The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database SMOKE-&-MIRRORS.
.
Smoke and mirrors. Thanks but no thanks on that
nm
More smoke and mirrors and much ado about nothing
My first clue that this may be a red herring that merits further investigation was that I could not find information on this piece anywhere except conservative websites and blogs. I also had difficulty locating the text of Newt's so-called "Fairness Rules", which my gut told me was an oxymoron, the mention of Newt and fairness in the same breath.
The key phrase in this piece is found in paragraph 3, lines 4 and 5:
"...bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate ACCESSIBLE BY MOTIONS TO RECOMMIT for any piece of legislation."
It is worthwhile to note that this phrase only appears once, embedded in a storm cloud of protest, fore and aft, and for good reason. There is method to this madness.
Motions to recommit occur at the final stage of bill passage. I have reviewed the text of the Contract On America, err, I mean Contract With America and the scope of its measures did not address the ENTIRE legislative process, as they are trying to suggest here.
I'm not that good at nutshell summaries. Instead, I have tried to present the ENTIRE picture below to clarify exactly what part of the process Pelosi's so-called "erasure" would affect. So much for the assertion that Pelosi is propsing to do away with the democratic process as we know it.
A bill is introduced and referred to committee. Any member of the House can introduce a bill at any time, meaning if the pubs don't like what they get out of one bill, they can pen their own as a counter-measure. The bill is then assigned a number, printed in its introduced form and a bill summary appears on the Bill Status Today schedule.
It is then referred to all appropriate committees where it is scheduled for public debate and markup. Notices as such are posted. Transcript of the testimony taken in the hearings is made available in the committee offices as well as printed and distributed by the committee.
Markup occurs after the hearings where amendments are proposed, considered and voted on. This can happen either at subcommittee or committee levels, all of which are subject to due process of notice, available to ALL interested parties.
The committee then votes on the action to be taken. It can be "reported" either with or without amendment or tabled. Sometimes new bills are written if extensive amendments have to be added, resulting in a "clean bill" which is assigned a new number. A committee report is issued summarizing the purpose and scope of the bill and the reasons it is being recommended for approval.
It then goes to the House floor for FULL CONSIDERATION. This process is governed by a "rule," a simple resolution that MUST BE PASSED by the house that sets out the particulars of how much time will allowed for debate, whether amendments can be offered, and other matters. Debate is divided between proponents and opponents. Amendments are offered, debated and voted upon, summarized on a daily basis and posted.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
Motion to recommit
Following this, the bill is ready for a vote on final passage. IT IS AT THE POINT IN TIME WHERE, in some cases, A VOTE TO "RECOMMIT" the bill to committee is requested, also known as a THIRD read. This is usually an effort by opponents to change some portion or table the measure. If the attempt to recommit fails, a vote on final passage is ordered.
A little addition, a little subtraction, a tiny bit of multiplication. It's not all that hard to understand.
If you have questions, ask them. Unless you just don't want to hear the answer. In that case, I can't help you.
fighting fire with fire doesn't work
We have been hitting each other over the head with clubs since Early Man. The American military has killed innocents, too. I do not think Americans are more deserving of anything than anyone else who inhabits this planet. We are all human beings with families and feelings and lives. Perhaps its time to drop the weapons and communicate for a change.
fight fire with fire
We need to **take it there** more often and louder. We have been too quiet, too politically correct and where has it gotten us? The republicans have been smearing democrats and each election has had nothing but dirty tricks from the republicans. This past election, Kerry tried to be on the up and up, not personally attacking..What did the republicans do? Secretly paid for a group to smear Kerry and his Vietnam War record. When Bush was asked, he said he had nothing to do with the group. Baloney! It was backed by the republican party. That is the way Rove and Bush are, they smear their opponents. Time to fight fire with fire. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
I suppose they should cover the mirrors
and rend their clothes in grief instead? They are busting their butts to get things done. I think a little laughter, joy and goodwill is necessary as well as healthy. But, I suspect you would neither understand nor APPROVE of anything you deem "frivolous." The Dow has been up for 4 days running, at least 3 major banks are seeing profits and are stating they no longer require any bailout money.........Bringing in Congress and various insiders for a weekly get-together is a good way to inspire and promote goodwill.....but I guess the WH is something to look at - not live in.
Brown's Economic Plan in England Mirrors Obama's
As you read the piece (see link below) in the London Times, substitute "Obama" for Brown, and "Geithner" for "Darling". Then multiply the billions in pounds by 1.5 to change them to US dollars. You'll think you're reading about the US plan - and the same catastrophic results, among which the worst are:
1. A burden on future generations of unparalleled and unprincipled proportions.
2. An outflow of investment capital to other countries that do not penalize the engines of the economy.
What struck me about Brown's plan was his "soak the rich" approach, which exactly mirrors Obama's - i.e., hitting the "upper 2%" of the "wealthy". It is more than passing strange to me that this is the precise percentage that Obama proposes - and is equally doubtful. Given Brown's recent meetings with Obama, no one will ever convince me that he didn't get some tutoring from our superclown...er, I mean, superpresident.
Another thing that's striking is how Brown's proposals are structured so that the real pain will be imposed after the elections in GB next year. In Obama's case, most of the real pain has also been scheduled for the "out years" - meaning that the public won't begin to feel them until beyond 2011.
And finally, there is the criticism that Brown's program is based on a lot of rosy "recovery" predictions which are very doubtful. Exactly the same criticism has been leveled at Obama's program, and in our case the criticism has come not from the opposition party but from within the government itself, i.e. the Office of Management and Budget - which is considered to be a very credible source of information on this sort of thing
Cut and paste, or follow the link at the bottom: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6168950.ece?Submitted=true
.
I'm for it. And I don't even smoke it myself.
I'm probably the only person I know in the world who doesn't smoke it sometimes. And if it helps to restore a sick person's appetite, or helps ease another's pain, why not? Legalizing it would take all the profits out of it for those who are growing it illegally.
And no, I don't think people should overdo it (like they do with alcohol, which society seems to condone, no matter how many people it kills on our highways every year.) I once rode with a friend in her car when she was just slightly high, and nope. She shouldn't have been driving. Couldn't keep her car centered in her own lane. (Next time we took MY car, and I drove, instead.)
I also notice that MJ doesn't make people MEAN, the way booze does.
My aging mother says if she has pain in her later years, she wants to smoke marijuana rather than be doped-up on morphine. If she does, then I think she should be able to do that. I actually wish she'd start smoking it now, because she doesn't eat very well anymore.
There is no smoke. There is only hot air...
...and blatant lies. For anyone who is tempted to believe this garbage, please visit the following site.
...and the point here is NOT whether you smoke or not. Even if you think that forcing the poor to quit smoking is a beneficial thing, the questions are:
1. Should Obama be held to his tax promises or not?
2. If he can raise these taxes, by what stretch of the imagination do you believe other increases will not follow?
3. Should the government use the power of taxation to enforce policies that it happens to think are beneficial? If you think so, how about taxing the next package of hamburger you buy a couple of bucks a pound unless it has less than 14% fat? And your next loaf of bread a buck or two unless it has 0% transfat? Or the next dozen eggs maybe five bucks for the cholesterol? After all, far more people in this country are obese than smoke.
If I were President, I'd hit every parent with a $10 per day tax if their kids forget to brush their teeth before going to bed (and I'd send jack-booted bed-tooth-inspectors to every house, too!). Now that would raise some serious coin, and improve the nation's dental health. Vote for me.
Ah well....time will show what he's really like. The one extreme case of poor judgment I'm seeing from Obama is his AG pick... I'm really worried about this Eric Holder.....heaven help us if he refuses again to examine someone's laptop, and permits evidence to go by unnoticed and causes another 9/11....that's my greatest fear at the moment....aside from several others, which shall remain nameless. I have better things to do...like sleep....at the moment....night GP
Obama couldn't do that........ he loves to smoke!!!
nm
My dad died of lung ca. from 2nd-hand smoke. I hope
nm
fire with fire
Tired of dirty fighting? It is the republican party who was the dirty fighters, not the democrats. and they continue to be dirty fighters and will win again and again if we dont stand up to them. Fight fire with fire. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. In the political spectrum that is America, you dont get anywhere for being the up and up person, the good guy, you win with dirty tricks. If you dont realize that, you need to step back when it comes to politics..I bemoan the situation, for sure, but I will fight fire with fire and the democrats will win once again..and, clue to you, check on Bushs right hand man, Rove, look at his extremely dirty politics and then ask yourself can we ever win against something like that by being nice? I dont think so and the country depends on the liberals getting the country back on track. I will do everything it takes, of course, everything that is legal. I dont break the law like Rove and libby are now being shown that they did.
Please fire them all. sm
People are losing their jobs, homes, and on the streets - and a mouse gets 35 million.
Cease fire.
No canned text for me. The tone of our posts are set by these my-way-of-the-highway / scorched earth approaches to opposite views. I have very exhilarating exchanges when the 2 parties are respectful, informed, flexible, open-minded, focused and on task, more interested in finding common ground than sowing the seeds of division, looking for solutions as opposed to validation and understanding that no political problems will ever be solved without bipartisan participation, mediation and compromise.
Plagiarizing and paraphrasing an opponent’s text and ideas and trying to throw them back at them does not an effective argument make. Furthermore, it is childish…like those playground disputes between children…“you did, no you did, no you did”…etc. It is not your ideas that I find so distasteful, it is your presentation. Not to be cliché, but you attract more bees with sugar than vinegar. I am not intolerant of Hannity…watch him frequently. Cannot have an effective debate without becoming familiar with the “cons” side of the argument.
On the bigot thing. Remember me? I’m the one who is hawking inclusion, supportive of minority interests, and has the audacity to suggest that Americans are not the only ones who just might deserve some equality, dignity, respect and basic human rights…even if they are illegal. I suppose it is a positive sign that you at least take offense. There’s hope for you yet.
On racial purity. You are really big on maintaining American cultural integrity and identity. But when it comes to extending the same consideration to our immigrants you go ballistic…clear off the map, at times. They can walk and chew gum at the same time…it is possible to preserve ones’ native culture AND be a good American. These are not two mutually exclusive concepts. If our democratic principles are all they are cracked up to be, it would not be so painful to see them behaving like Americans.
Going to go out on a limb here and to use and example. Mexican-Americans gathered together (right to assemble) waving their flag in protest (freedom of speech) of harsh immigration laws or working conditions in the maquilidoras are trying to bring these issues to the doorstep of the government who created those conditions (right to redress grievances). What could be more American than that? You cannot look at that crowd and distinguish between which among them are legal and which are not…after all, those are issues of ALL Mexican natives. Should we deny all of them these rights, implying that such rights are reserved for the REAL Americans? Being American is not simply a matter of a piece of paper, some arbitrary degree of language proficiency, some certain level of income or education. They should not be required to melt into the pot and disappear, renounce their birthrights and turn their backs on their own people just to qualify. Can’t have it both ways. If you want them to be Americans, then you have to LET them be Americans.
Ask yourself this question. If you saw 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants doing the same thing in NYC, would your reaction be the same? The bottom line is this: Our new wave of immigrants does not look like the ones from the past. You seemed to enjoy the DAR bridge party swapping stories of how they all came from different countries and cross bred with one another …even had a occasional Indian in the wood pile…and produced this great nation of mutts. But the breed was selectively white. If it was okay then, it should be okay now. The problem you are grappling with is that the results would produce all these mongrel shades of God-knows what. If this make you uncomfortable in the least little bit…if you are now feeling driven to slap me up side the head…that’s the voice of bigotry.
On elitism. Your posts are full of strict, literal reads and “tudes” as you call them. Sue me if I took a page from your book. At least you sort of tried to address the “academics,” still not calling it by name. If you could stop slaying the messenger long enough to hear the message, you would understand that there is nothing condescending about wanting to engage in informed debate that orients itself around reaching mutual respect and understanding. It has absolutely nothing to do with being angry or feeling superior. Think what you like, but I am neither of those. I simply enjoy using my language and have an affinity for broad vocabulary. It’s just who I am. Blame it on the docs. They certainly sent me to the dictionary too many times to count and I lingered there for a while, that’s all there is to it. This personal trait should not in any way exempt me from debate, nor should I be subjected to ridicule, name calling or unfounded accusations because of it.
There is something you and I have in common. We are 2 American gals coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, locked into the extreme divisions that plague our fellow citizens from shore to shore. If we cannot find our way past this kind of bickering in which we both find ourselves ensconced, we all are in big trouble.
Believe it or not, Sam, I actually enjoy our posts. Okay, go ahead if you like. Send me to the therapist again. Call me masochist, bipolar, schizo, whatever. I just think we could do better than this.
Speaking of therapy, I have a life-long friend, an endearing street thug / bad boy from younger days, who grew up and became a therapist. He works with drug addicts, adult children of alcoholics (being one himself) and dysfunctional families. He said something to me that made a lot of sense. One of the first challenging pieces of advice he throws out to a new patient is to “try to keep things in the third person,” in an effort to “dial back” nonproductive confrontations with family members. I thought he was crazy at first, but I started trying this with my husband and to my surprise, it really did seem to help us to better understand one another, even after 18 years. That is what I will be trying to do next time you and I visit the water cooler. If you want to chill on the immigrant dialog for a while, that works for me.
Thanks for the good luck wishes on the job search. Hope I can find a decent company that is not just another maquilidora masquerading as an MTSO! Well sh1t fire...ain't that the truth!
In America, anyone can be President. That's one of the risks we take.
Fire-and-brimstone campaign
You can go to your fire-and brimstone rallies, wallow in your misery, and try to think of more ways to smear the finest candidate this Country has seen in decades.
I will go to the joyful rallies, full of hope for the future of this great Country.
Who's God? Your God? My God? Earth, Wind and Fire?
x
Okay. Where is the petition to fire that CNN reporter
nm
They will think whatever they need to think to stoke the fire that feeds their hatred. nm Boy, your cease fire didn't last long....LOL
Just in case you are interested, and I doubt you are, I wrote this BEFORE you wrote your cease fire, not AFTER. Which makes your cease fire ring all the more hollow, especially in the face of this..."Okay you want to keep the gloves off..." LOL. And if this dialing it back a notch...yes, frankly, I would suggest you go back and talk to that family friend because you haven't got the third person thing down yet. Every post flies in the face of what you try to say. You ARE angry. You DO need to feel superior. You want what you want, I want what I want. I make specific examples of specific Americans I have personal knowledge of who immigrated from Mexico and that is their experience, and the experience of many others. But you could care less. If it doesn't illustrate your point, you don't care about it. You don't care that it costs your fellow citizens millions every year to support illegal immigrants...money that could be going to the needs of citizens of this country. And where do you get that illegals don't stay anyway? Got any of those 4-letter words to support that?
Yes, my feelings extend to ANY nationality illegal immigrant. Why on earth do you think I hate Mexicans? I don't hate ANYONE. I just want them to come here legally like other immigrants have, get a green card, go through the process, become citizens if that is what they choose to do, or go back home when their visas expire. Draw and quarter me for that if you like. I couldn't, at this point, care LESS.
Again you completely missed the fact that I grew up and went to school with Mexican immigrant children and knew their families and keep in touch today. I have no problem with Mexicans. It is a fact that the biggest problem we have with immigration is from Mexico...welll duhhh...we share a border with them. Much easier for them to immigrate illegally, much easier because of the porous border for folks to get in that we don't really want to get in. But of course, you would
As to it takes a long time to become a citizen, yada yada yada...well, good things come to those who wait. It has always taken a long time to become a citizen. Since there are millions here who are citizens, obviously they thought it was worth the wait. Excuses, excuses, excuses. It is the LAW. Do you pick and choose what laws you want upholded and those you don't?
You say NONE of them want to change who we are or what we are. Did I miss the part where you were named national spokesperson for illegal immigrants? You don't even realize you said the same thing I said. Yes, they come here for a better life. That's fine. If I immigrated to Canada for a better life, I would not carry the American flag down their streets in protest, out of respect if nothing else, but I suppose that is something that does not matter to you either...it certainly is not present in your rants. If I immigrated to Canada to a part where they spoke predominantly French, I would learn French. I would be embracing of their culture. Because I chose to make that my country and my home. I would not have to be asked to do so. But obviously I am the exception and not the rule.
Again with the languages. I don't care how many languages are spoken here. My sole point is that for preservation and protection of the United States of America we should be united...and you don't see that either. I belive what I believe, you believe what you believe. And never the twain shall meet, it would appear. Does not make me wrong, does not make you wrong. I will hold my hopes for the America I long for and you hold the hopes for the America you long for. The years to come will tell the tale. And if all this comes back to bite you years down the road...and we are too old to care...that little voice in the back of your head that said "I told you so..." That will be me.
The Civil War...geez. It was all ABOUT preserving unity. If it had not been fought to preserve the union we would be two countries today fighting back and forth across the border like Iran and Iraq for example. Slavery was only part of the issue of the civil war. But a brilliant man (and Republican I might add) Abraham Lincoln saw the folly in splitting the union, and another fine man, Robert E. Lee, saw the same folly...but chose to be a Virginian before an American, though it broke his heart to do so (to use his own words), and we see where that led. After the civil war and the slaves were freed, we came back together as a country, stronger than before, and never since have Americans chosen to be anything but Americans first. So far. That is what I would like to preserve. That is all I am talking about. Unity. Read up on the civil war. Read up on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Both great men with great vision. The Civil War was about unity.
As to now who's arrogant? I am about the most UN-arrogant person you would ever meet. I wouldn't know how to be verbally condescending and you have it down to a fine art. For someone who is not angry and not needing to feel superior, your posts say the opposite.
All this aside, keep safe during the bad weather coming up. I know hurricanes don't go inland very far too often, praying that it won't get to you. Hoping tornados spawned won't get to either. Keep your head down and live to verbally slice and dice me another day. :)
If she had the proper and legal authority to fire him --
then why didn't she just do it instead of them telling the other guy to do it - then there would not be a problem.
Is it more of a fire hazard just because more than 15 people meet on a regular basis than if someone has a single party for 30 people?
As long as you and the other wiccans are clothed and no open-burning laws are being broken (in a residential area, that would be a fire hazard) I would have no particular problem with your rituals. Depending on the time of day/night and loudness of chanting, it might constitute a disturbance of the peace, same as a loud barbecue party in the neighborhood. But with the basic concept of your meeting, no big deal.
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire...sm
My take: If you make a person who does not hold the Bible sacred swear to uphold his office on it, then does that swearing in really mean anything. They don't follow the teachings of the Bible, so why would it be relevant for them to swear on the Bible? (article below)
Newly Elected Muslim Lawmaker Under Fire
Decision to Take Oath on Koran Sparks Controversy
..
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (Dec. 1) -- The first Muslim elected to Congress hasn't been sworn into office yet, but his act of allegiance has already been criticized by a conservative commentator. In a column posted Tuesday on the conservative website Townhall.com, Dennis Prager blasted Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison's decision to take the oath of office Jan. 4 with his hand on a Quran, the Muslim holy book.
He should not be allowed to do so, Prager wrote, not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture.
He said Ellison, a convert from Catholicism, should swear on a Christian Bible -- which America holds as its holiest book. … If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
The post generated nearly 800 comments on Townhall.com and sparked a tempest in the conservative blogosphere. Many who posted comments called the United States a Christian country and said Muslims are beginning to gain too much influence. Others wrote about the separation of church and state and said the Constitution protects all religions.
Dave Colling, Ellison's spokesman, said he was unavailable for comment. Earlier, Ellison told the online Minnesota Monitor, The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that's what the freedom of religion is all about.
Colling said Ellison's office has received hundreds of very bigoted and racist e-mails and phone calls since Prager's column appeared. The vast majority said, 'You should resign from office if you're not willing to use the book our country was founded on,' Colling said
Requiring somebody to take an oath of office on a religious text that's not his violates the Constitution, said Kevin Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Members of the House of Representatives traditionally raise their right hands and are sworn in together on the floor of the chamber. The ritual sometimes seen as the swearing-in is actually a ceremonial photo op with the speaker of the House that usually involves a Bible.
They can bring in whatever they want, says Fred Beuttler, deputy historian of the House.
Prager, who is Jewish, wrote that no Mormon elected official has demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. But Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, carried a volume of Mormon scriptures that included the Bible and the Book of Mormon at his swearing-in ceremony in 1997.
Prager, who hosts a radio talk show, could not be reached for comment.
12-01-06 11:28 EST
Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved. MTPockets posted about SP loving to fire people.
MTPockets could've just kept her post to the issue, but she had to throw in the barb about firing, so the next poster has every right to address it. Or is what she is referencing over your head?
I couldn't get in...crowd already exceeded the fire code.
So, after parking two blocks away and trudging to the party, the fire officials kept us out because the fire code only allows 300, of which there were more than that inside. Then the cops told us we couldn't congregate outside either due to traffic and not having a separate (outdoor) permit.
Just days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Cheney, on “Meet The Press,” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror organization not Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
When asked if any evidence connected the Iraqis to the operation, Cheney said, no.
But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward's book, Bush At War, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq and during cabinet meetings Cheney, expressed deep concern about Saddam and wouldn't rule out going after Iraq at some point.
That point started to come 11 months later, just before the first anniversary of 9/11.
The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad. So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration's rhetoric about Saddam changed.
On September 8, 2002, not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front page exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, five administration officials also went on the Sunday television shows that day to repeat the charge.
He is, in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, Cheney told Tim Russert on “Meet The Press.
But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.
The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror, said Bush on September 25, 2002.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases, said Bush a few days later on October 7. He's a threat because he is dealing with Al-Qaeda.
In pushing the Saddam-Iraq-9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims. First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.
After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, Iraq apparently never responded.
The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April 2001.
Cheney stated, It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a Senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.
Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission said, We do not believe such a meeting occurred. Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States.
None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.
On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, aided the 9/11 attacks.
Yet the Bush administration continues to say it never claimed Iraq was linked to 9/11.
I think I made it very clear that we have never made that claim, White House Press Secretary McClellan repeated on Sept. 17, 2003.
The brutal irony is that while implications, innuendo, or false claims if you will about a 9/11 connection helped take us into Iraq. The Iraqi war itself has created a real al-Qaeda/Iraq link that may keep us from getting out.
marks the location of current message within thread
