Consti here with an update from the bunker communications center. Now this is something you won’t see in the MSM since it’s a dirty, underhanded, short circuit of our constitution. For being a Constitutional lawyer Obama should read the Constitution again. Since the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass Healthcare reform they have decided to try reconciliation. Just one problem though. They have to PASS the legislation and the President has to sign it before they can implement reconciliation. Reconciliation ONLY works on LAWS, not bills.
So the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. Not everyone is happy with the Senate plan and may not vote for it. If by some miracle it does pass and the President signs it he will be admittedly signing a FLAWED bill into law. Then and only then can congress implement reconciliation. THAT IS THE LAW! But Nancy Pelosi wants to CHANGE the rules so they can pass Healthcare by fiat.
When the constitution clearly states;
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively…
So in actuality if they pass Healthcare reform in this manner the law would be moot since it was not adopted in a constitutional manner. In short, this is an attempted defecation on the Constitution of the United States by the very Representatives SWORN to uphold it. If you can’t live with the rules re-write them apparently. Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws! Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate. Government by fiat! Constitution be damned!
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself. This is an unprecedented move by the Rules committee to GUT the powers of congress and let the entrails spill onto the floor. The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.
Re-read that paragraph… I’ll wait…
So Fancy Nancy wants to re-write the rules to bypass the constitution. Let me repeat that BYPASS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Since they can’t get their way legally they will change the rules. Much like the Democratic legislation that reversed what Ted Kennedy fought for in Massachusetts about appointing his replacement. If you can’t win by playing by the rules, simply change them.
If you want to contact Fancy Nancy and Slaughter (which I encourage you to do) and tell them to adhere to the Constitution they are sworn to uphold you can do so with the information below. You can also find a complete list of Congressional contacts via my facebook page under notes.
Contact Louise Slaughter:
Washington D.C. Office
2469 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822
Contact Fancy Nancy Pelosi:
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
Defend and uphold our constitution! Defend your freedoms while you still have them.
Consti.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
Laura,
Can’t help but comment can you. If you have nothing to add to the conversation at hand then refrain from from your babble. I’m not interested in more of your particular brand of crazy.
Threats to sue for slander are not even in the same ball park as physical threats, death wishes (cancer), and/or announced intentions to carry out a defamation of all conservatives AND their children, particularly if slander has been committed. But even if it hasn’t, this wouldn’t come close to the other things mentioned and is, frankly, a silly reach to attempt to demonstrate that they are similar. Any sound-minded individual would likely agree.
Consti,
Just like your threats to sue me for slander, which you made in writing, you have to be an actual person with a name in order to be slandered or physically threatened. Please stop making idle threats. It makes you look foolish…
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen…:-)
Health care foes 11 votes shy of defeating bill
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/house.vote.count/index.html
“A total of 27 House Democrats, including nine who supported the House plan in November, have indicated that they would join a unified Republican caucus in opposing the Senate plan…”
WOW, finally some bipartisan action in congress!
Hheeehee, just thought you anti-reform characters might appreciate that.
Everyone’s on pins and needles now on both sides of the isle but apparently there’s a good feeling among Dems that this will pass – though I’ve heard that before!
A great responsibility now lay in the hands of Alan Frumin.
Let’s be crystal clear here. Since the Democrats don’t have the votes for an UP or DOWN call they will use a legislative maneuver to get their way on legislation that is clearly not wanted by the people of this country. Instead of passing legislation as they are constitutionally required too they are going to short circuit the system if they follow this path. That’s not leadership, that’s doing as Dough boy says; “Anything to win against conservatives” Which I will remind you make up roughly the OTHER HALF of this country. Not only does this further the impending implosion of the party it will be their death knell come November. This is not the definition as you say of “the common good.”
As an editorial note I will correct the issue of the missing quotations when I have time to do more than comment. JFesta is right, it does look like plagiarism and it will be corrected.
Drew,
To answer your question I did not know the NAME of the rule as I had never heard of it before. And as for the accuracy of the explanation is entirely your opinion. This has been used by Republicans for budgetary reasons not for passing massive legislation while hiding behind legislative tactics. As one blogger here likes to point out they are not taking responsibility for voting for the legislation with this tactic. So instead of giving Obama an UP or DOWN vote as he asked they are going to wimp out. Something you fail to mention yourself. Nice quip about Dough boys comments, however since he can’t spell conservative I don’t think he can claim my missing quotations as intentional plagiarisms. In fact he’s a union man not a lawyer. And since he’s threatened violence against me IN WRITING I am within my rights to file a police report. But it’s not worth it.
“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Nice try…
Oh, were we supposed to actually comment about the article? My bad!
I find it bizarre that the author of this article did not mention the official name of the procedure being (incorrectly) described in the article; “The Self-Executing Rule”. Was this for lack of research on the topic or to intentionally sway the reader into thinking it’s some sort of new process?
I’m not too proud to plagiarize, because I don’t like to reinvent the wheel. So please allow me to copy paste some comments from another article on the same topic.
The Self-Executing Rule
* The self-executing rule has been used over 50 times in the past 5 years.
* The HCR plan is center-right; certainly so compared to other Western nations and also programs that Nixon and Bob Dole proposed.
* The “government takeover of 1/6th of our economy” ignores the fact that the government already pays for half of that, a fraction which will only increase without reform.
* HCR will lower the federal deficit.
* The US pays about twice as much per capita as Canadians do, for less quality.
And from another article:
When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for your response and civility.
Let’s start with air and water. Air and water are naturally occurring and while the government regulates it (how much water per minute your faucet may flow, 1.6 gallon flush toilet, allowable levels of waste allowed to be released in the air and water, etc…), it does not dispense it as would be the case with health care. With health care as it is currently written there would be panels—and behind the scenes bureaucrats—that would decide how much medication or doctor visits one may receive and what surgeries would be authorized/performed. There is huge difference between the government conserving finite resources so everyone has access, and allocating resources based on the government’s calculations. A person or company may use as much water and air as he/it wants. The government does not restrict usage, only waste. Your toilet only is allowed 1.6 gallons per flush but you may flush as many times as you wish.
With the roads the same rules apply. We all may use them as much as we wish—whether in our car, or but the government regulates the potential harm of transporting hazardous materials. Again government regulation is about public safety not use. You may drive nonstop for the rest of your life on roads and highways and as long as you are not transporting hazmat, there are no government regulations as far as usage or availability.
As for insurance—car is mandatory because you are exercising your privilege of owning and driving a vehicle. You have chosen to own a car. The government does not require you to own a car and therefore you aren’t forced to buy insurance. The insurance you buy with your car is to protect other people’s property and rights (the lien holder in the case of full insurance as well as potential victims in your vehicle and outside), another obvious difference with forced health care. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is to protect the lender against default on properties less than 20% paid for by the buyer. As for your personal health insurance, you choose to use your company’s cheaper health care rather than buy your own. And if you believe government involvement will give you more choice with whom your doctor will be, I would suggest you attempt to make an appointment with any non-elected government employee by name. At least now you can see any doctor for any reason if their schedule allows and you are willing to pay for it.
As for what civilized nations do- let us begin with deciding what a civilized nation is. How does one define civilization? Is it how advanced the machinery is? The amount of free time? The size of the family? The average age of citizen? Life expectancy? Income? It is hard for me to accept civilization as being a society that attacks and robs a minority—regardless of how wealthy or fortunate that minority may appear to be. Remember one of the first steps the nazis took was Crystal night where Jewish business owners were attacked for being rich and Jewish. Who decides who is rich and has so much that they must be relieved of their wealth for other people that are less fortunate/rich? It is a slippery slope that I believe is better avoided. I do support welfare as far as supporting citizens that have severe physical, mental, or emotional disabilities and are therefore unable to provide or care for them self. I do not support welfare for those that can work but would rather not. I feel it robs the recipients of their dignity and drive and ultimately lessens their quality of life in addition to lessening the quality of life for those that pay into the program. I consider public housing projects to be among the least civilized places on the planet. I don’t believe in depriving the poor and needy but I may very well characterize these things differently than you. Who am I to define poor or needy? Money and income are relative to where one lives. $50,000 a year in Manhattan is well below the poverty level but in West Virginia it will afford a very comfortable lifestyle. If you wish to give a portion of your wealth to others for any reason, you are free and welcome to do so. I ask only that we remain free to do so and not forced to do so.
Drew,
“much of which were propelled at their inception in this country through generous government subsidy.”
Are you kidding me? Federal employees OWE the federal government 3.3 Billion dollars in back taxes. Generous government? How about Charlie Rangel getting a rent controlled apartment in Harlem when he owns properties he fails to pay taxes for.
I’m all for charity, but taxation is not charity. A fundamental difference in what you are espousing. Generous government that doesn’t give YOU ALL OF YOUR MEDICARE that you paid into. You only get about 60% in what you paid into the system.
Government isn’t generous a person is generous. Government serves the people not it’s own intent. With all the money that is raised for elections we could feed and clothe the homeless here. We could pay down the debt, etc.
Sorry Blue for all your religions fervor (admirable no less) government is not generous.
Dough Boy,
It’s amazing you talking about language when you constantly refer to my as a “jackass” (your words). Or gleefully wish cancer upon your opponents. Your “higher ground” is quick sand my boy.
“When facing a concervative in an election, if I have to make the decision about resleasing information that could, break up his marriage, tarnish his name or his childrens names for generations, I’d do it in a heartbeat.”
You couldn’t even spell conservative right.
“I will be as cruel or more so than these so called conservative moral men have been, and I will delight in their misery.”
Sounds like a moral high ground to me.
“Unlike you, I’ve spent my whole life here, and I know what it takes to win, a cast iron will and a vicious streak in a fight”
I think all reasonable people on this site have your number pal. And frankly you are about as welcome as the IRS looking for 4 cents at a car wash. Put your safety helmet back on and don’t trip getting on the short bus.
Drew the Blue,
“Capitalism is often sin. Mixing it with socialism perhaps provides it’s redemption.”
I’ve had to think about that one for a while. I definitely believe that monopolies are sin because they are unrestricted and, hence, abusive capitalism. But free enterprise capitalism is basically restricted by competition. Of course, John D Rockefeller once stated that “competition is sin” but that is likely due to the fact that he profited from his monopolies.
I understand that you believe that socialism is not only mentioned but justified in the bible. And though you and I have gone back and forth about this and apparently have decided to agree to disagree, once again the kind of socialism that is relevant to this article has more to do with the Marxist type that represents atheism (elimination of organized religion), even distribution of wealth (taken from many responsible people who have rightfully earned it and have provided jobs for thousands and have paid tons of taxes with it and given to many people wh0 squander it and/or who don’t use it responsibly – if you want to bring the bible into the conversation, remember the parable of the 3 servants who were each given a measure of talents but when one held onto it and did not yield a return was dubbed “evil” by his Master), confiscation of land for the use of “The State” (this NEVER happens in America, right?), and indoctrination of our school kids (as recently as last week, you may have heard the controversial reports of how the history books are being changed). To me, it’s the overall picture. It’s easy to cherry-pick an issue and re-paste it together like a ransom note in order for it to say what we find expedient for our causes. But that is why it’s so important, in my opinion, for people to become educated and to see the full scope of what is happening around them.
PS: Remaining relevant to this article and tying it in with the above comments, read Vladimir Lenin’s opinion of the importance of government-controlled health care. In case you don’t remember, Lenin was the revolutionary who, with just a relatively small group of men, laid the foundation for practical communism in Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin
Those words were spoken, in the Old Testament, by the Prophets to the entire land of Israel – individually and collectively – and in the New Testament, spoken by Jesus to the entire Church of Believers. Individual actions perpetuated, condoned, sanctioned, and sponsored by the masses = government.
Blue,
Everything you quote is true and beautiful. What is not is to continue to use Gods Word to twist a political party.
In each and every scripture listed, it was spoke to an “individual” follower of God, specifically the Jews of the Old Testiment and the Christians of the New.
J’Festa,
I see your point. It’s just having the law recited by a convicted felon evoked a unsympathetic response.
True, all Truth is good for all men, but as individuals answerable to God, and our founders would agree with all. They even referenced much of what you have written in their own writings.
The difference, Imposing what was meant for the individual answerable to God, to the Political answerable to men. Should government assume the part of God? Destroy with fire communities that they deem as overfed, greedy and lacking in hospitality to the poor?
You cannot impose the will of God on a nation whom rejects Him. Our own President several times said “This is no longer a Christian nation”.
When free will answerable to God is replaced by Laws imposed by men, you lose the point of what is good. What you seek is a Godly communalism, what you’ll end up with is a godless communism.
Just as a point of correction, Ananias and Saphira were judged by God (not men, He took their lives) for Lying to The Holy Spirit and to the “Christian Community”. They DID NOT have to sell all their land and give the money to the “Church”, but they falsely claimed they did when they of course did not. This is not the same as having the IRS show up and arrest you for not paying a large enough portion of your earnings to the Godless government. Many atheist do worship government, but I assure you, it could not be more different. Our founders knew this, and so made every attempt to keep government as small as possible while providing for the common defense from our own and other governments.
Consti,
//who’s common good? Yours?//
The recipients of the services, of course; pensions, disability insurance, survivor benefits, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, supported housing, alcohol and drug counseling, referral and advocacy, financial aid, etc. and of course other less stigmatic services such as roads, railways, courier systems, airlines, agriculture, research… much of which were propelled at their inception in this country through generous government subsidy.
All of these items benefit ALL of us collectively because they provide not only the obvious direct service, such as unemployment to the job-seeker, but collateral benefits that are afforded to the whole of society. When a homeless drunk gets alcohol counseling and housing, provided at the taxpayers expense, he has the potential to be rehabilitated and become a valuable contributing member of society and we don’t have the added expense of putting him in jail or burying him.
Besides which, we tell our children that people, all people, are children of God and they are priceless. And although I harbor a certain wrath for murderous criminals – I believe in the death penalty under egregious circumstances and when the evidence is overwhelming – I reserve forgiveness, compassion, and sympathy for nearly every other segment of the weak, poor, beggarly, and even criminal element of society.
In my judgement of others I will be liberal, because I believe God has been liberal with me.
“For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints,… they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men”
“Let love be without hypocrisy… rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality. ”
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
// NOBODY was compelled at the point of a gun, or even ridicule for that matter…. //
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:10
If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.” Leviticus 25:25, 35, 39
“If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.” Deuteronomy 15:7
“My whole being will exclaim, Who is like you, 0 LORD? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them.’” Psalm 35:10
“Your people settled in it, and from your bounty, 0 God, you provided for the poor.” Psalm 68:10
“He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy…” Psalm 72:4
“He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished.” Proverbs 17:5
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49
// You would use God as a political tool, sucks bein you. //
I “use God” as a life tool, politics included. And I attempt to allow God to use me, politics included.
J’Festa,
What a wonderful veneer you have covered yourself in, and on the high ground so that you are easily seen no less.
Now that you have assumed the high ground, why am I surprised that you are looking down on the conservatives, in the lowly and crude places, lacking even the thinnest veneer, and being judged and rebuked by the one above them, on the “High Ground”. Good for you J.
We will all be looking for deeper and more meaningful input from one such as you. No more threats of violence, no more snide sides, life will be much better, you ol Bard you.
“There has been some recent commenting on posts that is not fostering a healthy debate which is the number 1 goal of the site. We don’t want the site readers to get turned off due to the name calling, foul language, & personal attacks.”
“When commenting on posts there can’t be any fould language, name calling, personal attacks, or anything that is off topic for that particular post. ”
I’m willing to abide by those instructions, but I guess some of our conservative posters feel the rules don’t apply to them. Keep the name calling coming, I’m happy to take the high ground.
Please show me in the Congress Daily AM report, where this story origionated, where the Speakers Office requested the rules change. Not the multiple opinion colums that have been put out about this, the acctual news colums that reported this. Show me where that was.
I await your dismissive dodge in reply.
Annon,
You refer to the 1st century church. A group of individuals who had absolute and complete freedom to follow these teachings in the context of religion or not.
NOBODY was compelled at the point of a gun, or even ridicule for that matter.
What spiritual gold is achieved by forced giving…..Read on and you will find Jesus saying, “If you do not give the cup of water in MY name, it benefits you nothing” God, if you missed it was thrown from government at any and all opportunity by those imposing this very plan!
Also, the scripture teaches it is better not to give than to give without a cheerful and charitable heart.
You would use God as a political tool, sucks bein you.
…damned small keyboard….
Anonomous,
Again for the common good…. who’s common good? Yours? Refer to the artilce I wrote about “The Common Good”. And for the Record you have the chioce to buy your own insurance for health not just go with what your employer provides. That would be taking responsibility for yourself as others here promote.
Blow,
// You see the point is that the government will now control and dispense health care //
Does the government dispense clean air and water, or just regulate companies to make sure they are not dumping pollutants into the air and water? They only regulate it, they’re not withholding water from the thirsty to gain control over them. And of course the very assertion that they might is stupid and ridiculous.
Does the government decide who can use the roads and who can’t for the purpose of commerce? Why, yes, in fact they do. It is entirely illegal to transport dangerous substances on public roads without the proper permits. So is the gov’t stopping people from crossing over state lines to get food so they can gain control and power over the people and deprive them of basic needs in order to subjugate them as part of some global conspiracy? Of course not, and the suggestion is stupid and ridiculous.
Hmmm… how about insurance? Well, most states require automobile insurance. You can argue that you don’t have to buy a car but then you might need to depend on public transportation… I’m sure the “public” in “public transport” is scary but lots of people are doing it. If you’re one of the many typical home-owners in the U.S., your bank still holds the mortgage on your home and requires you to buy homeowners insurance.
And health insurance? Well the company I work for takes MY money and decides what insurance to purchase for me. I don’t have a choice, this comes from my overall compensation, and they purchase a plan that cost them as little as possible. Well, I should be grateful, right? I can’t choose who my doctors are either, by the way, since I can only choose those that are in the network that has been chosen for me by my employer. And if I need treatment, well, the doctor’s recommendation will go straight through the for-profit insurance company who will decide if their profit margin can absorb the cost of my care.
// And those of us who work will have to pay for those who do not //
Yes, that’s the way civilized nations provide for the common good and welfare of it’s citizens; through pensions, disability insurance, survivor benefits, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, etc . The alternative is mass poverty, disease, and death among the aged. Except the rich and the well off, who’s parents deserve to live and die with dignity.
Now I’ve moved on from mild sarcasm to a full blown satirical assault, because I find within myself a wellspring of contempt for those who would deprive the poor and needy of basic necessities because it would come at a cost to society.
And why do I feel contempt? The same reason, perhaps, that people feel contempt when they speak of the abortion issue – it is one of life and death, not to be bantered about like a political football game in which the child is sacrificed if the Blue team wins. Incidentally I’m a big fan of Stupak if that means anything to you.
And what is behind the contempt? What is it that gives me confidence in my position and drives me to fight for those who would otherwise perish because they cannot afford medicine and care, because individuals are concerned that a percentage will come from them?
~
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates.”
“Have I not wept for him who was in trouble?Has not my soul grieved for the poor?”
“For the needy shall not always be forgotten;The expectation of the poor shall not perish forever.”
“The wicked in his pride persecutes the poor;Let them be caught in the plots which they have devised.”
“You shame the counsel of the poor,But the LORD is his refuge.”
“Defend the poor and fatherless;Do justice to the afflicted and needy.”
“He who has a generous eye will be blessed, For he gives of his bread to the poor.”
So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Love others as yourself.
~
Capitalism is often sin. Mixing it with socialism perhaps provides it’s redemption.
Consti,
Good for YOU, very good. While those who would make our sacred documents blackboard folly in a House filled with disrespectful and foolish children, All armed with felt erasers, you have taken a foundational principle and guarded it against the imps who would see it erased for room to draw doodles!
Let those who will not be taught throw the erasers, while the wiser among us learn while the letters still remain upon the board.
Drew the Blue,
So then are you also against the images demonizing Bush? What about the sexist Democratic comments/images about Palin? If not then that’s expected. If you can’t have a sense of humor about it all then I really don’t have to justify myself to you.
Dough boy,
Thank you for pointing out the missed quotations. And as for your argument you have it backwards the Speaker REQUESTED this information and rules change consideration. I would expect someone who “will do whatever it takes to win” to justify a RADICAL FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION for you to get your way. Teddy Kennedy tried that in MA and still a Republican took the seat. What does that tell you Dough boy?
Aside from the fact that you condone violence and death upon your opponents I don’t think I have to justify this legislative shenanigans to you. Since you can’t pass the legislation without the Presidents signature you can’t use reconciliation. This isn’t how you lead or govern. This is how you take control of government and shred the Constitution. Again I will remind you that they are sworn to uphold.
Drew the Blue,
Perhaps you would consider reading beyond “Beauty” and digesting the content. It is quite intriguing. And quite unnerving.
Once more, reading more than the opinion piece and tracking back to the actual news article would actually help a writer not look quite as foolish in public.
According to the National Journal’s online Congress Daily AM, “House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill…” However the article goes on to say that, “Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.”, and that, “Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill.”.
So, what we have is the Chair of the Rules Committee considering, important word there, considering, passing such a rule, but that she has not even taken this idea to the Speaker yet. In order for such a rule to pass it would first need to be passed by the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House. After a hearing and passing that Subcommittee, which has as its members Virginia Foxx and Pete Sessions, two of the most conservative members of the house. The rule will then have to pass the full committee, after a hearing, and then must be passed by the full house, after, it’s approved by the House Parliamentarian who can deem the rule in violation to the house rules or the Constitution. All of this assumes that the Speaker, who managed to wrangle enough votes to pass the House’s bill the first time, and who, in 2006 raised more than $100 million dollars for Democratic house candidates, thus securing her assent to the Speakers Office, can’t get enough votes this time around. This woman will most likely go down to history as one of the most effective Speakers since Tip O’Neil.
This is a cockeyed idea from a member of congress,. $2 and all the cockeyed ideas from members of congress still leaves you with just enough to buy a cup of coffee.
On a related not I would like to refer to the word Plagiarism.
pla•gia•rism [pley-juh-riz-uh m, -jee-uh-riz-]
–noun
1.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
2.
something used and represented in this manner.
From your article: “Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate. Government by fiat!”
From Mark Levin (an excerpt from his radio show) being quoted on the Director Blue Blog: “ Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. …It would be government by fiat…”
If you are going to quote someone, quote them and give them credit for their original words and thoughts. Don’t just steal them and pass them off as your own, it’s intellectually dishonest, completely low class, and makes you look no better than a common thief.
Liked the article and tried calling only to get busy signals for both. Now trying to fax– still busy.
And Drew the Blue, since the Speaker insisted on keeping funding for plastic surgery in the house version of the health care bill and she is a frequent user of this service, I feel it is within the range of this topic to make note of her appearance. You see the point is that the government will now control and dispense health care– poorly, no doubt. And those of us who work will have to pay for those who do not– and much more than you are being told. Now see if you can get beyond some mild sarcasm and actually attempt to make a valid argument for your position, rather than a sinister response with no topic points mentioned.
You lost me at “Beauty.” If you want to have an adult conversation with us about constitutional law, you’ll need to act like a grown up first. Your impression of the superficial beauty of the Speaker has nothing at all to do with the topic, except that it suggests a lack of objectivity.