Where are the critters today? Oh yeah, they went home for the summer recess. "no bill, no break", pure political BS, or maybe I should soften my tone and say rhetoric so I won't offend their sensitivity.

Reminds me of how a "filibuster" has changed over the years. Used to be that a person had to actually stand there and talk in order to have a filibuster. Now my understanding is that they can just declare that they are having a filibuster and then go out to whatever party is going on.

 

Reminds me of how a "filibuster" has changed over the years. Used to be that a person had to actually stand there and talk in order to have a filibuster. Now my understanding is that they can just declare that they are having a filibuster and then go out to whatever party is going on.

Yeah, the threat now has the force of the filibuster. I'd rather see an old fashioned "real" filibuster.

 

Yeah, the threat now has the force of the filibuster. I'd rather see an old fashioned "real" filibuster.

Same here. They are too privileged (i.e., lazy) to do their jobs. Worse, they've put the majority of spending on automatic because they are too damn lazy to even do that -- and then stand there and claim that they have don't have enough control over the budget to balance it. Then they give more and more control to the Executive branch, including things that the Constitution delegates specifically to Congress and does NOT grant Congress the authority to delegate it away. But I guess doing their job would just take too much time away from their social lives.

 

Yeah, the threat now has the force of the filibuster. I'd rather see an old fashioned "real" filibuster.

You mean actually have to work for your "peanuts and hay"

kv

 

ronv said: ↑
Gee, I wonder why they didn't just hold the vote?
@joeyd999 said Because, in the words of your hero, elections have consequences.

Or that they are ignoring their constituents in favor of the money from the NRA and don't want to be held accountable.
Edit: to subtle:

 

Perhaps they didn't feel that it was proper to hold a vote on unconstitutional bills.

 

Or that they are ignoring their constituents in favor of the money from the NRA ...

Where do you think NRA money comes from? Constituents!

 

Perhaps they didn't feel that it was proper to hold a vote on unconstitutional bills.

 

@wayneh Bad form in an election year.

 

How about asking people if they support stripping people of their constitutional rights based solely on being added to a secret government list for which there is no effective means of even finding out you are on the list until you attempt to exercise the rights that have been stripped and, even then, you will not be told why you were placed on the list nor is there any effective means to appeal your placement on the list to have it removed.

Remember, Ted Kennedy was placed on the list and it too him half a year to get his name off despite the fact that he was a U.S. Senator.

Surely someone that is on the No-Fly list shouldn't be allowed to own or drive a car, either. Or speak publicly. After all, they are a terrorist, right?

What part of "due process" is so hard to comprehend? Or perhaps being added to a secret list IS what passes for due process in the minds of the people sponsoring those bills. Or, more likely, we should take them at their word when they openly declare that the whole notion of "due process" IS the problem that must be overcome.

 

So I take it that you DO feel it is proper to hold votes on unconstitutional bills.

Well, since a growing fraction of people, particularly politicians, clearly feel that the Constitution is merely a quaint, outdated document that should not impose any restrictions on what our enlightened government can do, that is probably not an uncommon viewpoint.

 

So I take it that you DO feel it is proper to hold votes on unconstitutional bills.

Well, since a growing fraction of people, particularly politicians, clearly feel that the Constitution is merely a quaint, outdated document that should not impose any restrictions on what our enlightened government can do, that is probably not an uncommon viewpoint.

Only your opinions, not the courts. They decide such things not you. Sorry. Well maybe not.

 

@ronv. I'm finally getting the point here. The guys that consider themselves to belong to the "right" wing also see themselves as belonging to the only "correct" wing.

 

So I take it that you DO feel it is proper to hold votes on unconstitutional bills.

Oh you mean like the ones the GOP keeps making to abolish abortion and voting rights? Both are guaranteed by the Constitution aren't they? Doesn't seem to stop those from being voted on and passed in gerrymandered states.

 

 

@ronv. I'm finally getting the point here. The guys that consider themselves to belong to the "right" wing also see themselves as belonging to the only "correct" wing.

And the "left" wing is different... how?

 

Oh you mean like the ones the GOP keeps making to abolish abortion and voting rights? Both are guaranteed by the Constitution aren't they? Doesn't seem to stop those from being voted on and passed in gerrymandered states.

So if the opponents of those bills took steps to prevent them from coming to a vote, would you oppose those efforts and demand that the vote be taken?

 

So if the opponents of those bills took steps to prevent them from coming to a vote, would you oppose those efforts and demand that the vote be taken?

They have been voted on over and over and over again and the court keeps upholding those rights
The system does work, it is just painful sometimes because some people make it hard.

 

How about asking people if they support stripping people of their constitutional rights based solely on being added to a secret government list for which there is no effective means of even finding out you are on the list until you attempt to exercise the rights that have been stripped and, even then, you will not be told why you were placed on the list nor is there any effective means to appeal your placement on the list to have it removed.

Remember, Ted Kennedy was placed on the list and it too him half a year to get his name off despite the fact that he was a U.S. Senator.

Surely someone that is on the No-Fly list shouldn't be allowed to own or drive a car, either. Or speak publicly. After all, they are a terrorist, right?

What part of "due process" is so hard to comprehend? Or perhaps being added to a secret list IS what passes for due process in the minds of the people sponsoring those bills. Or, more likely, we should take them at their word when they openly declare that the whole notion of "due process" IS the problem that must be overcome.

Maybe it's because I have been a problem solver all my life that I don't buy that argument.
I can think of a lot of very successful products and ideas that could just as easily been scraped but were beautiful when made to work.

 

Maybe it's because I have been a problem solver all my life that I don't buy that argument.
I can think of a lot of very successful products and ideas that could just as easily been scraped but were beautiful when made to work.

You can spray coat and polish a turd but its still a turd.