The rule of Reid and Pelosi

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_RedDude, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    Let me start by saying that I have done no research on this topic, so I will count on others to enlighten me (us) if they can.

    I generally come down on the liberal side of things, but I have come across in the news instances where either Reid or Pelosi would not permit a full debate/offering of amendments on particular legislation in their respective chambers. In a recent case, it caused either Snowe or Collins of Maine (I can't remember which) to back down on supporting the repeal of DADT.

    Is it fair to not allow the Republicans opportunity to at least voice their views on the floor of the House or Senate and be given an opportunity to propose legislative amendments and have them voted on? (Let's just say that I am aware that this can become a very intricate process politically)

    If anyone says that it's fair because the Republicans did it to the Democrats when they were in the majority, that's not a good enough answer. Maybe, instead of payback, the Democrats could be setting a good example for everyone.

    What are the Republicans' real motives for demanding further debate on legislation that their party as a whole might be disinclined to support anyway? (I never said I trusted them) Is it just to try to score political points or another of their obstructionist tactics, or do they have valid reasons for it in the context of representative government? Might they be more likely to vote for some legislation if this was at least permitted.
     
    #1 B_RedDude, Sep 28, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  2. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Answered your own question.
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    It's always been about obstructionism and taking back seats with the current batch of Republicans in office, especially in the Senate where most of the unnecessary drama is happening. If it wasn't clear after DeMint's "Waterloo" comment, then the flagrant hypocritical stances displayed by several members of the GOP with the stimulus and HCL would be another major clue.

    When you go through all of the sound bites and all of the rhetorical bantering, you're left with a political party with no ideas to solve our nation's current problems except for going back to the way Bush ran things (after taking so many strides to distance themselves from him in 2008), and causing division among the ignorant with culture war bombast & scare tactics. The GOP had more than a year and a half to come up with something substantial to sell the American public come this election, and this is all they could come up with.
     
  4. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Like with many political issues, most members of Congress (in both parties) probably don't care that much, but just before an election, few of them want to go out on a limb and do anything that might jeopardize their jobs. The catch is that there's always an election around the corner.
     
  5. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    100
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Obamabots...grab them pom-poms.
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    And I suppose you'll be grabbing some Gun Oil and your autographed copy of the "Pledge To America" instead? Shut up. :rolleyes:
     
  7. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    When the H.O.U.A.C. trials were going on many decades ago, one of the Speakers was Ronald W. Reagan. One of the statements he made was in reality one of the most accurate as applying to the Ultra-Right Wing Extremists in this decade. Reagan was speaking in reference to the Communist Menace thought to be taking over the entertainment industry.

    His statement was something to the effect of: "They come in and take over a large majority with a very small and well organized minority."

    The threat of communism has been replaced several times. In all cases, the individuals trying to manipulate (let's call them special interest groups though this is an over-simplification) have to gain power. They gain this power by posing constant threats, and even if necessary, creating a false panic. To answer this threat, those same special interests fund extremist political candidates that they the extremists can manipulate in order to have gain be it power or financial gain. The extremists tell you that they and they alone can take care of the problem or problems.

    The problem is not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are opposed by those who would stand to lose either power or financial wealth if they (Reid and Pelosi) were to stay in office.

    As is always the case, follow the money, and see who it is that is making all the noise against or for a political cause. Remember that finding out who is actually throwing out the political contribution may not be as simple as it looks. Sometimes there are corporations layered upon each other, and, these then operate foundations also layered to channel money to causes or candidates that they support.

    This is not nuclear missile science here. The information is out there, but it is very well buried and is not always easy to dig out.

    There are many political candidates that I am not fond of from both sides of the 2 party system, yet, at the same time, even on rare occasion, I may hear a single idea from a politician who has earned zero respect from me that in and of itself, that idea, may have some foundation in truth or merit.

    Often, in politics, laws governing common people are suspended and we tend to ignore this fact. This is particularly true of political campaigns.

    Many of the charges we are right now being subjected to in television campaign advertising, are in fact, libelous and slanderous, and, were they to happen outside a political campaign, litigation would be guaranteed. It seems that when we listen to the advertising of political candidates, we no longer hear about what this candidate would do to make the world, (or in this case the country as it would relate to the people he/she represents) a better place for those people. Most of the advertising now relates to charges of corruption or personal, moral, financial, or other charges against the opponent.

    What is the reason for this? The reason is simple in that the two opposing candidates no longer have a clue as to what they even "can" do. What's left? Well, they've got to say something, so, they take statements and other incomplete articles,, or incomplete investigations, from different news media sources, and, quote these investigations as if the candidate they oppose were in fact "convicted" of any and or all offenses under consideration. The quotes come from various sources, and, are in fact, a statement of life for politicians on both sides of the coin. What is wrong, is that accusations or investigations in and of themselves are not convictions, but the campaign advertising implies otherwise.

    When we come to the point of allowing all opinions to be heard, here is what tends to happen.

    The speakers brought in by the various entities in question would be the same individuals who have railed on and on and taking credit as "experts". Your "experts" would be the same people who have already testified for example against the repeal of DADT all over the place. These would be very old, hard-line military people, members of the religious right who could profit by keeping DADT, and others with similar track records. This takes place, because each side considers these people to be the "experts". If you allow one side, in essence we then have to give speaking time to those supporting the repeal of DADT. What this causes is exactly the same debate (as a broken record) again and again and again. What does this do? It costs taxpayers to have their elected representatives listen endlessly to the same people making the same repeated statements, with the only thing changing being the venue and the supposed people to whom they are speaking. Your elected officials have endless transcripts of other testimony available from other locations available to review.

    Right now, with the two warring parties and their attitudes, one could create a three year debate and disaster if somebody stood up and read the entire telephone directory from Baltimore, Maryland.

    There are also times where boring people to death has political advantages. Get a politician mad enough, and make him/her hear the same argument over and over and over again, and, what you are going to get are votes to "table" depending on the body. This would serve the Republicans at this time, because if something is "tabled", it could be delayed until they can get the conservative votes to overturn it completely.

    Depending on many factors which we may not know, what you may have is a delaying tactic to stop something that would benefit one side or the other, if mid-term elections could cause a total defeat of these same measures. In this case, the conservative side actually does not want DADT. What they want is far more heinous and give them enough power and time and they will have what they want. If they can get something delayed by adding additional discussion, they look like the good-guys, and they may have the ability to delay a vote in some manner which they would lose right now, but, could win later.
     
    #7 FuzzyKen, Sep 28, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  8. B_RedDude

    B_RedDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating voting for the motherfuckers. I just like to play fair.

     
  9. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Don't worry, RedDude... I know where you're coming from. However, when the flame baiting trolls attack threads with their BS I can't help but rustle their feathers. Faceking has reduced himself to being nothing more than just that, based on his own bigotry of supposed "liberals" on this board.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted