bush spent several month in Texas at the first of his term.

He's the president. TOTALLY different jobs. You pretend congressmen are only hired to sit and vote. No, there is much more to their job.

Isn't is safe to say that not all his duty has to take place in DC?

Sure. But most of it does. It's the center of the government. More importantly, it's not the location so much as the golf-playing while a war (or terrorist plot) is going on that's bad.

How does you box-mover analogy address that?

Instead of moving boxes he's golfing.

Is it not a double standard fro to condemn him, but support extreme non-voting senators?

No, because they haven't different jobs. Also, you're assuming that the congressmen are taking vacation when they're not voting. Pay closer attention. Nobody said or showed they were.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
No, it's more analogous to you being paid for posting on P&N while you work (probably because you don't have something critical to do).

Politicians are "paid" to do more than just vote. I think a better analogy is that of a doorman. His job is to open doors. He does it when someone's there. But you want him to do it even when nobody's entering or leaving the building.

No, he's the doorman that is only at the door 30% of the time at a five star hotel. Such a person would likely get fired in a single day, as his job is important and he's well paid for doing it.

 

[Infohawk]

Ckgunslinger, I'll be awaiting your response.


Cyclowizard: take your cookies back.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ckgunslinger, I'll be awaiting your response.


Cyclowizard: take your cookies back.

No no, keep them - I insist. You've definitely earned them.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: overclock
I am so tired of the lax attitude of our elected officials. Edwards has missed a bunch of vote in the Senate. I'm sure that there are a ton of Republicans that have also. Doesn't matter. They are elected to do a job and that job is not getting done. You want to run, you have to go to work. Even here in my home state there is a state representative that has missed some 3,000 votes in his last two terms. I say if you miss 5% of the votes you are dismissed and your district is just out of a rep until the next election. There need to be exemption such as sickness or campaigning for President but this is ridiculous.

This isn't meant to be a partisan post just a rant.

But there is a new bi-partisan bumper sticker. It says, "Run Hillary! Run!"
Democrats put it on the back bumper and Republicans put it on the front bumper.

OH please give me f'in break. Your only repeating the same lies Cheney said. Fact, when Cheney visits every Tuesday, he only meets with republicans. And last time I checked Edwards was compaigning for President.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ckgunslinger, I'll be awaiting your response.

Bah, give me time. I only post when I'm slacking off at work - not opening doors, not carrying boxes, and not voting.

Now, where was the response of yours I am eagerly awaiting..

 

[Infohawk]

I only said that to get back on topic. Take your time. But I might forget.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Aren't analogies fun?

Only when they're accurate.

Nah, that's when they become boring. The more off topic, the better I say!

If you guy was hired just to move boxes, then he should be helping.

But there's no injury! The job is still done!

? Ok, if I don't do the job I'm payed to do, it will still get done by someone else. Who am I hurting? Where's the injury? What a silly argument.

Not doing the job you were hired to do is wrong.

That's not the issue. Concentrate. The issue is whether a harm comes of it.

No it's not, that what you want the issue to be, as you can't defend the real issue of why we should be comfortable paying our senators/reps to represent us, yet some of them shirk 70%+ of their regular duties for some reason. That's the issue. That's the premise of this entire thread.

You are one of the first ones to complain that Bush spent several month in Texas at the first of his term.

He's the president. TOTALLY different jobs. You pretend congressmen are only hired to sit and vote. No, there is much more to their job.

No sh1t, Sherlock. I never "pretended" that Senators just have to sit around and wait for a vote to come up. I just claimed that it seemed odd that some of them manage to miss an overwhelming majority of this voting duty, especially when many more of them manage much more impressive voting turnouts.

Isn't is safe to say that not all his duty has to take place in DC?

Sure. But most of it does. It's the center of the government. More importantly, it's not the location so much as the golf-playing while a war (or terrorist plot) is going on that's bad.

Um, ok. Most of the President's duties should take place in DC, but voting for legislation is only a very small, unimportant part of a Senator's job description? Must be nice being able to have you cake and eat it, too.

Sure, playing golf and such while we are at war looks bad, but that's besides the point. You are the one who wants to criticize him, but not the congressmen who aren't at work at least 50% of the time. I'm happy to criticize both.

How does you box-mover analogy address that?

Instead of moving boxes he's golfing.

And instead of voting, Senator Kerry is windsurfing. How is this relevant?

Is it not a double standard fro to condemn him, but support extreme non-voting senators?

No, because they haven't different jobs. Also, you're assuming that the congressmen are taking vacation when they're not voting. Pay closer attention. Nobody said or showed they were.

I'm assuming no such thing, my dear friend. Perhaps you are assuming that Bush isn't thinking about how to save the world while he's golfing? Have you seen his swing? Something is occupying his mind. (Opens that one up wide for you - I know how you like to snag the low-hanging fruit of a discussion)