Republican Agenda in Congress

[astrosfan90]

Alright, it's no mystery here where I stand on things, but I wanted to offer a different way of looking at this. Maybe it'll turn into a good discussion, maybe it won't.

So first, check out this article here: House GOP to Focus on Guns, Abortion

Alright, so as the article notes, the House GOP is focusing on several contentious issues right now in the lead up to the November elections.

I say good for them, and not just because I tend to agree with their agenda.

It's more than that--I think it's good to see them doing this in an election year. Not because of the old tired notion that they're trying to stir up their base. The base will vote one way or the other. To me, though, what this does is to help educate the voters. These are contentious issues to nearly every voter. As such, it's important to know where your elected representatives stand on them. Since they rarely actually come to a vote, our elected officials can spew all sorts of rhetoric they have little or no intention of backing up in fact, and so forcing these issues to a vote at least forces these officials to take put their money where their mouths are and show the voters their true colors.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on it. Thoughts?

 

[RightIsWrong]

I have a question.....since these "contentious" issues rarely come to a vote, why not make a clear case on the topics that actually do? Why pussyfoot around with items that you KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, will never come to fruition? Why all the smoke and mirrors?

My theory is that you, the GOP, will be shown to be a hypocritical used-car salesman.

What are things that come up for votes regularly? Spending and ethical rules. If the Dems were smart, they would hammer this home repeatedly. Every time a Repub starts in on abortion.....the SOP of the Dems should be...."That's nice. Now, let's look at your track record as a Sen/Rep. Hmmmm, it seems that you have voted for every spending bill that has come up. You did vote against a bill that would have limited spending here, here and here also. Can you elaborate?

It also looks like you voted against proposed changes to strengthen rules that would limit the influence of lobbyists. You also voted against proposed changes that would have put restrictions on the amounts of gifts that a Sen/Rep can receive. I also see that you voted against a proposed rule where, if there is a tie in an ethics committee hearing, it would automatically prompt an investigation. Can you explain your position on that issue?"

 

[BBond]

The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

your bias is showing again. :laugh:

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

For the record, the GOP hasn't exactly been on board with the Bush/Cheney agenda lately.

And hey, I was trying to explore a different side of things. No need to get personal on me!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I disagree with the notion the issues are contentious.

Most people that are for gun control . . . don't own guns. Most people against gun control own guns. The 2nd Amendment essentially guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The courts have largely upheld that right albeit with some limitations. Seems like that argument is finished . . . except for the GOP trying to 'educate' the voters.

Most people that want to abolish abortions . . . aren't planning to have one . . . in fact ~50% cannot have one. Most people that support abortion rights . . . aren't planning to have one . . . in fact ~50% cannot have one. The courts have largely upheld abortion rights albeit with some limitations. The only substantitive change in the status of abortion will come when cases reach the reformatted Supreme Court but most knowledgeable people expect trimming at the edges of Roe . . . not a reversal. Regardless, the general public is composed a few ranting loons on the right that believe the government has a SIGNIFICANT role to play and a few ranting slight less looney on the left that believe the government has NO ROLE to play. The big middle believes the government has a minor to moderate role to play.

On both these issues, most people are quite reasonable. It's only the way right and way left that are arguing. The rest of us just ignore it . . . since unlike the environment, healthcare, fuel costs, and general inflation . . . guns and fetuses just don't matter all that much.

 

[Strk]

I wouldn't call it educating the voters. They are taking up the few issues the GOP can still claim something over the Democrats and can have something to show for it. These are also the more divisive issues, which helps steer people more easily towards one group.

The GOP is just trying to run away from issues that aren't that urgent to the country. The question remains: can the Democrats emphasize the budget and Iraq enough and not get drowned out by Republicans?

 

[dmcowen674]

How many Republicans over 21 and actually own a gun in here are going to give up their gun?

 

[thraashman]

I don't own a gun. I don't ever plan on owning a gun. I don't ever plan on firing a gun. I believe in the right to bear arms, however I believe in defining what arms the people have a right to bear. Most people who feel there is a right to bear arms try to claim that if they have guns, the government has to fear overstepping their bounds or the people will topple them. However those same people are the ones who'll believe every stupid lie the government tells them. Remember, being truly leftist is to be an advocate of anarchy. I am firm believer of the idea that people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. Alot of people like to claim that if guns become criminal, only criminals will have guns. These people fail to realize that a huge majority of "illegal" guns are stolen from legal owners. In the end if we stop spending so much money on stupid little things (like catching and prosecuting marijuana users), we can solve so many other problems.

Ok, I diverted into a random rant there. I'll stop now.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have been educating myself on the gun issue and have learned that the Forefathers thought that an armed citizenry might prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. Having just overthrown a government by force they were quite clear on where danger lay. In the ensuing 200 plus years they did not imagine that Americans would be put to sleep by external fears and become the worshipers of an ever growing powerful state that would overthrow the elected president and put a fa schist in his place and all with the gun owners support.

 

[astrosfan90]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have been educating myself on the gun issue and have learned that the Forefathers thought that an armed citizenry might prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. Having just overthrown a government by force they were quite clear on where danger lay. In the ensuing 200 plus years they did not imagine that Americans would be put to sleep by external fears and become the worshipers of an ever growing powerful state that would overthrow the elected president and put a fa schist in his place and all with the gun owners support.

In short, the right to bear arms is somewhat outdated?

I certainly see your side of it, and have to admit I've wondered the same thing myself. It's not like any number of armed citizens could stand up to the government we have today.

Anyway, the gun debate is an interesting one for sure.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Alright, it's no mystery here where I stand on things, but I wanted to offer a different way of looking at this. Maybe it'll turn into a good discussion, maybe it won't.

So first, check out this article here: House GOP to Focus on Guns, Abortion

Alright, so as the article notes, the House GOP is focusing on several contentious issues right now in the lead up to the November elections.

I say good for them, and not just because I tend to agree with their agenda.

It's more than that--I think it's good to see them doing this in an election year. Not because of the old tired notion that they're trying to stir up their base. The base will vote one way or the other. To me, though, what this does is to help educate the voters. These are contentious issues to nearly every voter. As such, it's important to know where your elected representatives stand on them. Since they rarely actually come to a vote, our elected officials can spew all sorts of rhetoric they have little or no intention of backing up in fact, and so forcing these issues to a vote at least forces these officials to take put their money where their mouths are and show the voters their true colors.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on it. Thoughts?

In the ultimate analysis, these are the wedge issues which end up dividing the people. While it's good to know where your rep stands on these issues, it is more important to know where the rep stands on fiscal policy, health, education, infrastructure etc.

Politicians will rake up wedge issues when it suits their purpose but will not resolve them - if they did they would not have them up their sleeves for use during elections. Voters rarely need educating on these issues.

 

[Tom]

What exactly is the focus on guns policy ?

Is there someone in America who wants a gun and doesn't have one ?

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have been educating myself on the gun issue and have learned that the Forefathers thought that an armed citizenry might prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. Having just overthrown a government by force they were quite clear on where danger lay. In the ensuing 200 plus years they did not imagine that Americans would be put to sleep by external fears and become the worshipers of an ever growing powerful state that would overthrow the elected president and put a fa schist in his place and all with the gun owners support.

In short, the right to bear arms is somewhat outdated?

I certainly see your side of it, and have to admit I've wondered the same thing myself. It's not like any number of armed citizens could stand up to the government we have today.

Anyway, the gun debate is an interesting one for sure.

The situation in Iraq suggests otherwise. It also suggests that those who are fighting in Iraq liked Saddam Hussein more than the United States. But of course Bush doesn't worry about approval ratings.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Tom
What exactly is the focus on guns policy ?

Is there someone in America who wants a gun and doesn't have one ?

Not if they live in the South . . . hard to beat gun shows and flea markets.

 

[Pens1566]

All the repubs in congress care about is introducing wedge issue debates in order to get their base all jacked up. Terry Schiavo, check. Gay marriage, check. Flag burning, check. Next up, gay couples adopting kids.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Tom
What exactly is the focus on guns policy ?

Is there someone in America who wants a gun and doesn't have one

Me. I really enjoy firearms, and I would like to have one... but it's been over a year since I put in a request for a permit, and I still haven't heard a reply. Furthermore, I enjoy military simulation games, but in NYC, airsoft is simply outlawed. You can't even get a permit. Actually, you CAN get a permit to own a real pistol, but not an airsoft equivalent of such. Furthermore, owning an airsoft pistol in NYC is legally equivalent to illegally owning a firearm... so theoretically, you could get 5 years in prison for having a toy that shoots tiny blastic balls at 250fps. The ridiculousness of these laws amazes me.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Alright, it's no mystery here where I stand on things, but I wanted to offer a different way of looking at this. Maybe it'll turn into a good discussion, maybe it won't.

So first, check out this article here: House GOP to Focus on Guns, Abortion

Alright, so as the article notes, the House GOP is focusing on several contentious issues right now in the lead up to the November elections.

I say good for them, and not just because I tend to agree with their agenda.

It's more than that--I think it's good to see them doing this in an election year. Not because of the old tired notion that they're trying to stir up their base. The base will vote one way or the other. To me, though, what this does is to help educate the voters. These are contentious issues to nearly every voter. As such, it's important to know where your elected representatives stand on them. Since they rarely actually come to a vote, our elected officials can spew all sorts of rhetoric they have little or no intention of backing up in fact, and so forcing these issues to a vote at least forces these officials to take put their money where their mouths are and show the voters their true colors.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on it. Thoughts?

What were you on, when you were writing about Republicans educating the public?

Do you mean educating as in telling teenagers that condoms don't protect against HIV? Or educating as in telling kids that the earth is 6000 years old and there is no such thing as evolution. Certainly, if that's what you meant, then they're doing a really good job of "educating" the public.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I have a question.....since these "contentious" issues rarely come to a vote, why not make a clear case on the topics that actually do? Why pussyfoot around with items that you KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, will never come to fruition? Why all the smoke and mirrors?

My theory is that you, the GOP, will be shown to be a hypocritical used-car salesman.

What are things that come up for votes regularly? Spending and ethical rules. If the Dems were smart, they would hammer this home repeatedly. Every time a Repub starts in on abortion.....the SOP of the Dems should be...."That's nice. Now, let's look at your track record as a Sen/Rep. Hmmmm, it seems that you have voted for every spending bill that has come up. You did vote against a bill that would have limited spending here, here and here also. Can you elaborate?

It also looks like you voted against proposed changes to strengthen rules that would limit the influence of lobbyists. You also voted against proposed changes that would have put restrictions on the amounts of gifts that a Sen/Rep can receive. I also see that you voted against a proposed rule where, if there is a tie in an ethics committee hearing, it would automatically prompt an investigation. Can you explain your position on that issue?"

Perhaps they don't want the tables to be turned and have thier own OX gored???
so its more of a "I won't say anything if you don't"?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

your bias is showing again. :laugh:

Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Tell the truth about the republicans and they accuse you of bias.

Please tell me, on unbiased one, what issues the republicans trot out every election year and which issues the choose to hide. They trot out gay marriage, gun control, flag burning, and whether Osama is going to attack you again. But they fail to address the real issues, the record bush federal deficit, rampant corruption in the republican controlled government, Iraq, illegal immigration, and the fact that Osama can attack you again because the very people who promised you that electing them would keep you safe have let Osama off the hook.

Now tell me, if the tables were turned (and they were back in 1994) what would those very same republicans be doing with the real issues? And would you accuse THEM of bias for doing so? Did you accuse them of bias in 1994 when they DID? Or weren't you born yet?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90

Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

For the record, the GOP hasn't exactly been on board with the Bush/Cheney agenda lately.

And hey, I was trying to explore a different side of things. No need to get personal on me!

Another example of the extent to which the American voter has lost touch with reality. The GOP and bush are playing you with their supposed "disagreement" like a two dollar ukulele. Notice NOTHING is being done. It's all election year lip service and the American voters are too ignorant, apathetic, or busy working three jobs to make ends meet to notice.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
All the repubs in congress care about is introducing wedge issue debates in order to get their base all jacked up. Terry Schiavo, check. Gay marriage, check. Flag burning, check. Next up, gay couples adopting kids.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Even if astrosfan90 is right and the Republicans are trying to educate voters and not simply stir up their base with wedge issues they have no intention of voting on, what is the real difference? These are, almost by definition, issues where it makes no difference where your elected representative stands...because it's not going to make a difference one way or another. Which is the whole point, these issues are flogged every election cycle because Republicans KNOW they won't have to, as astrosfan90 suggests, put their money where their mouth is. They can open their big mouths at great length, at every possible opportunity, without actually having to live up to DO anything. It's the prefect situation for Republicans, they can gain support by arguing wedge issues where the argument makes no difference, while doing whatever they want on the real issues. The Republicans should be getting butchered over their inability to hold a fiscally conservative position, yet they dodge that particular bullet because conservative voters are too terrified of gay marriage to notice what the Republicans are really DOING as opposed to what they are SAYING.

These issues are introduced for one reason, to gain support without having to actually DO anything. Republicans can mouth off about gay marriage all day long, and when it comes to the issues they actually vote on and do something about, they can do whatever the hell they want. Why? Because they know they can count on the support of their base because of the wedge issues they introduced. Conservatives who are uncomfortable with the Republican fiscal policy (assuming they have one) will nevertheless continue to vote Republican because otherwise gay couples burning the American flag will get them...even though the fiscal issues are probably a lot more important.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Even if astrosfan90 is right and the Republicans are trying to educate voters and not simply stir up their base with wedge issues they have no intention of voting on, what is the real difference? These are, almost by definition, issues where it makes no difference where your elected representative stands...because it's not going to make a difference one way or another. Which is the whole point, these issues are flogged every election cycle because Republicans KNOW they won't have to, as astrosfan90 suggests, put their money where their mouth is. They can open their big mouths at great length, at every possible opportunity, without actually having to live up to DO anything. It's the prefect situation for Republicans, they can gain support by arguing wedge issues where the argument makes no difference, while doing whatever they want on the real issues. The Republicans should be getting butchered over their inability to hold a fiscally conservative position, yet they dodge that particular bullet because conservative voters are too terrified of gay marriage to notice what the Republicans are really DOING as opposed to what they are SAYING.

These issues are introduced for one reason, to gain support without having to actually DO anything. Republicans can mouth off about gay marriage all day long, and when it comes to the issues they actually vote on and do something about, they can do whatever the hell they want. Why? Because they know they can count on the support of their base because of the wedge issues they introduced. Conservatives who are uncomfortable with the Republican fiscal policy (assuming they have one) will nevertheless continue to vote Republican because otherwise gay couples burning the American flag will get them...even though the fiscal issues are probably a lot more important.

That must scare them to death. Equal rights for flag-burners.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: BBond
The funniest part is the line about the republicans "educating the voters". LMFAO

The bush/cheney/republican strategy is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy, followed by attacks against anyone who dares expose the least bit of truth, then bringing up the same tired wedge issues every election year so that the real issues are completely ignored.

Educating the voters. What a joke.

your bias is showing again. :laugh:

Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Tell the truth about the republicans and they accuse you of bias.

Please tell me, on unbiased one, what issues the republicans trot out every election year and which issues the choose to hide. They trot out gay marriage, gun control, flag burning, and whether Osama is going to attack you again. But they fail to address the real issues, the record bush federal deficit, rampant corruption in the republican controlled government, Iraq, illegal immigration, and the fact that Osama can attack you again because the very people who promised you that electing them would keep you safe have let Osama off the hook.
Now tell me, if the tables were turned (and they were back in 1994) what would those very same republicans be doing with the real issues? And would you accuse THEM of bias for doing so? Did you accuse them of bias in 1994 when they DID? Or weren't you born yet?

Real Issues:
ok big guy one at a time here. I know you will agree with me you alweays do

record bush federal budget: True, Bush has proven that he is not a fiscal conservative and spends like a dem. I agree he needs to do a better job.
rampant corruption in his republican filled Government: There certainly have been some problems, one would have to be blind to not see that. That being said one would also have to be blind to think it was only on one side of the aisle. I think what we have is not a repub/dem issue its a politician issue in that they need to do a far better job of policing thier own.
Iraq: You don't feel he has addressed Iraq? You would have had to drop off the face of the earth to not see how many times Iraq has been the topic of discussion and debate in all 3 branches of Govt. Perhaps what you mean is that they haven't just left Iraq high and dry like we did after the Kuwati conflict. That instead we are trying to hang around and give them a shot at stability instead of saying Good luck , were leaving. And you don't like that Thats ok if you don't like it,but how does that translate into its not being adressed?
illegal immigration:Has been a nightmare since long before Bush. Does that mean he should not address the nightmare...No , I think he should.
And I have seen some recent effort to that end, I am watching closely to see if its sincere or window dressing...time will tell.
Osama:I think he has made a lot of effort towards protecting us. Half the heat generated on bush is a direct result of things that he has tried to do. And they appear to be working since we have not been attacked in 5 years?
I'm not sure what you mean by letting him off the hook? I assure you if they knew where he was they would be tickled pink to stick a couple of 500 pound bombs where the sun don't shine.
What are your ideas for something more we can do that we are not doing now to find Bin Laden?