Frisco Values For DC

[thuh Freak]

Read about (http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/2006/10/nancy_pelosis_tough_new_rules.html) Nancy Pelosi's ideas for reforming congress. Written just prior to the election, the article mentions some tough rules for congressmen. It would be pretty awesome, methihks. Who bets she already forgot about it, or that it dies before coming close to a vote?

[BR]

That's hot. Seriously. I've been BEGGING for legislation like that for ages.

[addabox]

If this actually goes to the floor it will be a great test of party discipline.

I can't imagine that any Congressperson, Republican or Democrat, particularly wants to give up percs like free travel to golf junkets or free meals. But if this Democratic Congress can be cajoled/bullied into line, it will a terrific way to hit the ground running, politically, legislatively and procedurally.

I particularly like the disclosure requirements, for bills and legislators.

People love transparency, and with millions of eyes ready and willing on line, it can actually mean something.

Knowing that a Congressman is planning to go to work for the entity impacted by a given piece of legislation would be fantastic. The revolving door has truly made a joke of the "people's house".

Go for it, Nancy!

[Splinemodel]

I'm not sure I'd call these "Frisco Values," but I can't say I complain. The only problem I can discern is that there's a lot of subjectivity in some of the Act points which I can only see leading to more, effete bureaucracies.

I'd rather just see a four party system, but at this point that's not going to happen without a military-backed revolution.

[addabox]

I'm not sure I'd call these "Frisco Values," but I can't say I complain. The only problem I can discern is that there's a lot of subjectivity in some of the Act points which I can only see leading to more, effete bureaucracies.

I'd rather just see a four party system, but at this point that's not going to happen without a military-backed revolution.

What, you thought it was all queers, all the time? Governmental transparency is certainly a "Frisco" (shudder) value.

I actually didn't see much subjectivity at all in the items listed. Looks like:

--No gifts of any value from lobbyists or associations that hire lobbyists.
--Lobbyists not allowed in House gym, the House floor or cloakrooms.
--No free travel, no free meals, no free sporting events.
--No additions to bills once negotiations between Senate and House are complete.
--Bills made available to the public 24 hours before final vote.
--Public disclosure of "revolving door" negotiations for members and staff (the article says
"public sector" jobs, I'm assuming that's a typo and they meant "private sector").

All overseen by an Office of Public Integrity, which I guess is what you mean by an "effete" bureaucracy.

None of that strikes me as particularly ambiguous, in fact, it looks like a plan drawn up with an eye to specifics and enforceability.

[ronaldo]

I think she ought to throw one more rule in there. NO MORE FREE HEALTH CARE.

[Splinemodel]

What, you thought it was all queers, all the time? Governmental transparency is certainly a "Frisco" (shudder) value. . .

I actually didn't see much subjectivity at all in the items listed. Looks like: . . .

None of that strikes me as particularly ambiguous, in fact, it looks like a plan drawn up with an eye to specifics and enforceability.
In the same way that the term "Feminazis" is used, there is certainly a vociferous homosexual lobby that has, of course, a lot of SF representation. I don't really have much beef with any type of lifestyle decision, but the diatribes on the lack of hate speech legislation, gay marriage, and a potpurri of other gay agenda are just oh-so tiring. However, I am refering to a more general brand of SF liberalism that just gets off so much on its own anti-establishment virtues that it misses the point.

Don't get me wrong though, because I don't see how the proposed Act misses the point. It's very much to the point, and it doesn't really have an anti-establishment streak to it at all. It's quite sensible actually, which almost seems to put it at odds with perceived SF values.

The subjectivity is that it will take another layer of bureaucracy to retrospectively review each congressman's personal dealings, and I can see the "Congressional Disciplinary Committee" becoming a source of controversy in it's own right. I'd rather just have a greater degree of information passed on to the public. Financial disclosures, etc. It would then be up to the press and the voters to weed out the scum instead of yet another layer of government.

[MacRR]

Anyone who throws around this stupid San Francisco values crap has obviously never lived there. The term itself sounds ridiculous.

[addabox]

In the same way that the term "Feminazis" is used, there is certainly a vociferous homosexual lobby that has, of course, a lot of SF representation. I don't really have much beef with any type of lifestyle decision, but the diatribes on the lack of hate speech legislation, gay marriage, and a potpurri of other gay agenda are just oh-so tiring. However, I am refering to a more general brand of SF liberalism that just gets off so much on its own anti-establishment virtues that it misses the point.

Don't get me wrong though, because I don't see how the proposed Act misses the point. It's very much to the point, and it doesn't really have an anti-establishment streak to it at all. It's quite sensible actually, which almost seems to put it at odds with perceived SF values.

The subjectivity is that it will take another layer of bureaucracy to retrospectively review each congressman's personal dealings, and I can see the "Congressional Disciplinary Committee" becoming a source of controversy in it's own right. I'd rather just have a greater degree of information passed on to the public. Financial disclosures, etc. It would then be up to the press and the voters to weed out the scum instead of yet another layer of government.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, honest, but where does this gay agenda drum beating even happen?

Out here the queers just go about their business like, you know, citizens. I mean, you occasionally get "gay agenda" stuff like "we hate it when people come into town and attack us, could we please stop that?", and our (straight) mayor caused a bit of a ruckus with that gay marriage thing, but that was pretty much his idea. Most of the gay people I know are not that keen on marriage anyway, seeing it as a repressive heterosexual institution.

Other than that San Francisco politics are dominated by things like where the property taxes go, development vs. preservation, housing, transportation, losing the Niners to Santa Clara, potholes, who the mayor is dating, and a constant jockeying for position amongst supervisors who represent various neighborhood districts such as the largely Latino but ever hip Mission, the moneyed, white and on-the-make Marina, Chinatown, and, yes, the big ole fagged out Castro.

It's funny cause I think that people from some parts of the country think that "queers just marching around being extra gay and shit, and in large numbers" equals some kind of aggression, and it follows that SF must be at their mercy.

Just another constituency, albeit a fabulous one.

[SDW2001]

Nancy Pelosi: Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way and that's all!







......And $2m for a private Catholic College

......And $1m for a think tank started by her campaign's treasurer

......And $500,000 a women's museum

......And $250,000 to the City College of San Fran to "help minority students complete their degrees"

......And $400,000 for New College to fund programs on urban ecology, spirituality and....wait for it....politics!



But shes going to clean up Congress and control spending...not to mention end the Republican "Culture of Corruption!" Yeeeeeeee haw! :lol:

[addabox]

Nancy Pelosi: Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way and that's all!







......And $2m for a private Catholic College

......And $1m for a think tank started by her campaign's treasurer

......And $500,000 a women's museum

......And $250,000 to the City College of San Fran to "help minority students complete their degrees"

......And $400,000 for New College to fund programs on urban ecology, spirituality and....wait for it....politics!



But shes going to clean up Congress and control spending...not to mention end the Republican "Culture of Corruption!" Yeeeeeeee haw! :lol:

What's this? Nancy Pelosi voted to fund things that benefited her district?! And some of those things benefited women and minorities??!! And.....and......college programs???!!!

God, you were right all along, she's some kind of monster.

[Gilsch]

What's this? Nancy Pelosi voted to fund things that benefited her district?! And some of those things benefited women and minorities??!! And.....and......college programs???!!!

God, you were right all along, she's some kind of monster. I think someone just watched Hannity and Colmes. They had some blonde shill spouting those new talking points. Even Hannity looked like he could barely contain himself. Of course, he did pledge to join the shill's "700 day" fight with Pelosi. Something tells me that if I watched Fox daily, I'd be able to "predict" what some of the posters here are about to post. :( Quite sad actually.

Disclaimer: I don't ever watch Fox News.:\

[Splinemodel]

I think someone just watched Hannity and Colmes. They had some blonde shill spouting those new talking points. Even Hannity looked like he could barely contain himself. Of course, he did pledge to join the shill's "700 day" fight with Pelosi. Something tells me that if I watched Fox daily, I'd be able to "predict" what some of the posters here are about to post. :( Quite sad actually.

Disclaimer: I don't ever watch Fox News.:\
It's pretty easy the other way around, too. Fox News is on the other side of the coin as CNN, just as WSJ is on the other side of the coin as NYT. Fox News certainly has a slant, but let's get serious -- they are pretty unabashed about it. If you managed to be duped by Fox News, you're an idiot.

For the record, addabox, the sidebar on the forced proliferation of gay special interests was not meant to be attached to this issue. It's just an observation, and I don't really want to get into it either.

[addabox]

It's pretty easy the other way around, too. Fox News is on the other side of the coin as CNN, just as WSJ is on the other side of the coin as NYT. Fox News certainly has a slant, but let's get serious -- they are pretty unabashed about it. If you managed to be duped by Fox News, you're an idiot.

This attitude totally mystifies me. The idea that CNN is the "liberal" mirror of Fox has the appeal of conservation of rhetoric, or something, I guess, but it really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is nothing like the "liberal" equivalent to Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Humes on CNN. At the same time, CNN has its share of conservative commentators and tends to book guests on the talk segments that skew conservative.

For the record, addabox, the sidebar on the forced proliferation of gay special interests was not meant to be attached to this issue. It's just an observation, and I don't really want to get into it either.

Agreed. However, the meme of "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi" is obviously designed to evoke thoughts "homosexuals advancing their agenda". Or is there something else about "San Francisco" that sticks in the craw of right wing America?

[Gilsch]

If you managed to be duped by Fox News, you're an idiot.:lol: Nooo shit. Go read my post again. Who said anything about being duped? I said I watched Hannity and the same talking points that were spewed by the shill guest they had, were posted here. I suggested that by watching Fox daily I'd be able to predict some of the posts on here. You obviously misread my post, because if what you understood by it was that I was somehow "duped"...well, you're an even bigger idiot.

[Harald]

Nancy Pelosi: Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way and that's all!







......And $2m for a private Catholic College

......And $1m for a think tank started by her campaign's treasurer

......And $500,000 a women's museum

......And $250,000 to the City College of San Fran to "help minority students complete their degrees"

......And $400,000 for New College to fund programs on urban ecology, spirituality and....wait for it....politics!



But shes going to clean up Congress and control spending...not to mention end the Republican "Culture of Corruption!" Yeeeeeeee haw! :lol:
The one person on the board not to say: "This legislation looks like the sort of thing that would prevent the widespread corruption of congress that benighted it during the last few (Republican) years" ...

is a Republican.

[Carson O'Genic]

I'm not trying to pick a fight, honest, but where does this gay agenda drum beating even happen?

Out here the queers just go about their business like, you know, citizens. I mean, you occasionally get "gay agenda" stuff like "we hate it when people come into town and attack us, could we please stop that?", and our (straight) mayor caused a bit of a ruckus with that gay marriage thing, but that was pretty much his idea. Most of the gay people I know are not that keen on marriage anyway, seeing it as a repressive heterosexual institution.

Other than that San Francisco politics are dominated by things like where the property taxes go, development vs. preservation, housing, transportation, losing the Niners to Santa Clara, potholes, who the mayor is dating, and a constant jockeying for position amongst supervisors who represent various neighborhood districts such as the largely Latino but ever hip Mission, the moneyed, white and on-the-make Marina, Chinatown, and, yes, the big ole fagged out Castro.

It's funny cause I think that people from some parts of the country think that "queers just marching around being extra gay and shit, and in large numbers" equals some kind of aggression, and it follows that SF must be at their mercy.

Just another constituency, albeit a fabulous one.
Well said.

One of the best things about SF is that you you have a little bit of everything represented. Generally, it is 'live and let live', if you don't like it just keep walking and ignore it. Wish teh rest of the country would do the same.

[Carson O'Genic]

Nancy Pelosi: Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way and that's all!







......And $2m for a private Catholic College

......And $1m for a think tank started by her campaign's treasurer

......And $500,000 a women's museum

......And $250,000 to the City College of San Fran to "help minority students complete their degrees"

......And $400,000 for New College to fund programs on urban ecology, spirituality and....wait for it....politics!



But shes going to clean up Congress and control spending...not to mention end the Republican "Culture of Corruption!" Yeeeeeeee haw! :lol:
After 6 years of guns, pork and tax cuts, I don't see how anyone can be pointing fingers at the Democrats.

[Carson O'Genic]

This attitude totally mystifies me. The idea that CNN is the "liberal" mirror of Fox has the appeal of conservation of rhetoric, or something, I guess, but it really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is nothing like the "liberal" equivalent to Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Humes on CNN. At the same time, CNN has its share of conservative commentators and tends to book guests on the talk segments that skew conservative.

Furthermore, CNN has Nancy Grace, a one woman lynch mob that can hardley be described as liberal. Then there that idiot new guy (some guy yanked from radio i think) that seems to me to be CNN's answer to getting back some of the folks that watch Fox. Really, if you want the occasional liberal bias, I say go for MSNBC.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=53ffOzJ-hH0&mode=related&search=

Then again, after listining to that video, I'd say they're not so liberal, rather just sane.

[SDW2001]

What's this? Nancy Pelosi voted to fund things that benefited her district?! And some of those things benefited women and minorities??!! And.....and......college programs???!!!

God, you were right all along, she's some kind of monster.

No, but she's go her head deep down in the pork barrel, just like the rest of them...GOP included.

[SDW2001]

It's pretty easy the other way around, too. Fox News is on the other side of the coin as CNN, just as WSJ is on the other side of the coin as NYT. Fox News certainly has a slant, but let's get serious -- they are pretty unabashed about it. If you managed to be duped by Fox News, you're an idiot.

For the record, addabox, the sidebar on the forced proliferation of gay special interests was not meant to be attached to this issue. It's just an observation, and I don't really want to get into it either.

Bingo. "Everyone knows" they're conservative. But it's amazing, once again, that no one seems to care that CBS and ABC are just as liberal as Fox is conservative...in fact, they're far more slanted in my opinion.

[SDW2001]

adda:

This attitude totally mystifies me. The idea that CNN is the "liberal" mirror of Fox has the appeal of conservation of rhetoric, or something, I guess, but it really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is nothing like the "liberal" equivalent to Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Humes on CNN. At the same time, CNN has its share of conservative commentators and tends to book guests on the talk segments that skew conservative.


You have got to be shitting me.

FNC goes conservative in most cases, I agree. However, most opinions of the commentators such as Hannity, O'Reilly et al are presented just as that....opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with liberal opinion being labeled as such. And they do have a large number of liberals on the shows I've mentioned. Granted, O'Reilly berates them and the guests on Hannity & Colmes usually just end up yelling at each other talking over each other with "facts" that just happen to fit the way they want things to be'.

That said, there is a huge counter balance to Fox News. Have you ever watched CBS or ABC News? Apparently not. MSNB? Olbermann? I heard lots of celebration and cheers when Olbermann went off the deep end. Why is that not inappropriate too? What about CBS and the forged documents? Even after it was conclusively proven that they were fakes, Rather and his lackeys stuck to their story. Nah, no bias there. What about ABCNews.com showing the a picture of the Capital Building covered in blue slime ;) (or something) on election night...witht he caption of "revolution!" underneath?

The NYT? Washington Post? LAT? NBC? What about Russert's interview with the VP? Russert is usually pretty fair IMO, but he was absolutely unreasonable with Cheney. You should go find it and watch....I think you might even agree.

The point is that there are massive counterbalances to FNC. In fact, it really can't even be called "counterbalance." The weight of the liberal outlets throws Fox off the seesaw and clear into orbit.

[Splinemodel]

Agreed. However, the meme of "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi" is obviously designed to evoke thoughts "homosexuals advancing their agenda". Or is there something else about "San Francisco" that sticks in the craw of right wing America?
SF was the hippie epicenter of the world in the 60's, and it has held a counter-culture stigma since then. Of course, as far as I can tell there certainly is a counter-culture vibe in SF. Conservatives detest counter-culture.

[MacRR]

I'm not trying to pick a fight, honest, but where does this gay agenda drum beating even happen?

Out here the queers just go about their business like, you know, citizens. I mean, you occasionally get "gay agenda" stuff like "we hate it when people come into town and attack us, could we please stop that?", and our (straight) mayor caused a bit of a ruckus with that gay marriage thing, but that was pretty much his idea. Most of the gay people I know are not that keen on marriage anyway, seeing it as a repressive heterosexual institution.

Other than that San Francisco politics are dominated by things like where the property taxes go, development vs. preservation, housing, transportation, losing the Niners to Santa Clara, potholes, who the mayor is dating, and a constant jockeying for position amongst supervisors who represent various neighborhood districts such as the largely Latino but ever hip Mission, the moneyed, white and on-the-make Marina, Chinatown, and, yes, the big ole fagged out Castro.

It's funny cause I think that people from some parts of the country think that "queers just marching around being extra gay and shit, and in large numbers" equals some kind of aggression, and it follows that SF must be at their mercy.

Just another constituency, albeit a fabulous one.
Don't forget street cleaning and homeless! The street cleaning is the biggest scam ever.

[MacRR]

All this BS about news sources... sheesh. Everyone knows where such and such News outfit has drawn their party affiliation line... why does anyone care? In this day and age it's easy to check the facts against the reported story, and even easier to discern bias based on bopdy language, choice of words, etc of the reporter..

Instead of talking about what a jerk off O'Reilly is, shouldn't the debate stick to the legislation Pelosi is supposedly going to legislate?

IMO- it looks a whole lot better legislation than the bankruptcy bill.

[addabox]

adda:



You have got to be shitting me.

FNC goes conservative in most cases, I agree. However, most opinions of the commentators such as Hannity, O'Reilly et al are presented just as that....opinions. There is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with liberal opinion being labeled as such. And they do have a large number of liberals on the shows I've mentioned. Granted, O'Reilly berates them and the guests on Hannity & Colmes usually just end up yelling at each other talking over each other with "facts" that just happen to fit the way they want things to be'.

That said, there is a huge counter balance to Fox News. Have you ever watched CBS or ABC News? Apparently not. MSNB? Olbermann? I heard lots of celebration and cheers when Olbermann went off the deep end. Why is that not inappropriate too? What about CBS and the forged documents? Even after it was conclusively proven that they were fakes, Rather and his lackeys stuck to their story. Nah, no bias there. What about ABCNews.com showing the a picture of the Capital Building covered in blue slime ;) (or something) on election night...witht he caption of "revolution!" underneath?

The NYT? Washington Post? LAT? NBC? What about Russert's interview with the VP? Russert is usually pretty fair IMO, but he was absolutely unreasonable with Cheney. You should go find it and watch....I think you might even agree.

The point is that there are massive counterbalances to FNC. In fact, it really can't even be called "counterbalance." The weight of the liberal outlets throws Fox off the seesaw and clear into orbit.

Oh fuck me, its another SDW list. Fox is stridently and consistently and ongoingly a cheerleader for the Republicans? Dan Rather! Who is the Clinton of the "liberal media" rant! And, and, and uh, Keith Olbermann! Who is the only fucking liberal commentator on any network at all ever anywhere. But he single handedly balances out a dozen rabid wingers given free reign on every other cable network! And, and..... some interview that was insufficiently fawning of Cheney! That, like, totally balances years and years of interviews that proceed from the assumption that Democrats have no message, are not trusted by the voters and wouldn't know what to do with a mandate if they got it.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 94 election it pictured an rampaging elephant crushing a little donkey flat, its eye squirting out of its head as it died.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 06 election it pictured a red circle and a blue circle overlapping to make a purple area with the text "why the center is the new place to be". The contrast-- Republican victory equals massive crushing defeat for dems and their values, vs. Democratic victory equals "the center has prevailed and normal conservatism can resume" -- is entirely typical of the narrative being proffered for the new political landscape.

Doesn't matter though, the standard SDW equivalency rap will never die. Systemic corruption, media bias, voting irregularity, eliminationist rhetoric? I have web sites that provide me lists of counter examples in each category! That are not remotely systemic, but I don't really know what that word means! All I need is a list or two on which to hang my incredulity that anyone doesn't get how mean and corrupt the dems are and how liberal the media is and I'm good to go!

But, could you do us all a favor and stop pretending to be dumbfounded every time someone notices how conservative Fox is and how that is not counterbalanced in any way by the legendary "liberal media"? I know you don't agree, but at this point you must be aware that a lot of people absolutely don't agree with you, and phrases like "you have got to be shitting me", like you just can't believe what you're seeing, are just stupid stupid stupid.

[SDW2001]

That opinion isn't justifiable on any level.

Why is that Shawn, because you disagree? I could justify and support that remark all day.

[southside grabowski]

As I have said elsewhere, this Dem win assures a Republican President in 2008.

[SDW2001]

Oh fuck me, its another SDW list. Fox is stridently and consistently and ongoingly a cheerleader for the Republicans? Dan Rather! Who is the Clinton of the "liberal media" rant! And, and, and uh, Keith Olbermann! Who is the only fucking liberal commentator on any network at all ever anywhere. But he single handedly balances out a dozen rabid wingers given free reign on every other cable network! And, and..... some interview that was insufficiently fawning of Cheney! That, like, totally balances years and years of interviews that proceed from the assumption that Democrats have no message, are not trusted by the voters and wouldn't know what to do with a mandate if they got it.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 94 election it pictured an rampaging elephant crushing a little donkey flat, its eye squirting out of its head as it died.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 06 election it pictured a red circle and a blue circle overlapping to make a purple area with the text "why the center is the new place to be". The contrast-- Republican victory equals massive crushing defeat for dems and their values, vs. Democratic victory equals "the center has prevailed and normal conservatism can resume" -- is entirely typical of the narrative being proffered for the new political landscape.

Doesn't matter though, the standard SDW equivalency rap will never die. Systemic corruption, media bias, voting irregularity, eliminationist rhetoric? I have web sites that provide me lists of counter examples in each category! That are not remotely systemic, but I don't really know what that word means! All I need is a list or two on which to hang my incredulity that anyone doesn't get how mean and corrupt the dems are and how liberal the media is and I'm good to go!

But, could you do us all a favor and stop pretending to be dumbfounded every time someone notices how conservative Fox is and how that is not counterbalanced in any way by the legendary "liberal media"? I know you don't agree, but at this point you must be aware that a lot of people absolutely don't agree with you, and phrases like "you have got to be shitting me", like you just can't believe what you're seeing, are just stupid stupid stupid.

:rolleyes: Uh, OK. First, maybe you should take a little break for a while. Maybe lower the old blood pressure a bit. We've all been there...take it from me.

Secondly, I need to again ask if you're kidding me with this rant and with the idea that the MSM is not overwhelmingly liberal? Time and time again, liberals deny this without any facts whatsoever. We're just supposed to accept that the media is fair...no strike that...that the media is conservative and even "right wing." Yet, there is a large amount of evidence, both factual and anecdotal that proves you wrong.

What do conservatives get from you though? Screaming. Chants of "Hey FNC, they like to yell, Hannity should burn in Hell!" Rants about Hannity and O'Reilly. Obscure, out of context Limbaugh quotes supposedly saying that MSM biast doesn't exist anymore. In other words, a big steaming pile of bullshit. .

I've probably posted hundreds of links over my time at AI on this very subject. The evidence ranges from studies done on positive and negative portrayals of conservatives v. liberals, to studies on the number of times ideas are labeled as such, to anecdotal examples of stories clearly intended to create news rather than report it, to studies on the personal political beliefs and voter registrations of those in the MSM, to veternans of the news biz openly saying there is a clear liberal bias, to bias by blatant omission, to refusal to correct inaccurate stories.

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. But again...what is the response from lefties? Screaming and crying about the Facist News Channel. As I've said before, why not celebrate your dominance of the MSM? It certainly helps your cause, no? Or is it that you simply can't admit you've had an unbelievable advantage in this country for 40 years...and yet you still haven't elected a truly Liberal President....one that actually represents your views...since, oh, 1976?

[addabox]

As I have said elsewhere, this Dem win assures a Republican President in 2008.

Ah, Moe returns, his irrational optimism undented, just deferred.

Moe in 08: mark my words, this Democratic presidential victory means big Republican gains at the midterms.

[addabox]

:rolleyes: Uh, OK. First, maybe you should take a little break for a while. Maybe lower the old blood pressure a bit. We've all been there...take it from me.

Secondly, I need to again ask if you're kidding me with this rant and with the idea that the MSM is not overwhelmingly liberal? Time and time again, liberals deny this without any facts whatsoever. We're just supposed to accept that the media is fair...no strike that...that the media is conservative and even "right wing." Yet, there is a large amount of evidence, both factual and anecdotal that proves you wrong.

What do conservatives get from you though? Screaming. Chants of "Hey FNC, they like to yell, Hannity should burn in Hell!" Rants about Hannity and O'Reilly. Obscure, out of context Limbaugh quotes supposedly saying that MSM biast doesn't exist anymore. In other words, a big steaming pile of bullshit. .

I've probably posted hundreds of links over my time at AI on this very subject. The evidence ranges from studies done on positive and negative portrayals of conservatives v. liberals, to studies on the number of times ideas are labeled as such, to anecdotal examples of stories clearly intended to create news rather than report it, to studies on the personal political beliefs and voter registrations of those in the MSM, to veternans of the news biz openly saying there is a clear liberal bias, to bias by blatant omission, to refusal to correct inaccurate stories.

The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. But again...what is the response from lefties? Screaming and crying about the Facist News Channel. As I've said before, why not celebrate your dominance of the MSM? It certainly helps your cause, no? Or is it that you simply can't admit you've had an unbelievable advantage in this country for 40 years...and yet you still haven't elected a truly Liberal President....one that actually represents your views...since, oh, 1976?

Whatever. You've taken to berating everyone for "rants" by ranting at them, berating everyone for not providing evidence by posting evidence free screeds, berating everyone for blinkered partisanship by.... well, you get the point.

Bored now.

[BR]

The proposed legislation, SDW: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

[trumptman]

I support the legislation. It sounds very much like similar reforms that were proposed in the Contract with America.

I would love to see it passed.

Nick

[BR]

Thanks, Trumpet. SDW? Your thoughts?

[SDW2001]

Whatever. You've taken to berating everyone for "rants" by ranting at them, berating everyone for not providing evidence by posting evidence free screeds, berating everyone for blinkered partisanship by.... well, you get the point.

Bored now.

I have posted evidence on multiple occasions. Hell, that's an understatement. If you're asking me to provide evidence now, I am willing.

[SDW2001]

Sorry...I'm not ingoring it. Here is the legislation as reported:

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.......

....House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

I support the legislation, if this is indeed what is proposed. Remember, we're looking a news article here. I'd like to see the actual bill when it "comes out."

[trumptman]

Here's something from the new Congress (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_40.html) that I don't support. Earmarks are probably the biggest spending problem and what has causes balance budgets to spend-a-thons.

Some reform is welcome, but in this area, it sounds like the same old business.

Nick

[Carson O'Genic]

Here's something from the new Congress (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_40.html) that I don't support. Earmarks are probably the biggest spending problem and what has causes balance budgets to spend-a-thons.

Some reform is welcome, but in this area, it sounds like the same old business.

Nick
Why do you say 'the new congress', as if the Dems where the big problem???

From the article "Thousands of earmarks have been stuffed into the spending bills pending before the lame-duck Congress this month...In 1991, according to the fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Congress made fewer than 600 earmarks; by last year, the number had grown to almost 14,000 — many of them stealthily inserted in bills at the last minute, immune to review or challenge"

It is the Republicans that have gone hog-wild, but suddenly everyone is starting to talk about Dem spending and they haven't even taken their seats yet.

Granted, pork will always exist, it is afterall what is expected of congress from their constituents. The best you can hope for is that the balance of power between the two houses of congress and the executive branch will prevent the worst of it (cue Alaskan bridge to nowhere reference).

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush vetoing a few spending bills in the next couple of years to pretend that he stands firm against Democrat spending, off course all the while ignoring the gluttony of the last 6 years. Makes for good politics. If the Dems are smart they will do their best to curb their spending ways and then they have a chance to steal the mantle of fiscal responsibility from the Republicans.

[trumptman]

The new congress is determining it's leadership and by which rules it will abide. Now some of those rules, such as those outlined at the beginning of this thread, I support because ideally they will lead to a good result, regardless of party. They are simply good rules under which to run the House.

I have not claimed at all that Republicans did not go "hog-wild" in their spending. In fact in several thread on here, I have claimed Bush was not nearly as conservative as others thought and condemned the spending by his administration and the Congress several times over.

That said, I do not support the rules that allow earmarking in their current form because, again regardless of party, it is clear they do not lend themselves to good processes and good results. They are terrible rules under which to run the House regardless of party.

Nick

[addabox]

The new congress is determining it's leadership and by which rules it will abide. Now some of those rules, such as those outlined at the beginning of this thread, I support because ideally they will lead to a good result, regardless of party. They are simply good rules under which to run the House.

I have not claimed at all that Republicans did not go "hog-wild" in their spending. In fact in several thread on here, I have claimed Bush was not nearly as conservative as others thought and condemned the spending by his administration and the Congress several times over.

That said, I do not support the rules that allow earmarking in their current form because, again regardless of party, it is clear they do not lend themselves to good processes and good results. They are terrible rules under which to run the House regardless of party.

Nick

Perhaps, but were they to go through they would clearly be better (by your criteria) rules than those the Republican congress chose to operate under, and I would venture to say much better.

So while I can understand wishing for your ideal Congressional behavior I think credit is due.

And I wouldn't necessarily underestimate the power of what is being proposed. While I agree that it would be great to simply ban earmarks altogether, making a specific legislator put his or her name on any additions to a bill, and then making that bill public before a vote could have a pretty powerful effect. The worst of the ear mark bullshit is the stuff that gets slipped in under cover of darkness or anonymity.

[trumptman]

I gave credit where due. That doesn't mean I won't call something else what it is though, a recipe for continued spending.

Nick

[addabox]

I gave credit where due. That doesn't mean I won't call something else what it is though, a recipe for continued spending.

Nick

OK.

But spending that benefits the home district is real popular with.... the home district. Pretty much every incumbent runs in part on what they delivered for the folks back home. That is to say, the voters like it.

So the Democrats could stop "spending" (are you imagining a federal government that doesn't?) and then lose in two years, at which point we would be back where we started.

I think we should see if this stuff actually gets adopted, then see how it plays, before dinging the dems for being insufficiently rigorous about fixing what the Republicans have broken.

[MacRR]

I agree.. it's not that spending is bad in of itself. It's what you are spending the money on. Spending is necessary- I would hope taxes go towards beneficial expenditures, not wasteful ones that make no sense for the nation save putting more money into specific corporations or on a war that we can't win- for example. Money that goes towards education, homeland security (that make sense- lawn mower races in Texas does not improve security), infrastructure, etc all makes sense. That's what spending should target. We would never have to increase taxes if we spent wisely, which hasn't happened in far too long.

[SDW2001]

I agree.. it's not that spending is bad in of itself. It's what you are spending the money on. Spending is necessary- I would hope taxes go towards beneficial expenditures, not wasteful ones that make no sense for the nation save putting more money into specific corporations or on a war that we can't win- for example. Money that goes towards education, homeland security (that make sense- lawn mower races in Texas does not improve security), infrastructure, etc all makes sense. That's what spending should target. We would never have to increase taxes if we spent wisely, which hasn't happened in far too long.

That's why we need a line item veto amendment.

[BR]

You bitched and moaned and whined when Clinton had it.

[MacRR]

That's why we need a line item veto amendment.
Well, since that was declared unconstitutional and all, i'll go with door #2, SDW. What we need is to stop with all the partisan bullshit and work together to make our country better for every citizen.

[SDW2001]

You bitched and moaned and whined when Clinton had it.

No, I didn't, you liar.

[SDW2001]

Well, since that was declared unconstitutional and all, i'll go with door #2, SDW. What we need is to stop with all the partisan bullshit and work together to make our country better for every citizen.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. That is what we need. And PS: Partisan Bullshit will never stop. Ever.

[trumptman]

OK.

But spending that benefits the home district is real popular with.... the home district. Pretty much every incumbent runs in part on what they delivered for the folks back home. That is to say, the voters like it.

So the Democrats could stop "spending" (are you imagining a federal government that doesn't?) and then lose in two years, at which point we would be back where we started.

I think we should see if this stuff actually gets adopted, then see how it plays, before dinging the dems for being insufficiently rigorous about fixing what the Republicans have broken.

I see it very different from you. The Democrats campaigned under fiscal responsibility. They campaigned with the intention of reforming Congress. If they don't do these things, I think they WILL and ought to be dinged because that is the whole point of why they ran. It would be like dinging them for not raising the minimum wage and noting "why should they have to fix that because the Republicans broke that."

If you can't take the heat as they say... get out of the kitchen.

Nick

[MacRR]

No, it wasn't. It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. That is what we need. And PS: Partisan Bullshit will never stop. Ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

And you're right- the partisan BS won't ever stop- just look at you arguing with "the other side" about BS like FOX news vs CNN, or what party controls congress, or how rumsfeld has done such a stand up job doing the little things outside of his gigantic failures in the WOT, and the list goes on... why not start evaluating what would benefit both sides and work on that to start? Makes sense, no?

[SDW2001]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

And you're right- the partisan BS won't ever stop- just look at you arguing with "the other side" about BS like FOX news vs CNN, or what party controls congress, or how rumsfeld has done such a stand up job doing the little things outside of his gigantic failures in the WOT, and the list goes on... why not start evaluating what would benefit both sides and work on that to start? Makes sense, no?

Why did you post that link? The Line Item Veto was not a constituional amendment. As for your next point, I agree, but it will never stop. It's politics. That's why I laugh when people talk about how "divided" things are now. We've always been "divided" to an extent. It's just that the rhetoric has gotten more personal and nastier.

[MacRR]

Why did you post that link? The Line Item Veto was not a constituional amendment. As for your next point, I agree, but it will never stop. It's politics. That's why I laugh when people talk about how "divided" things are now. We've always been "divided" to an extent. It's just that the rhetoric has gotten more personal and nastier.
I posted the link because as I said, the line item veto powers act itself was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court. I said nothing more than that, and that link backs that statement up.

As far as politics- it's funny to see a site where the Repubs or one might say conservatives are in the minority, and you certainly handle it well enough. Since you are the minority - all that "division" could stop with you- at your cost, though. It would just be interesting at any rate to see one side drop all the BS and concentrate more on the issues that would advance both sides towards the better. I suspect if that were to be the case in government, the decisive issues would tend to take care of themselves due to an established pattern of success on the common issues. It's funny how basic negotiation skills go flying out the window as each side entrenches themselves.

One could always say hey- that's how shit always is, was and will be- theoretically until one gets sick of it and decides there must be a better way?

[SDW2001]

I posted the link because as I said, the line item veto powers act itself was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court. I said nothing more than that, and that link backs that statement up.

As far as politics- it's funny to see a site where the Repubs or one might say conservatives are in the minority, and you certainly handle it well enough. Since you are the minority - all that "division" could stop with you- at your cost, though. It would just be interesting at any rate to see one side drop all the BS and concentrate more on the issues that would advance both sides towards the better. I suspect if that were to be the case in government, the decisive issues would tend to take care of themselves due to an established pattern of success on the common issues. It's funny how basic negotiation skills go flying out the window as each side entrenches themselves.

One could always say hey- that's how shit always is, was and will be- theoretically until one gets sick of it and decides there must be a better way?

Well, it may get dropped at times and to an extent. It has happened before in the wake of national tradgedy and what not.

As for Line Item, I know it was ruled unconstitutional. I wasn't arguing that....so whatever. I was saying it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment.

[MacRR]

Well, it may get dropped at times and to an extent. It has happened before in the wake of national tradgedy and what not.

As for Line Item, I know it was ruled unconstitutional. I wasn't arguing that....so whatever. I was saying it needs to be a Constitutional Amendment.
but... if it was ruled unconstitutional... then how could you want it to be a constitutional amendment? That's where I am puzzled. Sort of a constitutional chicken and the egg, eh?

Perhaps there could be a middle ground- say simplifying bills to reflect the bill without a shit ton of crazy last minute add ons? I doubt making a constitutional amendment that dictated bills need to stay on subject, be short and sweet (much like a thread on a forum such as this) there'd be no argument as to constitutionality. the result would simply be more bills without the sly BS and congress would actually have to do an honest days work. Or perhaps there's another solution? But it's plain to me why line item vetos are unconstitutional- too much executive power without really solving the problem. There's still be pork, just solely for the party who has a president in office leaving the other party SOL.

[JupiterOne]

Or perhaps there's another solution? But it's plain to me why line item vetos are unconstitutional- too much executive power without really solving the problem.
Never fear, there's always signing statements! :D

[thuh Freak]

but... if it was ruled unconstitutional... then how could you want it to be a constitutional amendment? That's where I am puzzled. Sort of a constitutional chicken and the egg, eh?

If the law is unconstitutional, then the constitution would need to change to allow that law. Constitutional changes are enacted by the amendment process.


I think Pelosi's idea of publishing the bills before they are voted on, and denying last minute riders, has great potential. The power of the blog will rein down on any scary bills; and if the msm is awake, they'll report all this to the plebs.

[SDW2001]

but... if it was ruled unconstitutional... then how could you want it to be a constitutional amendment? That's where I am puzzled. Sort of a constitutional chicken and the egg, eh?

Perhaps there could be a middle ground- say simplifying bills to reflect the bill without a shit ton of crazy last minute add ons? I doubt making a constitutional amendment that dictated bills need to stay on subject, be short and sweet (much like a thread on a forum such as this) there'd be no argument as to constitutionality. the result would simply be more bills without the sly BS and congress would actually have to do an honest days work. Or perhaps there's another solution? But it's plain to me why line item vetos are unconstitutional- too much executive power without really solving the problem. There's still be pork, just solely for the party who has a president in office leaving the other party SOL.

Respectfully, I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

If we amend the Constitution, it cannot be declared "Unconstitutional" because it becomes part of the Constitution. No offense.

[JupiterOne]

Respectfully, I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

If we amend the Constitution, it cannot be declared "Unconstitutional" because it becomes part of the Constitution. No offense.
Respectfully, maybe you should look at your own posts. OK, maybe MacRR was a little confused by how changing the constitution could have made something unconstitutional. And I think thu Freak explained that nicely without the attitude.

But why are we talking about a constitutional amendment? Maybe it started around post #52? MacRR pointed out that the line item veto was declared unconstitutional and your reply was...
No, it wasn't. It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment.
...so 1) "No, it wasn't." was just plain wrong. and 2) "It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment." is not relevant.
Then when MacRR tried to give you a link showing you were wrong in post #54, you pretended to be all confused and said...
Why did you post that link? The Line Item Veto was not a constituional amendment.
...again, the fact that it was not a constitutional amendment, having nothing to do with the discussion.

Then in post #57, you gave your typical response when you're proved wrong by saying...
As for Line Item, I know it was ruled unconstitutional. I wasn't arguing that....so whatever.
...so again, 1) Yes, you were arguing that and were wrong. 2) You're response..."so whatever".

:no:

[SDW2001]

Respectfully, maybe you should look at your own posts. OK, maybe MacRR was a little confused by how changing the constitution could have made something unconstitutional. And I think thu Freak explained that nicely without the attitude.

But why are we talking about a constitutional amendment? Maybe it started around post #52? MacRR pointed out that the line item veto was declared unconstitutional and your reply was...

...so 1) "No, it wasn't." was just plain wrong. and 2) "It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment." is not relevant.
Then when MacRR tried to give you a link showing you were wrong in post #54, you pretended to be all confused and said...

...again, the fact that it was not a constitutional amendment, having nothing to do with the discussion.

Then in post #57, you gave your typical response when you're proved wrong by saying...

...so again, 1) Yes, you were arguing that and were wrong. 2) You're response..."so whatever".

:no:

First, it's between he and I.

Second, I wasn't trying to offend him and said so. Twice.

Third, he seemed to be arguing that it couldn't be done because it "was ruled unconstitutional." I started the discussion by saying we need, wait for it...an AMENDMENT...not a law. He went on to post that link and go on about how it was "unconstitutional." That is why I kept reminding him.

Have a nice day.

[JupiterOne]

First, it's between he and I.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know this was a private thread. :rolleyes: (And FYI, that should be "him and me".)

Third, he seemed to be arguing that it......"it", what is "it"? Line item veto?
... couldn't be done because it "was ruled unconstitutional."
And that was correct, it couldn't be done because it was ruled unconstitutional.
I started the discussion by saying we need, wait for it...an AMENDMENT...not a law. He went on to post that link and go on about how it was "unconstitutional." That is why I kept reminding him.
And that's where the problem starts. Was it clear to anyone other than yourself that you were starting a discussion on how we should propose a constitutional amendment? Your response was, "No, it wasn't. It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment." As if those two sentences had anything to do with each other. I mean, you realize that LAWS are ruled unconstitutional, right? So instead of saying, "Yes, I realize that the line item veto law was ruled unconstitutional, I think we should have a constitutional amendment providing it.", you made your previous nonsensical statement. Sometimes I think you have these inner dialogs with yourself and comment on those dialogs, instead of what's put down in writing.

Back to the subject, if a law was ruled unconstitutional, what makes you think a constitutional amendment for the same thing could be ratified? I highly doubt that the country is ready to give the Executive branch any more power based on this current president's track record.

As it has already been said, putting a name on an addition to a bill and making it public could have a chilling effect on making those additions. They would be scrutinized to no end and the legislator would have to be ready to defend it.
Have a nice day.
And you have a nice night. :D

[tonton]

Jupiter, it seems all that SDW is arguing is that Line Item Veto can be implemented. And he is right.

As you say, it probably won't because no one wants to increase executive power at this point, but it can (with a Constitutional amendment).

Rather than line item veto, I think we need tighter regulations on riders and we need some method of separation of bills into individual items or groups of items that are clearly part of the same goal within the same bill. Perhaps a bipartisan committee can vote on whether contested items are related, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass, and failing, separating the item into another bill. Something like that, anyway...

[SDW2001]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know this was a private thread. :rolleyes: (And FYI, that should be "him and me".)
..."it", what is "it"? Line item veto?

And that was correct, it couldn't be done because it was ruled unconstitutional.

And that's where the problem starts. Was it clear to anyone other than yourself that you were starting a discussion on how we should propose a constitutional amendment? Your response was, "No, it wasn't. It wasn't a Constitutional Amendment." As if those two sentences had anything to do with each other. I mean, you realize that LAWS are ruled unconstitutional, right? So instead of saying, "Yes, I realize that the line item veto law was ruled unconstitutional, I think we should have a constitutional amendment providing it.", you made your previous nonsensical statement. Sometimes I think you have these inner dialogs with yourself and comment on those dialogs, instead of what's put down in writing.

Back to the subject, if a law was ruled unconstitutional, what makes you think a constitutional amendment for the same thing could be ratified? I highly doubt that the country is ready to give the Executive branch any more power based on this current president's track record.

As it has already been said, putting a name on an addition to a bill and making it public could have a chilling effect on making those additions. They would be scrutinized to no end and the legislator would have to be ready to defend it.

And you have a nice night. :D

You're really bordering on trolling now. I couldn't have been more clear in talking about an amendment vs. a law. It was he who misunderstood. Oh, and thanks for the grammer correction. Really good use of posting space there.

Now, what, pray tell, does a law being ruled unconstitutional have to do with a similar Cons. amendment being ratified? Nothing. That's what.

[MacRR]

SDW and Jupiter-

1) Thanks Jupiter for clearing that up- You are spot on and I believe you illustrated where SDW and myself weren't quite connecting.
2) Never offense taken, so no worries :)

I was going in the direction in that if a law is ruled unconstitutional, why push to make it into an amendment? In the case of women's suffrage it would make common sense, but to push more power into a branch of government it does not. It is by definition, unconstitutional to remove a check and balance between branches of government- the basis of the constitution. And as I said, having a line item veto power the president can dispense only solves 50% of the problem (duopoly on the party system) at any given time depending on which party controlled the executive branch- and the propensity of that president to abuse such a power.

Therefore, I strongly agreed with Justice Kennedy's concurrence on the ruling (per the link I furnished).

Like I said, given that it was ruled unconstitutional and for good reason, how does it make sense to circumvent the logic on the Supreme Court's ruling to make it an amendment? It would work out great for you SDW only if your party was in power, and it would hurt you when the other party was in power... let's say the Dems go on a winning streak for the rest of your lifetime vetoing line items out of the republicans bills the entire time AND managing to preserve the line item veto power despite the lawsuits by republicans that would no doubt follow- or flip that coin if you wish. It would be horrible for government, and worse it would be unfair and open to abuse.

Therefore, another solution would be paramount to solving the problem, no?

[Aquatic]

Oh fuck me, its another SDW list. Fox is stridently and consistently and ongoingly a cheerleader for the Republicans? Dan Rather! Who is the Clinton of the "liberal media" rant! And, and, and uh, Keith Olbermann! Who is the only fucking liberal commentator on any network at all ever anywhere. But he single handedly balances out a dozen rabid wingers given free reign on every other cable network! And, and..... some interview that was insufficiently fawning of Cheney! That, like, totally balances years and years of interviews that proceed from the assumption that Democrats have no message, are not trusted by the voters and wouldn't know what to do with a mandate if they got it.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 94 election it pictured an rampaging elephant crushing a little donkey flat, its eye squirting out of its head as it died.

When Time magazine did a cover for the 06 election it pictured a red circle and a blue circle overlapping to make a purple area with the text "why the center is the new place to be". The contrast-- Republican victory equals massive crushing defeat for dems and their values, vs. Democratic victory equals "the center has prevailed and normal conservatism can resume" -- is entirely typical of the narrative being proffered for the new political landscape.

Doesn't matter though, the standard SDW equivalency rap will never die. Systemic corruption, media bias, voting irregularity, eliminationist rhetoric? I have web sites that provide me lists of counter examples in each category! That are not remotely systemic, but I don't really know what that word means! All I need is a list or two on which to hang my incredulity that anyone doesn't get how mean and corrupt the dems are and how liberal the media is and I'm good to go!

But, could you do us all a favor and stop pretending to be dumbfounded every time someone notices how conservative Fox is and how that is not counterbalanced in any way by the legendary "liberal media"? I know you don't agree, but at this point you must be aware that a lot of people absolutely don't agree with you, and phrases like "you have got to be shitting me", like you just can't believe what you're seeing, are just stupid stupid stupid.


:lol: That was great. Can't you picture Lewis Black spewing that tirade!

[MacRR]

You're really bordering on trolling now. I couldn't have been more clear in talking about an amendment vs. a law. It was he who misunderstood. Oh, and thanks for the grammer correction. Really good use of posting space there.

Now, what, pray tell, does a law being ruled unconstitutional have to do with a similar Cons. amendment being ratified? Nothing. That's what.

If I may- you are debating the possiblity to make an unconstitutional law into an amendment just because it's possbile in a legal sense- and I am questioning the logic of that given the details of the particulars of doing so.

No offense, but my side of the debate is a bit more interesting ;) since yours is an established no brainer.

[JupiterOne]

I couldn't have been more clear...
Yes, unfortunately, that's true of a lot of your posts.

Now, what, pray tell, does a law being ruled unconstitutional have to do with a similar Cons. amendment being ratified? Nothing. That's what.
Correct. Nothing. Now who is telling you that a law ruled unconstitutional cannot be turned into a constitutional amendment? And before you say, "YOU DID!" or "MACRR DID!" Go back and reread the posts. If you read the words on the screen very carefully, you'll see that no one is arguing with you on that one point.

[SDW2001]

Yes, unfortunately, that's true of a lot of your posts.

Correct. Nothing. Now who is telling you that a law ruled unconstitutional cannot be turned into a constitutional amendment? And before you say, "YOU DID!" or "MACRR DID!" Go back and reread the posts. If you read the words on the screen very carefully, you'll see that no one is arguing with you on that one point.


Oh stop. You're just looking for it.

[SDW2001]

If I may- you are debating the possiblity to make an unconstitutional law into an amendment just because it's possbile in a legal sense- and I am questioning the logic of that given the details of the particulars of doing so.

No offense, but my side of the debate is a bit more interesting ;) since yours is an established no brainer.


I don't think that there will ever be real spending control without a line item veto...that is where I'm going. There has to be a way to stop the pork spending. Unless the American public rises up and throws anyone out of office that refuses to use fiscal restraint...which let's be honest, ain't gonna happen as they say.

[MacRR]

I don't think that there will ever be real spending control without a line item veto...that is where I'm going. There has to be a way to stop the pork spending. Unless the American public rises up and throws anyone out of office that refuses to use fiscal restraint...which let's be honest, ain't gonna happen as they say.
But a line item veto would only stop 50% of pork spending as any given point- like I said, Justicee Kennedy IMO hit the nail on the head-

To quote
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in an opinion concurring in the opinion and judgment of the Court, objected to the dissent's argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another."

So no matter what- you'd only solve 50%- which is not even close to a solution considering that it's unfair- unless a president was fair in his use of the line item veto- and as you say- ain't gonna happen. And seriously, consider a democratic party run scenario that has a dem president in office for the next 20 years and it's implications to you were a line item veto in play...

[lunocrat]

Pork should have its own page in the daily paper.

As for 'Frisco values': Currently the northern California crowd, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos and others, look the other way when their IDF pals go on a murder spree in Gaza. You won't find that publicity in the local (national) press either. Values indeed.

Until there's a correction from the re-established Democrats in DC on Bush & Cos' suspension of a few key Amendments to the Constitution it's business unchanged. I almost feel a draft.

[SDW2001]

Pork should have its own page in the daily paper.

As for 'Frisco values': Currently the northern California crowd, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Lantos and others, look the other way when their IDF pals go on a murder spree in Gaza. You won't find that publicity in the local (national) press either. Values indeed.

Until there's a correction from the re-established Democrats in DC on Bush & Cos' suspension of a few key Amendments to the Constitution it's business unchanged. I almost feel a draft.

Put down the crack pipe.

[SDW2001]

But a line item veto would only stop 50% of pork spending as any given point- like I said, Justicee Kennedy IMO hit the nail on the head-

To quote


So no matter what- you'd only solve 50%- which is not even close to a solution considering that it's unfair- unless a president was fair in his use of the line item veto- and as you say- ain't gonna happen. And seriously, consider a democratic party run scenario that has a dem president in office for the next 20 years and it's implications to you were a line item veto in play...

To be fair I didn't say the President couldn't be fair. I said the partisan bickering and pork spending won't stop on its own.

I see your points, but I just think there is no other way at this point. Spending is utterly out of control.

[lunocrat]

I almost feel a draft.
Well, what do you know. It's the S F Values War Party:
Senior Democrat renews call for military draft
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

[MacRR]

I am just saying- with a line item veto, we are all at the hope the president is fair and does not abuse such a power. When Clinton had it, do you feel he abused it? why? If not, would you mind a Dem president having such a power if the dem party has a presidential winning streak to begin in 2008 lasting for decades? these kind of hypothetical questions might make you see the folly of quickly throwing out a band aid on a huge problem instead of fixing it outright with a proper solution.

I agree, spending is out of control, and once we pull out of Iraq it will become far more manageable.

To be fair I didn't say the President couldn't be fair. I said the partisan bickering and pork spending won't stop on its own.

I see your points, but I just think there is no other way at this point. Spending is utterly out of control.

[SDW2001]

I am just saying- with a line item veto, we are all at the hope the president is fair and does not abuse such a power. When Clinton had it, do you feel he abused it? why? If not, would you mind a Dem president having such a power if the dem party has a presidential winning streak to begin in 2008 lasting for decades? these kind of hypothetical questions might make you see the folly of quickly throwing out a band aid on a huge problem instead of fixing it outright with a proper solution.

I agree, spending is out of control, and once we pull out of Iraq it will become far more manageable.

I don't think Clinton abused it...not that I recall. And no, I don't care if the opposition has it. It's the concept I favor. It could be limited to appropriations bills (non-defense) or what not.

As for Iraq and the cost, I totally disagree. Non-defense spending has exploded...exploded. It's entitlements and pork...that is the problem.

[tonton]

So no one addressed my point. What's wrong with Congressional rules on riders? Basically put the line item veto in the hands of Congress.

[thuh Freak]

So no one addressed my point. What's wrong with Congressional rules on riders? Basically put the line item veto in the hands of Congress.

We can't trust the fox to guard the hen house. Congress is the body who is causing the problem, they can't police themselves.

[MacRR]

Well, all it would take is one dem president to abuse it to change your mind :).

As far as costs... well, i'd have to disagree with ya- totally. 1 trillion plus USD on a worthless war is waste. Non-defense spending is not 100% pork, and some of it is necessary. There's a big difference right there not counting the fact you are comparing apples and oranges with a banana.

I don't think Clinton abused it...not that I recall. And no, I don't care if the opposition has it. It's the concept I favor. It could be limited to appropriations bills (non-defense) or what not.

As for Iraq and the cost, I totally disagree. Non-defense spending has exploded...exploded. It's entitlements and pork...that is the problem.

[Chris Cuilla]

Non-defense spending is not 100% pork, and some of it is necessary.

Isn't the difference between pork and "not pork" simply a matter of whether you like "the other white meat" or not?

;)

[thuh Freak]

Isn't the difference between pork and "not pork" simply a matter of whether you like "the other white meat" or not?

;)

I think of the "pork" as being federal money to help a non-federal cause (ex, an Alaskan bridge that'll affect less than a hundred people, paid for by about 300 million people who won't benefit).

[MacRR]

Isn't the difference between pork and "not pork" simply a matter of whether you like "the other white meat" or not?

;)
I am talking about the broadness of the term non-defense spending and that not all non-defense spending is "pork". For instance, education spending is non-defense and also not all pork (even though some probably is).

However, the estimated 2 billion USD a week spent in IRAQ is 100% waste.
:) back at ya

[Chris Cuilla]

I guess I won't quit my day job in favor of a career in comedy.

:embarrass

[MacRR]

oh wait!


:lol: <- delayed laughter

I guess I won't quit my day job in favor of a career in comedy.

:embarrass

[SDW2001]

Well, all it would take is one dem president to abuse it to change your mind :).

As far as costs... well, i'd have to disagree with ya- totally. 1 trillion plus USD on a worthless war is waste. Non-defense spending is not 100% pork, and some of it is necessary. There's a big difference right there not counting the fact you are comparing apples and oranges with a banana.


It's not $1 trillion. It's 300 Billion. And really, spending was out of control before we invaded....we had deficits then too. You can't really bde saying that ending the war would magically cure our fiscal problems.

[SDW2001]

I am talking about the broadness of the term non-defense spending and that not all non-defense spending is "pork". For instance, education spending is non-defense and also not all pork (even though some probably is).

However, the estimated 2 billion USD a week spent in IRAQ is 100% waste.
:) back at ya

A 100% waste? According to whom? You?

[MacRR]

It's not $1 trillion. It's 300 Billion. And really, spending was out of control before we invaded....we had deficits then too. You can't really bde saying that ending the war would magically cure our fiscal problems.
300 billion, eh?

You'd have to do Enron accounting to stick by that figure. But, hey -it's the holidays right? Whatever makes you feel better.

[MacRR]

A 100% waste? According to whom? You?
Well, when you spend a whole bunch of money and put yourself into more debt than ever- and have nothing to show for it, yea- that's called waste.

[SDW2001]

Well, when you spend a whole bunch of money and put yourself into more debt than ever- and have nothing to show for it, yea- that's called waste.

I don't know...we got rid of Saddam. And if Iraq ends up a stable, democratic country, there would be no price tag for that. Whether it's a waste or not depends on what happens years down the road.

[MacRR]

I don't understand why people stress getting rid of saddam was so awesome it was worth the sheer carnage, money, and lives. On what scale is that a good trade?

IF? We could have had an "if" IF the operation was conducted with some kind of strategy. That "if" is gone. IF became OMGWTF.

I tell ya what- I have 2k shares of apple stock I will sell you for $25k a share. If it works out for you down the line, then great. If not, well at least you had a shot.

Sound like a good deal? C'mon man- there's no price tag on success on a long shot, right?

I don't know...we got rid of Saddam. And if Iraq ends up a stable, democratic country, there would be no price tag for that. Whether it's a waste or not depends on what happens years down the road.

[tonton]

Remember how horrible we all thought Khadaffi was in the 80's? Should we have gone into Lybia GW style back then? Aren't you glad we didn't?

Saddam could have been another Khadaffi. There was no indication he was more dangerous in the long run.

Waste. Shameful waste.

[SDW2001]

Remember how horrible we all thought Khadaffi was in the 80's? Should we have gone into Lybia GW style back then? Aren't you glad we didn't?

Saddam could have been another Khadaffi. There was no indication he was more dangerous in the long run.

Waste. Shameful waste.

That's just it. Saddam could have been another Khadaffi. He may not have been a threat. That thinking was fine pre-9/11. But after? The administration determined that we were no longer willing to take a chance on the man that openly praised 9/11 (something not even...ahem....Khadaffi did...in fact he condemned it). We weren't willing to chance him given that he had violated the ceasfire by targeting our aircrafit int the no-fly, played games with the inspectors and failed to fully account for what happened to his supposedly destroyed WMDs. Let's add to that the fact that he gassed his own people. Oh, and since we thought he had an active WMD program and shared at least a mututal hatred of the US with terrorist factions, we weren't willing to chance the possiblity he would arm one of them with WMD.

Now clearly he was not the threat we thought he was. But that's in hindsight. There's no question that we perceived Saddam to be a bigger threat in 2003 than Khadaffi was in 1985/86.

[SDW2001]

I don't understand why people stress getting rid of saddam was so awesome it was worth the sheer carnage, money, and lives. On what scale is that a good trade?

IF? We could have had an "if" IF the operation was conducted with some kind of strategy. That "if" is gone. IF became OMGWTF.

I tell ya what- I have 2k shares of apple stock I will sell you for $25k a share. If it works out for you down the line, then great. If not, well at least you had a shot.

Sound like a good deal? C'mon man- there's no price tag on success on a long shot, right?

Well since Apple is at $90 plus, I'll take it!

[midwinter]

That's just it. Saddam could have been another Khadaffi. He may not have been a threat. That thinking was fine pre-9/11. But after? The administration determined that we were no longer willing to take a chance on the man that openly praised 9/11 (something not even...ahem....Khadaffi did...in fact he condemned it). We weren't willing to chance him given that he had violated the ceasfire by targeting our aircrafit int the no-fly, played games with the inspectors and failed to fully account for what happened to his supposedly destroyed WMDs. Let's add to that the fact that he gassed his own people. Oh, and since we thought he had an active WMD program and shared at least a mututal hatred of the US with terrorist factions, we weren't willing to chance the possiblity he would arm one of them with WMD.

Don't forget, also, that many Bush supporters were worried that Saddam might begin to hijack trains and drive them into buildings.

[MacRR]

Where' my $50 shmil then? :)

Well since Apple is at $90 plus, I'll take it!

[SDW2001]

Don't forget, also, that many Bush supporters were worried that Saddam might begin to hijack trains and drive them into buildings.

I can understand the left's need to gloat over the way things have gone in Iraq, what with the violence and lack of WMD and what not. But what I can't understand is the outright dismissal of the change in thinking about national security post 9/11, with respect to Iraq in particular. It's clear that our government began to percieve threats much differently post 9/11, which is what I've said Iraq was all about from the beginning. It's as if that day never happened in certain people's minds.

[midwinter]

I can understand the left's need to gloat over the way things have gone in Iraq, what with the violence and lack of WMD and what not.

Don't forget the thousands of dead and wounded. We gloat about that, too.

But what I can't understand is the outright dismissal of the change in thinking about national security post 9/11, with respect to Iraq in particular.

I have asked on a number of occasions for someone to explain to me what, precisely, changed. There had been terrorist attacks in America (WTC 93) and abroad (Kenya, the Cole). We got attacked again. What changed? We had known about al Qaeda under Clinton, Clinton went after them and failed to get bin Laden when he tried. This admin came in and didn't do anything until 9/11.

It's clear that our government began to percieve threats much differently post 9/11, which is what I've said Iraq was all about from the beginning.

The only change was the One Percent Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine). And Iraq demonstrates clearly why this doctrine does not work. It's an appalling approach to warfare and national defense and the debacle that is Iraq should serve as a repudiation of such thinking.

It's as if that day never happened in certain people's minds.

I hear this a lot on the right-wing AM talk shows. The common refrain is that "the left just doesn't get it." Seriously, dude. I get it. As someone who a) heard the Murrah bombing and b) nearly got my ass blown up in London on 7/7, I get it. But I'm not going to run around waving my hands in the air screaming "THAR COMIN' TA GIT US!!!" like some folks seem to be content to do.

You know, the more I hear it, the more it becomes clear to me that when people talk about "9/11 changed everything" and about how "the left just doesn't get it," what they mean is "Why isn't everyone as scared as I am?"

So what changed, post 9/11? We knew about al Qaeda beforehand. We knew about bin Laden. We knew about terrorism. We'd been attacked before. We knew that there were whackos out there who blow themselves up.

What changed? Specifically.

[SDW2001]

mid:

I have asked on a number of occasions for someone to explain to me what, precisely, changed. There had been terrorist attacks in America (WTC 93) and abroad (Kenya, the Cole). We got attacked again. What changed? We had known about al Qaeda under Clinton, Clinton went after them and failed to get bin Laden when he tried. This admin came in and didn't do anything until 9/11.

I've never heard you ask, but OK. My answer would be that it was the scale of the attack...the amount of damage it created and the number of civilian casualties it caused. To many people the scale of the attack was simply shocking.

Now let's look at Iraq in the days following 9/11. While Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11, he did openly praise it...something not even Khadaffi did (nor Castro, for that matter). He had been targeting our aircraft in the no-fly, thereby violating the '91 ceasefire. He had made legitimate weapons inspections impossible over the years and failed to account for the materials we was supposed to have [i]verifiably][i/] destroyed. Every major intelligence agency in the world agreed he had an active WMD program...and most likely had stockpiles of weapons.

Given the events of the time, it wasn't a stretch to start thinking about the possiblity of Saddam arming a terrorist group. Now, he may not have. It's not like he and bin Laden were bosom buddies....but the possiblity was certainly there. Given the worst terror attack in history, it seems there were plenty of folks in positions of power that said "never again." Never again would we trust a guy like Saddam. "We" decided to pre-empt the threat.

I'm not sure how else to put it, frankly. I don't think it's hard to understand how such a devasting attack on our soil caused us to change the way we perceived threats.

[lunocrat]

So, you take out Saddam and go home. You don't stay around and bomb the piss out of an already destitute country. Reagan and the war with Iran wiped out 700k Iraqis. What about Bush 1? What about starving 500k kids in the name of democracy. What moron would think 150k or 200k U S troops is going to change the mind of 24,000,000 Iraqis. (Make that 23,999,980 after U S most recent taking out of 20 'suspects' and children. Wholesale murder, mate. When this action reaches our shores 9/11 will look like Disneyland. Check the fine print of the recent defense bill.)

[SDW2001]

So, you take out Saddam and go home. You don't stay around and bomb the piss out of an already destitute country. Reagan and the war with Iran wiped out 700k Iraqis. What about Bush 1? What about starving 500k kids in the name of democracy. What moron would think 150k or 200k U S troops is going to change the mind of 24,000,000 Iraqis. (Make that 23,999,980 after U S most recent taking out of 20 'suspects' and children. Wholesale murder, mate. When this action reaches our shores 9/11 will look like Disneyland. Check the fine print of the recent defense bill.)

Wait...Reagan wiped out 700K Iraqis? How? We supported them in their war with Iran becuase we saw Iran as the greater threat. Right or wrong, it doesn't add anything to your supposition that Reagan killed Iraqis.

As for taking Saddam out and going home: You're directly contradicting yourself. First you're advocating the "bomb 'em and get out" tactic. Then, you criticize Bush I for...wait for it...leaving and not intervening. Take your pick, but you can't have both.

[jimmac]

Don't forget, also, that many Bush supporters were worried that Saddam might begin to hijack trains and drive them into buildings.


:lol:

[jimmac]

Wait...Reagan wiped out 700K Iraqis? How? We supported them in their war with Iran becuase we saw Iran as the greater thought. Right or wrong, it doesn't add anything to your supposition that Reagan killed Iraqis.

As for taking Saddam out and going home: You're directly contradicting yourself. First you're advocating the "bomb 'em and get out" tactic. Then, you criticize Bush I for...wait for it...leaving and not intervening. Take your pick, but you can't have both.

SDW, SDW, SDW..............:no:

You're just sore at the way things turned out. It's clear to everyone now that Iraq is a mess. As for seeing how it turns out in the future well it's not going to get better. Not until we're gone from there. Right now it's a quagmire that we don't really know how to extricate ourselves from and save face.

You know. Kind of like Vietnam.

So I personally don't think getting Saddam was worth it. It's a mess right now. There's no seeing how it turns out in the future. Stick a fork in it. It's done.

Fortunately we now have most of the U.S. government under a different rein. One that hopefully can find a way to clean up this mess. At least now we have a chance. Before it was just more of the same rhetoric that started this war.

[SDW2001]

SDW, SDW, SDW..............:no:

You're just sore at the way things turned out. It's clear to everyone now that Iraq is a mess. As for seeing how it turns out in the future well it's not going to get better. Not until we're gone from there. Right now it's a quagmire that we don't really know how to extricate ourselves from and save face.

You know. Kind of like Vietnam.

So I personally don't think getting Saddam was worth it. It's a mess right now. There's no seeing how it turns out in the future. Stick a fork in it. It's done.

Fortunately we now have most of the U.S. government under a different rein. One that hopefully can find a way to clean up this mess. At least now we have a chance. Before it was just more of the same rhetoric that started this war.

Uhh...thanks jimmac, but we weren't talking about that. Try reading and understanding our conversation before interjecting your Democratic daily talking points next time.

Edit: Because you're unlikely to go back and read, I'll come out and tell you what I was addressing:

1) The claim that Ronald Reagan contributed to the deaths of 700,000 Iraqis. It makes no sense whatsoever.

2) Blaming Bush 41 for leaving Iraq and contributing to "starving 500,000 Iraqis" and then advocating a "remove Saddam and get out" operation instead of a full invasion is a direct contradiction. There are those who believe we should have pushed on to Baghdad in 1991 and removed Saddam. Then there are those that don't. Either side has a valid point...but he can't choose both sides.