Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Delaying tactics

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. 03-04-2021, 05:08 PM #1
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114

    Delaying tactics

    Ron Johnson plans to have the clerks of the Senate read the entire COVID relief bill aloud, which will take about 10 hours. He further plans to demand that each amendment offered be read aloud during the vote-a-rama, which could take another day or so.

    In the end, the bill will become law. Performative politics did not leave with Trump. There is still an appetite for it.

    Meanwhile, people are lining up for food give-aways. Unemployment insurance is running out and people will go without. All so Johnson can look good to his base. It is tough to watch that sort of self-absorption and pandering. And what gets me is that his base includes people being hurt by his antics and they will STILL vote for him!

    It is a funny old world.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. 03-04-2021, 05:15 PM #2
    CactusCurt's Avatar
    CactusCurt
    CactusCurt is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    04-23-02
    Location
    SW Colorado
    Posts
    4,959
    Maybe the critters should know what they are voting on?
    "Back after 5 years. I thought you had died.

    don"


    Splitting my time between the montane and the mesas

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  3. 03-04-2021, 05:42 PM #3
    Independent Voter's Avatar
    Independent Voter
    Independent Voter is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-01-11
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    2,137
    NAH , They have to pass it so we can find out what''s in it. Doncha know.
    Individual rights are protected only as long as they don't conflict with the desires of the state .
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  4. 03-04-2021, 05:45 PM #4
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Independent Voter View Post
    NAH , They have to pass it so we can find out what''s in it. Doncha know.

    Sorta like the 2017 tax bill, which only had Johnson's handwritten notes to go on before being passed by Republicans? That 400 page bill that Democrats had two hours to read before a final vote was scheduled? Is that what you are referring to?

    You think Republicans knew what was in that bill? Doubtful. Here is a link with a picture of the type of baloney the Republicans pulled with that legislation. They kinda lost the ability to gripe about passing legislation that they didn't understand with that one.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-...-trump-2017-12
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  5. 03-04-2021, 06:26 PM #5
    Independent Voter's Avatar
    Independent Voter
    Independent Voter is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    05-01-11
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    2,137
    'They LOAD every bill with PORK. Both sides. I remember a couple of Presidents trying to get stand alone bills OR a line item veto but neither could pass. And that was both Dem and Rep, Presidents.

    So now we get garbage shoved down the throat of the tax payer on a regular basis.
    Individual rights are protected only as long as they don't conflict with the desires of the state .
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  6. 03-04-2021, 06:46 PM #6
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    One man's pork is another man's much-needed project. If it is coming to my district, it is needed. If it is going to someone else's, it is pork. You might say that pork is in the eye of the beholder. Or at least, the receiver.

    Either way, thus it has always been in politics. In order to get what I want, I have to give you what you want. You give me my much needed project, I give you your pork. It's all a matter of perspective.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  7. 03-04-2021, 05:43 PM #7
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    The rules state that only one senator has to be on the floor. He was the only Senator on the floor for the reading. No Senator is being educated by this stunt.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  8. 03-05-2021, 08:59 AM #8
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Ben, that is an argument I just don't buy anymore. It equates a convenience with something designed to inflict bodily damage. It is not a valid analogy.

    When people start killing each other with credit cards at the rate of 20,000 per year, then your analogy is at least debatable.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  9. 03-05-2021, 09:44 AM #9
    Truckman's Avatar
    Truckman
    Truckman is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    44,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Ben, that is an argument I just don't buy anymore. It equates a convenience with something designed to inflict bodily damage. It is not a valid analogy.

    When people start killing each other with credit cards at the rate of 20,000 per year, then your analogy is at least debatable.
    Design? I don't buy into that one, Kevin, since I wasn't privy to the firearm originator's thoughts as he worked on his invention...I've never seen the same thoughts directed at the developer of the sharpened stick, nor the dagmar bumper guards on the 1952 Buick, and yet both have been used purposely to inflict bodily harm...

    To expand your analogy with credit cards, I'm pretty sure the occurrence of activity involving a criminal nature is statistically higher with credit cards than it is with guns...Why then is the outcry not louder to disembowel Visa and Amex than it is for Colt and S&W?...My apologies to the thread's originator for getting so far off track...Oh wait, that was you...I'll shut up now......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  10. 03-05-2021, 09:03 AM #10
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Dave, what I wonder is whether Republicans see any downside in opposing this.

    It really is a sea change for Republicans in another way. In the past, people got elected by inclusion of groups. Now, for Republicans, it is all about energizing the base, period.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  11. 03-05-2021, 09:12 AM #11
    Dave Grubb's Avatar
    Dave Grubb
    Dave Grubb is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Dave, what I wonder is whether Republicans see any downside in opposing this.

    It really is a sea change for Republicans in another way. In the past, people got elected by inclusion of groups. Now, for Republicans, it is all about energizing the base, period.
    I have to confess Kevin---I am at a loss to understand what the republicans might be thinking---or even if they are thinking
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  12. 03-05-2021, 10:02 AM #12
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    You are talking to the already convinced with that line of thought. No one is going to sign onto the idea that guns were invented as a personal grooming device. A lead pellet shot at force from a tube is designed to inflict damage.

    Dagmar's and sharpened sticks? Nonsense. Show me where they are being used to intentionally kill 20,000 people a year. Ditto the argument about credit cards. Nobody is killing with sharpened credit cards.

    Stick to the rights argument, it makes more sense.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  13. 03-05-2021, 10:08 AM #13
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    For example,

    It is my right to be armed, as stated in the Second Amendment. Fellow citizens might not value this right as highly as I do but that is a matter of personal discernment and just as I don't seek to curtail their quiet enjoyment of rights they value, no one should curtail mine.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  14. 03-05-2021, 10:33 AM #14
    Kevin
    Kevin is offline Charter Member
    Join Date
    10-23-01
    Posts
    17,114
    Here's one big benefit from sticking to a rights argument - the issue becomes people misusing the right, not the right itself.

    When do we curtail free speech? When people misuse it. We don't curtail everyone's speech, just the manner in which it is used. So the issue becomes misuse of guns, not guns as such. Consequently, you avoid all issues relating to anything except criminal use. If you are not using your gun in a criminal manner, why should your right to bear arms be curtailed just because "you might"? We don't do that with any other right.

    Lot more ground to stand on there, in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  15. 03-05-2021, 11:40 AM #15
    Truckman's Avatar
    Truckman
    Truckman is offline Registered Member
    Join Date
    11-22-03
    Location
    In the Village...
    Posts
    44,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
    Here's one big benefit from sticking to a rights argument - the issue becomes people misusing the right, not the right itself...If you are not using your gun in a criminal manner, why should your right to bear arms be curtailed just because "you might"? We don't do that with any other right.
    Fair enough since it's your thread...
    It equates a convenience with something designed to inflict bodily damage.
    But I still haven't seen your presentation of the thoughts present in the mind of the inventor of the firearm as he conceived the idea of the firearm...Or the inventors of the sharpened stick, or even the dagmar bumper guard...But I concede the fact that it's impossible to see into the mind of a long dead inventor even though you implied such...

    I do believe many other Constitutionally guaranteed rights are curtailed by law and the various courts...The 1A comes to mind with the obvious examples of yelling fire, or giving added undesired testimony in court......Ben
    The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules