Once again, gt, you are not thinking from a base of fairness.
Posted By: AR on 2005-10-01
In Reply to: why would he even think this? - gt
But I didn't expect you to. And when another poster actually did, you responded with HOW COULD YOU. I expected that, as well. So much for philosophical conversation, exploring intent, and misspeaking. I notice you never mentioned Maher, which, again, is typical. I drew a cogent correlation and you dismissed it completely. Again, expected. Thank you, Gadfly, for the conversation.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
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
and I base mine on
available information .... don't just pull them out of my bellybutton.
I definitely don't base it JUST on morals
I guess I should have been more elaborate on that. And you are completely right, most presidents change their tune after they get into the white house. I feel like we are almost gambling when we vote, who will change less?
Honestly, if we could take the candidates and even the VPs and just mush them into one candidate, I think we would be flying pretty high.
I think my biggest fear right now is that myself and a lot of people I know are one step from losing our homes and standing in the breadline. I Get upset that my husband and I both work extremely hard to keep what we have (which isn't much) but that we can't seem to get any assistance whatsoever. Yet someone can have seven kids and never work a day in her life and be taken care of. Do I think this will change? No. I feel like the middle class in the economy is a lot like "the middle child" in a family - often forgotten about, but expected to behave anyways.
On religion, check out my reply to Kaydie. I've written a short summary of a part of the book I mentioned to her in response to you saying that Jesus was a highly evolved human being (I used to believe the same thing)
Josh Mcdowell puts it like this: either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
If he spent his life telling everyone that he was the Son of God and getting people to believe and follow him and he knew that he wasn't, then he was a liar. But the question poses, can someone that evil hearted (remember a lot of his disciples left there homes, family, jobs, etc to follow Him and were even killed defending His name) never do wrong? See I believe that there were enough people that hated Jesus that after he died if someone tried to talk about how great he was they would have been writing about ANYTHING wrong he did if they knew that he did. We would have heard about it.
Lunatic - If he did all this not knowing that he was being deceptive, and he really believed that he was the Son of God, then he had to be crazy. But this is crazy to the tenth power. Most lunatics who believe they are something else believe they are something tangible, such as a dog or a butterfly or another human. To believe that your the Son of God (remember, there was no Son of God in history before him, so it's not like it was a term thrown around or an unoriginal idea) is very unlikely. Not to mention how eloquent of a speaker Jesus was and how he was so easily able to explain things.
Lord - If Jesus was neither a liar or a lunatic, then he must be who he says he is - Lord, the Son of God. And since the Son of God cannot sin, he cannot lie, which means when he says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT by me" then he must not be lying.
Josh Mcdowell explains this a lot better than I can (that's why he's a PhD and I'm an MT! :-D ) but in case you never get to check out his book, I just wanted to give a recap. It helped me make my decision that he is Lord, because for a long time I wanted to believe that he was just "a great man" or "a great teacher" but I feel now that it was so rude of me to say that of someone who personally died for me.
Just my ideas! Thanks for giving me yours! It's nice to be able to talk back and forth about this without anyone getting upset! :-D
Deeni, please don't base all on one
I'm a Christian, but I see a lot of Christians who just are paranoid about anything and everything under the sun. They become paralyzed with "end times," the antichrist, etc. They become so entranced by this stuff that they lose their joy in their faith. I'm not like this. I feel Obama is there because he's supposed to be there, and I'm just working, paying bills, and enjoying my life and family. We're not all the "fire and brimstone" kind. :) I actually feel sorry for those Christians that feel this way because they're not acknowledging who is really in charge and these things are happening because they're supposed to. "Let it go!" I say to them. lol I'm sure you will agree. :)
I want to know what facts you base this on.
Unless, you know her personally, that is.
U.S. air base closing which is a key to
This is not good. Just heard on the news that we need McCain, Romney, and Obama to talk to Russia about this special base closing. But of course, the senate and congress are too busy with this stimulus, stated the ex-FBI agent to fight terrorism.
Supposedly Russia prime minister stated he was FOR (not against) helping fight terrorists, but instead, Russia is actually working with Taliban. Basically, "Russia is bullying Obama." This needs to be worked out soon or terrorists are going to get stronger and attack when we are at our weakest, which I say is about now. We have already lost 150 vehicles for fighting because of base closing and do we seriously have 15,000 troops? Or are some of our young ones in high school and college going to be drafted soon.
MOSCOW — Kyrgyzstan's president said Tuesday his country is ending U.S. use of an air base key to military operations in Afghanistan_ a decision with potentially grave consequences for U.S. efforts to put down surging Taliban and al-Qaida violence.
A U.S. military official in Afghanistan called President Kurmanbek Bakiyev's statement "political positioning" and denied the U.S. presence at the Manas air base would end anytime soon.
The United States is preparing to deploy an additional 15,000 troops in Afghanistan and Manas is an important stopover for U.S. materiel and personnel.
Ending U.S. access would be a significant victory for Moscow in its efforts to squeeze the United States out of Central Asia, home to substantial oil and gas reserves and seen by Russia as part of its strategic sphere of influence.
Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev spoke on a visit to Moscow minutes after Russia announced it was providing the poor Central Asian nation with billions of dollars in aid.
Bakiyev said when the U.S. forces began using Manas after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the expectation was that they would stay for two years at most.
"It should be said that during this time... we discussed not just once with our American partners the subject of economic compensation for the stationing (of US forces at the base)," he said on Russian state-run TV. "But unfortunately we have not found any understanding on the part of the United States.
"So literally just days ago, the Kyrgyz government made the decision on ending the term for the American base on the territory of Kyrgyzstan," he said.
Col. Greg Julian, the U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, denied there was any change in U.S. use of the base and he noted that Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, just recently traveled there.
"I think it's political positioning. Gen. Petraeus was just there and he talked with them. We have a standing contract and they're making millions off our presence there. There are no plans to shut down access to it anytime soon," he told The Associated Press.
As recently as Jan. 19, Petraeus said he had received Kyrgyz assurances that Russia was not pushing for the base to close.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said: "I have seen nothing to suggest, other than press reports, that the Russians are attempting to undermine our use of that facility."
The United States set up Manas and a base in neighboring Uzbekistan after the September 2001 attacks to back operations in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan expelled U.S. troops from the base on its territory in 2005 in a dispute over human rights issues, leaving Manas as the only U.S. military facility in the immediate region.
Moscow, which fought a 10-year war in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, was initially supportive of U.S. efforts to keep Afghanistan from collapsing into new anarchy and stem the spread of militancy northward through ex-Soviet Central Asia.
But as Kremlin suspicions about U.S. foreign policy have grown, so has Russian wariness about the U.S. presence in Central Asia. Russia also uses a military air base in the ex-Soviet nation.
During his visit last month, Petraeus said that Manas would be key to plans to boost the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. He also said the United States currently pumps a total of $150 million into Kyrgyzstan's economy annually, including $63 million in rent for Manas.
About 1,200 U.S. troops are based at Manas.
Russia, however, agreed Tuesday to provide Kyrgyzstan with $2 billion in loans plus another $150 million in financial aid.
Kyrgyzstan is one of Central Asia's poorest countries and has been buffeted by political turmoil for years. Its economy has been strained to the limit this winter after neighboring Uzbekistan significantly raised prices for natural gas.
Most Kyrgyz have been supportive, or at least accepting, of the U.S. presence, though in 2007, widespread anger erupted after a U.S. serviceman at Manas shot and killed a Kyrgyz man during a security check. Kyrgyz investigators had asked the serviceman face criminal prosecution in their country.
Petraeus said during a trip to the region last month that the investigation will be reopened.
Central Asia is key to U.S. efforts to secure an alternative supply line to forces in Afghanistan. The main route, through the Khyber Pass in Pakistan's northwest, has occasionally been closed in recent months due to rising attacks by bandits and Islamist militants, including one on Tuesday that destroyed a bridge.
During his visit, which included a stop in Kyrgyzstan, Petraeus said Washington had struck deals with Russia and several Central Asian states to allow the transhipment of supplies heading to Afghanistan.
NATO spokesman Eric Povel said the alliance could not comment because use of the base was an issue for the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan.
"It's not a NATO base," he said.
your way off base and don't know what your talking about
In my relationship with my partner we don't do sm, bondage, strange fetishes, and we certainly don't abuse each other. We don't do 3-ways or wife/husband swapping. We also don't do polygamy and certainly no domestic violence.
We have a normal sexual relationship and show tender loving care to each other. We respect each other, give each other privacy and never force the other into anything. We love each other unconditionally and when we're together we feel the love each of us shows the other. I trust my life with my partner. We have a totally natural and normal relationship with each other.
There are many couples (heterosexual) who do sm, bondage, strange fetishes, 3-ways, wife-swapping and polygamy and most domestic violence is commited by a heterosexual couple.
So I would say if anything heterosexual couples are not normal.
LOL, oh give it up, you are so off base it isn't funny! sm
You mean gt/Libby/deedee/DixieDew??? LOL!!! 
Permanent military base. sm
This has nothing to do with anything. We have permanent military bases in many European countries. That does not mean we are involved in the politics in those countries. It means, and I have said this three times but I will try again, that when the Iraqi Democratic government is finally in place, they will decide what happens with prisoners of war. Right now, we are involved in that. In the future, we won't be. I am not sure how much clearer I can make it. Very much to the contrary of what the poster Democrat has posted above, this is not a partisan brouhaha that the media has somehow missed. They miss very little. It is something you are misunderstanding. There is plenty out there on the internet that explains it. That might be your first step, or, if you are determined to be upset about it, then there is little anyone can do. Now, having said that, I am off to other boards. Have a nice day.
Seems like SP's speech energized O's base too.
su
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
If you base your perceptions of the entire
populace of our country from the postings on this forum, you need to get out more.
I'm sorry they said bad things about your candidate. It obviously hurt you deeply.
If they were born on a military base, they
are considered U.S. citizens. Military bases anywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil.
they were not born on a military base either
they have dual citizenship.
You base your impression of all liberals
He is a television personality. That would be like basing an impression of all conservatives on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. None of them are there to provide objective opinion, and in a lot of ways they are caricatures for infotainment.
I consider myself a liberal, but I would not base my impression of all conservatives on any one individual of that political persuasion.
I do think that Obama will listen to knowledgeable people no matter what their political affiliation is. No one person (or political party) has all the answers and it is going to take a cooperative effort to get us started on the road out of this mess. Good ideas are good ideas no matter what the source is.
P.S. I don't think much of Olbermann really. He doesn't even vote. He strikes me as a blowhard critic. It will be interesting to see how/if his program changes in the next few months. She is way more liberal, but I prefer Rachel Maddow's show. She seems much more genuine and personable.
The Commander in Chimp's base is hopeless...sm
I saw one post on Alternet earlier today which stated that if 911 were an inside job, that Bush probably had to sacrifice for the greater good.
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whhbPVrb5KM
CG, me, Hillary's angered base, feminists,
We'll all be pushing long and hard against having what's-her-name represent us and squash the Bimbos Unite! movement before it even takes off.
You are so off base. BE PATRIOTIC, s tand behind the NEW PRESIDENT OF THE USA !!!!
nm
In all fairness. sm
This isn't your list. It's copied and pasted from BuzzFlash. Link below. I only mention it because there was a time some time back when you guys went ballistic on some on the conservative board for doing this.
In all fairness
One thing I agree with you on, if Obama is elected, I fully believe there will be an assassination or at least an attempt. God forbid that should happen. I would far prefer Biden in the Oval office instead of Gov. Airhead. "Experience" in Washington means nothing to me, in fact I would prefer NO Washington experience, provided the Gov. had anything between her ears besides air.
In all fairness. s/m
Someone mentioned Obama's voting record. Has anyone actually looked at his voting record...or McCain's? Obama didn't vote 46.3% of the time. McCain didn't vote 64.1% of the time!!! I find where Obama missed 1 important vote, McCain missed many. In fact, McCain looks like he hardly voted at all in the last couple of years except to speed to Washington to make sure his Wall Street buds got their bail-out. In all fairness, many of the votes both failed to vote on were nothing than motions for cloture (or however you spell that word).
In all fairness
People overseas can vote via e-mail. While I understand that not all of them do and all votes should be counted, there is an alternative to whatever mail problems exist. They only need to go to the FVAP web site. That being said, not everyone in Iraq is lucky enough to have internet access and, from what my husband says, the e-mail voting is quite a pain in the behind because things have to be faxed and all kinds of stuff.
In all fairness...
I am sure that nobody has the time to read every e-mail that he will get. I am sure that they filter them for threats and such, but I doubt he will ever read it unless it is a real standout! Nothing against you, just can't imagine how many e-mails he must get.
And in all fairness
They had to have them disinfected from the Clinton administration. I had heard that it just oozed with cooties.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
If you are really concerned about fairness -
I don't understand you folks. I am very concerned about the military having their say in the voting process - I have a son in the military and I want his vote counted (even though he voted for McCain), I have an exhusband in Iraq (who I am sure would not waste his time voting for anybody), but I want their votes counted; however, if you want to be fair then even the homeless people "who do not contribute anything" have the right to vote. Being homeless does not take away their basic rights in this country. You are all talking about how Obama is going to take away this, or take away that, or do this, or do that to the people, but now you are advocating not letting a homeless person vote becaues they don't have a permanent address.
You know what, I have come close to being homeless several times in my life due to unfortunate situations - one of those time when my husband was a SOLDIER and the Army did not pay us for a whole month - and I don't think that homeless people are the scum of the earth and should just be discounted. Any one of us could find ourselves right there on that park bench beside them at any time. If the United States were a better place, then we would not have homeless people sitting on those benches anyway!
I cannot believe the lack of compassion that people in the United States are now showing toward their fellow countrymen!
It doesn't. Now in all fairness....
the campaign says they "had nothing directly" to do with that. Like they had nothing directly to do with Acorn and then had to return 800G. And like they did not provide a list of maxed out donors so Acorn could hit them for get out the vote contributions and registration efforts. Like Acorn is not in the tank for Obama.
Sounds more like the old USSR than the USA.
Then fairness should go on the other hand
Just skip over the posts you don't like.
In all fairness, it won't matter if they
do want to attend to anything with a dem majority. Think Pelosi will get that private plane now? LOL. The party needs to reboot, that's for sure. This is exactly why I don't like a one party majority. We need those checks and balances from both sides, brilliantly set up by our forefathers.
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
nm
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
Okay, in all fairness, the link does not work for me either. nm
x
I like equality and fairness.....like most grown-ups...nm
nm
Well by all means, in the usual fairness...
of the as-far-from-democratic-Democratic Party...guilty until proven innocent, bash, belittle, and then turn right around in the SAME post and accuse someone else of the same. You need to get a new schtick. YOur number one does not have as much experience as the Repub #2. Yet you keep bringing experience into the conversation.
As to self destruct, not seeing it. Got a little bounce and sucked ALL the air out of the britney spears stage speech.
I am not at all underestimating the clintons....your #1 is, and the DNC is.
Yes, by all means, toe that party line. lol.
As far as your last line...THANK GOD for that!! And may i remind you, on the issue of experience...when Hillary Clinton ran for her NY state senate seat, she had NO experience in government whatsoever, unless you consider running around behind Bill cleaning up his messes experience. She had held absolutely NO legislative positions but I am sure you would agree she has been an effective senator...right?
Puhlezzzzz. Double standard is SHOWING. And all Bill had done before he became Prez was be a governor. Double standard is SHOWING.
geeeez. lol.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
There needs to be equality and fairness in congress
Don't shoot me - these are only my observations. Granted I have been very busy with work only catching the news in between, but what I have seen over the past few days or a week is that the republicans are not being treated fairly by the democrats. I voted for Obama because I believed that he would be the best choice and like he said he would be able to get the republicans and democrats to be able to work together. I didn't see that with McCain. I didn't vote for Obama because of his plans because I knew it was just campaigning and all a bunch of garbage. No president yet to this date has ever fulfilled their campaign promises. But I voted for Obama because I believed he would unite the two parties together and maybe something could get done in Washington to help the people. What I have seen so far is just too sad beyond words. More failed promises. I was truly hoping for some "class", but I don't see it happening and I'm not sure if it's worse than it was before. Granted it's only been a couple weeks and I keep hoping things will turn around, but seems like all the people Obama is picking for his cabinet members are democrats (and crooked ones at that) with maybe one or two republicans to give the illusion that he is giving fairness to both sides. As for the congress, all I see on the news is they are acting like a bunch of spoiled children. They are blatantly ignoring republicans as thought they are children saying "we won and you didn't nana nana na na. We don't have to listen to you now nana nana na na" (remember that little song you used to do as kids). There many great republicans and many great democrats. My husband keeps telling me we have to have check and balance. He said these republicans represent part of the country too. Not every person in this country is a democrat and if we give full reign to them that is when you have a dictatorship (tyranny or whatever you want to call it) and they will pass anything they want to paying back all the people who bought them and they promised favors to.
The last administration was certainly not one of the best, but neither was the Clinton or Carter either. DH and I were talking about it last night and he said during Carter administration it was so bad that the only thing out there was the military to join, and that it what I am seeing starting to happen here.
I don't think anything should be "given" to either one side or the other, but the republicans deserve to be treated with the same respect that people are demanding they treat the democrats with. There are good ideas on both sides and if congress is filled with people lining their own pockets then maybe they need to be fired now so we can start again with people who care about the American people and what is happening to the country.
I believe that congress should be filled with people from outside of washington. There are so many good politicians in each state (ones we have never heard of yet), who do good things. Maybe it's time to get rid of people like Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, and all the "stable" washington crowd and replace with people who have a proven record of doing good for our country.
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
In all fairness, your posts were attacking and unkind. sm
And may have even been unfounded. I believe both of you were off base with the posts. I have once again posted a reminder at the top of the board.
You lefties are so fair....the fairness is staggering...
attack him for not paying attention to hurricane and then attack him for paying attention to hurricane. Just proves that all you want to do is attack, attack, attack.
In all fairness, the O rarely voted at all since his campain started
Go check his record on the government site, but in all fairness, McCain didn't vote much either since this campaign. Still I think he voted more than the O. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AND NO BASHING. Serious question here. I don't have time to count every vote and I did try to do that a month ago and posted my results.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Why is fairness in taxation considered a handout? This isn't welfare... it's paying the right
o
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules....sm
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules
by Connie Hair
01/05/2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”
In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would 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 during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.
Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.
Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.
January 5, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madame Speaker,
We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.
President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.
As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.
The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.
This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.
Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.
Sincerely,
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican
(Click here for a pdf copy of the letter with signatures.)
Thinking
Subject: Thinking is
> dangerous
>
>
>
>
>
> It started out innocently enough.
>
> I began to think at parties now and then -- to loosen up.
>
> Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than
> just a
> social thinker.
>
> I began to think alone -- to relax, I told myself -- but I knew it
> wasn't
> true.
>
> Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking
> all
> the time.
>
> That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off
> the
> TV
> and asked my wife about the meaning of life.
>
> She spent that night at her mother's.
>
> I began to think on the job.
>
> I knew that thinking and em! ployment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.
>
> I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka.
>
> I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, What is it
> exactly
> we are doing here?
>
> One day the boss called me in.
>
> He said, Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your
> thinking
> has
> become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have
> to
> find another job.
>
> This gave me a lot to think about.
>
> I came home early after my conversation with the boss.
>
> Honey, I confessed, I've been thinking...
>
> I know you've been thinking, she said, and I want a divorce!
>
> But Honey, surely it's not that serious.
>
> It is serious, she said, lower lip aquiver. You think as much as
&! gt; college
> professors, and college professors don't ! make any money, so if you keep on
> thinking, we won't have any money!
>
> That's a faulty syllogism, I said impatiently.
>
> She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to
> deal
> with
> the emotional drama.
>
> I'm going to the library, I snarled as I stomped out the door.
>
> I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche.
>
> I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big
> glass
> doors...
>
> They didn't open. The library was closed.
>
> To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that
> night.
>
> Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster
> caught
> my
> eye.
>
> Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life? it asked.
>
> You probably recognize that line.! It comes from the standard Thinker's
> Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.
>
> I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational
> video;
> last week it was Porky's. Then we share experiences about how we avoided
> thinking since the last meeting.
>
> I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.
>
> Life just seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.
>
> I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.
>
> Today, I registered to vote as a Republican... |
|
![src=http://webmail.bellsouth.net/i/s.gif]() |
![src=http://webmail.bellsouth.net/i/s.gif]() |
![src=http://webmail.bellsouth.net/i/s.gif]() |
|
|
WHAT was I thinking!!!!
I forgot only your opinion counts. Please forgive me.
Whatever was I thinking? NT
m
W's thinking (or not)
W. finds time to attend the services for the VT students (as he ought), yet fails to attend a single funeral of any one of the soldiers he has sent into war; no excuse in my book. I am currently listening to the service on TV and the Governor of VA is saying how W knows **first as a governor and now as president the importance of comfort and consolation necessary in these sad times.** (paraphrased a bit) Soldiers and their families don't need comfort or consolation...that is just wrong. People who have voluntarily put their lives in danger at the behest of their president and in duty to their country are not afforded the respect of the man's (who sent them there presence??) This is not to minimize in any way the tragedy at VT. I realize that one cannot attend 3300 funerals but maybe at least 1 in each state or something. These soldiers deserved better.
Gee, with this way of thinking, I should
be VP, a heartbeat from the presidency. I am NOT Washingtonian. I am a normal person. My husband is a blue collar worker. I have three children and six grandchildren. Hmmmm.... Why wasn't I called!? Since 1984, I have felt that the American people are so stupid, and as it turns out, I am right.
Like he said...he kept thinking they would do something...
and they aren't. ANd you would think that the man who is going to be president would want to BE THERE and hear things FIRST HAND on the biggest crisis of the country. Good grief, admit it, if Obama had done it first you would be singing his praises and saying all the things we are saying about McCain. Just admit it...lol Geez.
|
