Iowa Democrats Flee in Protest

[chucky2]

I am assuming that he was implying that a new law should be passed.

By the legislative body that can't currently conduct business? Haha.

Read the article.

Republicans have enough seats to make a quorum.

Yes, obviously a new law would need to be passed (really, no law should need to be passed, these worthless F's shouldn't even think of doing something like this, much less actually doing it).

And it doesn't matter if the Rep's have enough seats to make this happen now or not. Unless someone is making the case that the state gov is going to never vote on anything again with the proper body in attendence, it means that a new law can be passed in the - hopefully very soon - future.

To be clear: I don't care what party affiliation is running away as some BS tactic. It's disgusting for an elected rep to even contemplate that, much less do it. I view it as a captain abdandoning the ship while people are still aboard. In this case the captain is each of these politicians, the ship is the area they represent, and the people aboard are the entirety of the people in their state still living in that area.

It is simply unacceptable that an elected politician do this. Whoever thinks this is cute, funny, a good idea is a F'ing disgrace. :thumbsdown:

 

[crashtestdummy]

Democrats' core ideology is based on theft so it is only fitting they side with and protect criminals.

Do you really, honestly, believe that? I'm always shocked at the number of people on both sides that are convinced the other side is up to something evil. You can think that someone is completely wrong without assuming they are evil.

I'm a liberal. I think Rick Santorum would make a horrible president and would do his best to set civil rights back 40 years. I'm quite sure, however, that he means well for the country. What he proposes, he genuinely thinks is best for all of us. I may question his intelligence, his tactics, his ideology, but I don't question his intentions.

 

[cybrsage]

When in doubt, do what the dems do...refuse to do your job but take the pay as if you were doing it...

 

[Darwin333]

Do you really, honestly, believe that? I'm always shocked at the number of people on both sides that are convinced the other side is up to something evil. You can think that someone is completely wrong without assuming they are evil.

I'm a liberal. I think Rick Santorum would make a horrible president and would do his best to set civil rights back 40 years. I'm quite sure, however, that he means well for the country. What he proposes, he genuinely thinks is best for all of us. I may question his intelligence, his tactics, his ideology, but I don't question his intentions.

Personally I think that is just the way the politicians want it. The more we argue with each other, especially over the trivial shit or the shit that isn't changable, the less we pay attention to the stuff they are actually doing as well as helping keep them in power.

 

[waggy]

whatever politician is using this tactic should be removed from office. I find it rather disgusting.

 

[Throckmorton]

Wait, so why are conservatives OK with the Senate abusing the filibuster, but not with this?

 

[monovillage]

Wait, so why are conservatives OK with the Senate abusing the filibuster, but not with this?

They haven't been abusing the filibuster. The filibuster is in place to prevent dumb shits from passing stupid laws, it's working as intended.

 

[chucky2]

I'm not OK with that either, except in very infrequent and rare circumstances. This is even worse though. You at least have to report to fillibuster don't you? (I can't imagine the rules would allow an aide to fillibuster) These worthless F's didn't even report to work...they're effectively AWOL. Worse, a mass AWOL.

 

[Darwin333]

Wait, so why are conservatives OK with the Senate abusing the filibuster, but not with this?

I am not a conservative but I shall answer anyway. I am sort of ok with them "abusing" the filibuster BUT I think they should be forced to do it old school and literally continue debating for the entire time they are using the filibuster. We will then see how truly dedicated they are to whatever they are filibustering.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm not OK with that either, except in very infrequent and rare circumstances. This is even worse though. You at least have to report to fillibuster don't you? (I can't imagine the rules would allow an aide to fillibuster) These worthless F's didn't even report to work...they're effectively AWOL. Worse, a mass AWOL.

Right. They're just lazy and didn't want to go to work. /facepalm

 

[senseamp]

That is how the law reads in numerous states already. Can you please give me a real world example of what you are talking about? Thanks.

PS: The word "reasonable" has actual meaning. As in, would other people in the same situation have reacted in the same way. If the jury doesn't believe so then they can and will convict you.

People do claim self defense, you know. And easiest person to claim it against will be another gun owner. Your honor, he had a gun, I was threatened by that, so I had to kill him.

 

[fskimospy]

They haven't been abusing the filibuster. The filibuster is in place to prevent dumb shits from passing stupid laws, it's working as intended.

Nope. The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's former atmosphere as being a gentlemanly body that would allow people to debate as long as they wanted. It's merely a novel use of the Senate's rules that has been abused. Funny thing is that the Democrats in this case are just making a novel use of the state's quorum rules and abusing them. Color me completely non-shocked that you consider one totally fine and the other an outrage.

Legislative rules are free to be used in any way the practitioners see fit. If the Republicans don't like the quorum rules, they should change them next session. I for one would fully support the removal of quorum abuse like this as well as abolishing the filibuster.

 

[halik]

I shouldn't be legally required to flee if someone comes into my home and threatens my life. Currently, if I were to use deadly force against such an individual before trying to flee I could be charged with a felony. Personally, that isn't going to stop me from putting a bullet in their head but for others, this could be the matter of life in death. While they are busy contemplating the consequences the perpetrator kills them or a family member.

This. End of threat.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Legislative rules are free to be used in any way the practitioners see fit. If the Republicans don't like the quorum rules, they should change them next session. I for one would fully support the removal of quorum abuse like this as well as abolishing the filibuster.

Even though apparent abuses of the quorum rules exist, I'd think very carefully before abolishing or changing them. They exist to prevent other forms of legislative abuse.

Sometimes, you just have to take the good with the bad.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

This. End of threat.

You should have to contemplate the necessity and the consequences of killing someone. It's not something that the laws should make an easy decision.

 

[fskimospy]

Even though apparent abuses of the quorum rules exist, I'd think very carefully before abolishing or changing them. They exist to prevent other forms of legislative abuse.

Sometimes, you just have to take the good with the bad.

Fern

I actually didn't say to abolish quorum rules, I said to change them. (I would completely abolish the filibuster however) Quorum rules exist to prevent a small minority from running into the legislative chamber and passing laws that would never pass with a full body present. There are a number of ways to restrict quorum abuse while still preventing this. Primarily, you alter the rules so that the requirements for what constitutes a quorum decrease the longer a bill is under consideration.

 

[halik]

You should have to contemplate the necessity and the consequences of killing someone. It's not something that the laws should make an easy decision.

If i am threatened in my own home, my only contemplation will be how much force is necessary in eliminating the threat while putting myself in minimal harm. Lethal force/gun always wins out as the optimal choice.

The law should make it abundantly clear that threatening someone's life in their home is a deathwish, not the other way around.

 

[Craig234]

Those Democrats, inventing this new 'prevent a quorom' tactic.

[Abraham Lincoln] was a leader within the Whig party in Illinois at the time which was the minority party. This was during the bank crisis years in the late 1830's. He was serving in the state legislature and was a strong supporter of the state bank in Illinois. During the economic depression at the time the state legislature had been trying to keep the bank afloat by legally postponing its obligation to pay notes that it had outstanding, notes that the bank did not have the capital to cover.

The democrats, who were tired of the bank and what they saw as its mismanagement had worked out a compromise with the Whigs whereby the bank would not be forced to cover itself until the legislature adjourned. As the day for adjournment approached it became obvious that the bank needed more time or it was going to have to default.

Lincoln and his Whig counterparts hit upon a plan to stay away from the statehouse so that the legislature could not officially adjourn. One of the bylaws of the legislature called for a quorum to be present for an adjournment to be official. Lincoln and two of his Whig counterparts agreed to stay and keep an eye on things and contact the missing members if something came up to foil their plan.

The plan worked for a week. Repeated attempts to muster a quorum failed and the Democrats were getting desperate and irritated at their failure to overcome this tactic. Unbeknownst to Lincoln and his two cohorts the Democrats secretly arranged to have 3 members who were sick to be carried into the statehouse and thereby attain the numbers present for a legal quorum.

Lincoln and his 2 cohorts were deep in a storytelling session in the back of the statehouse when they looked up to see the 3 members being carried in. They tried to run out the front door but the Democrats had quickly shut and locked the door trapping Lincoln and his 2 Whig partners inside.

In desperation they ran to a window in the back of the building and jumped out. The legislature hall was on the second story of the building and one of the jumpers sprained an ankle badly in the jump. Lincoln himself was ok, if somewhat embarassed to be caught with his guard down. The Democrats counted the jumping legislature members present but abstaining from voting and passed the official adjournment anyway. The bank folded soon thereafter and Lincoln was known a "jumping Lincoln" for some time afterwards. He would later smile and refer to the incident as his "jumping incident" but he knew that he had been outdone.

 

[Fern]

Nope. The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's former atmosphere as being a gentlemanly body that would allow people to debate as long as they wanted. It's merely a novel use of the Senate's rules that has been abused. Funny thing is that the Democrats in this case are just making a novel use of the state's quorum rules and abusing them. Color me completely non-shocked that you consider one totally fine and the other an outrage.
-snip-

I think the two are sufficiently different and can thus be distinguished one from the other.

Yes, the filibuster rules were originally established to permit each an opportunity to debate as they wanted so that they may sway their fellow Senators. However, that soon became 'abused' and has long been seen as a rule disconnected from mere debate. Seems to me it long ago became a defacto requirement that bills in the Senate required a 60% majority for passage. (Technically, we're conflating "filibuster" And "cloture" and the 60% number has changed from time-to-time.)

So, if there is there is any "abuse" it is the frequency with which is it employed, and not in the actual use of it as means to frustrate legislation. I.e., no perversion of purpose.

OTOH, the quorum rule(s) is designed to prevent legislative mischief whereby some legislators can assemble without the others for the sole purpose of passing a bill they could not otherwise. So, in this case we have clear perversion of the quorum rules which are being used as a means to reach an objective for which they were never intended. (Note: I could be wrong here because I'm too lazy to research that state's quorum rules. And if someone can show that they have morphed into something else, like the filibuster and cloture rules have, I'll be happy to acknowledge it.)

I.e., he is more or less correct and you are not.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

If i am threatened in my own home, my only contemplation will be how much force is necessary in eliminating the threat while putting myself in minimal harm. Lethal force/gun always wins out as the optimal choice.

The law should make it abundantly clear that threatening someone's life in their home is a deathwish, not the other way around.

It's not limited to home. Your coworker would be presumed justified in shooting you if he claimed he felt threatened by you at work, even if the alternative would be for him to leave work and call the cops.

H-8004 HOUSE FILE 2215
1 Amend House File 2215 as follows:
2 1. By striking everything after the enacting clause
3 and inserting:
4 <Section 1. Section 704.1, Code 2011, is amended to
5 read as follows:
6 704.1 Reasonable force.
7 "Reasonable force" is that force and no more which
8 a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would
9 judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss
10 and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to
11 believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury
12 or risk to one's life or safety or the life or safety
13 of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such
14 force is necessary to resist a like force or threat.
15 Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used
16 even if an alternative course of action is available if
17 the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or
18 the life or safety of a third party, or requires one
19 to abandon or retreat from one's dwelling or place of
20 business or employment. Reasonable force, including
21 deadly force, may also be used and is presumed to be
22 justified even if an alternative course of action is
23 available if the alternative requires one to abandon
24 or retreat from one's dwelling or place of business or
25 employment.>
26 2. Title page, lines 1 and 2, by striking <and
27 providing a remedy> By R. OLSON of Polk H-8004 FILED FEBRUARY 6, 2012

 

[umbrella39]

Do you really, honestly, believe that? I'm always shocked at the number of people on both sides that are convinced the other side is up to something evil. You can think that someone is completely wrong without assuming they are evil.

I'm a liberal. I think Rick Santorum would make a horrible president and would do his best to set civil rights back 40 years. I'm quite sure, however, that he means well for the country. What he proposes, he genuinely thinks is best for all of us. I may question his intelligence, his tactics, his ideology, but I don't question his intentions.

Don't be shocked by the crickets chirping. The amount of blanket insults that have been hurled here recently have been pretty pathetic. You can always tell when it's an election year in P&N. Personal attacks not so good but painting everyone with the same brush... justified!

 

[halik]

It's not limited to home. Your coworker would be presumed justified in shooting you if he claimed he felt threatened by you at work, even if the alternative would be for him to leave work and call the cops.

If i was waving a gun around at the office and one of the coworkers shoots me, I don't think he should be charged with some derivative of a homicide on that basis that he could've tried escaping.

 

[monovillage]

It's not limited to home. Your coworker would be presumed justified in shooting you if he claimed he felt threatened by you at work, even if the alternative would be for him to leave work and call the cops.

That's an even better law, it should include stores, restaurants, gyms, where you walk your dog and everywhere else.

 

[senseamp]

If i was waving a gun around at the office and one of the coworkers shoots me, I don't think he should be charged with some derivative of a homicide on that basis that he could've tried escaping.

The bill doesn't require him to be concerned for his life, safety is sufficient, so you wouldn't need to be waiving a gun, he could just be afraid you'd beat him up and feel unsafe, and that would justify him killing you instead of leaving work and calling the cops.

 

[glenn1]

The bill doesn't require him to be concerned for his life, safety is sufficient, so you wouldn't need to be waiving a gun, he could just be afraid you'd beat him up and feel unsafe, and that would justify him killing you instead of leaving work and calling the cops.

You're just being obtuse. It's obvious that you feel that use of a firearm is unreasonable in any circumstance so it's pointless even discussing this law with you.