Prop 8 --- majority rules problem...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-15
In Reply to:
Okay, I've seen several posts on here about how Prop 8 should be upheld because *the majority rules.* Almost every civil rights movement that was successful including the right for women to vote, the right for inter-racial marriage, etc would have never made it if we had gone by the idea that the majority rules. In fact, isn't that the point of civil rights? -- to protect minorities? Also, the constitution says *we the people,* not we the christians. ARRRRGGGGHHH!
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
Majority rules not the minority
as long as someone is given the option not to participate then no one is getting hurt. If they are the only one in the class that does not want to say it then that's life. We can't cower majority traditions and beliefs to make every individual feel included. We'd truly have chaos then, because every one's feelings are different.
U R right - Palin is just a prop
z
Boycott those who supported Prop 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Since Proposition 8 passed, several legal challenges to Proposition 8 have already been filed in California courts, and more than 40 state legislators filed a friend-of-the-court briefs to support legal efforts to void Proposition 8. A series of protests have spread across California, and are sweeping the country, and now they've moved onto the Internet with blacklists that are outing those who gave money to get Proposition 8 passed.
Reminiscent of Christian boycotts against companies who supported gay rights, and the ever popular War on _____ boycotts, now gay right activists are calling for the same action. Several new websites have launched that list all the names and businesses of all the donors. Evidently those who made political donations to Prop8 did not realize that their contributions are a matter of public record... or that publishing those records is legal.
http://electiontrack.com/
http://antigayblacklist.com/
Why blacks voted for Prop 8
Interesting column from the Times, written by a black. I bring this here just as a matter of interest. I found it to be quite interesting.
Op-Ed Columnist
Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: November 29, 2008
We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California. Why?
There was one very telling (and virtually ignored) statistic in CNN’s exit poll data that may shed some light: There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.
Why? Here are my theories:
(1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. Anyone who has ever been to a black church can attest to the disparity in the pews. And black women’s church attendance may be increasing.
According to a report issued this spring by Child Trends, a nonprofit research center, weekly church attendance among black 12th graders rose 26 percent from 1993 to 2006, while weekly church attendance for white 12th graders remained virtually flat. In 2006, those black teenagers were nearly 50 percent more likely to attend church once a week than their white counterparts. And it is probably safe to assume that many of them were going to church with their mothers since Child Trends reported that around the time that they were born, nearly 70 percent of all black children were born to single mothers.
(2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. Let’s just call them Afropublicrats.
(3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.
Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. In the CNN national exit poll, there were 40 percent more black women than black men, and in California there were 50 percent more. But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them.
First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. They’re the least likely of all groups to intermarry, and many don’t look kindly on the black men who intermarry at nearly three times the rate that they do, according to a 2005 study of black intermarriage rates in the Wisconsin Law Review. Wrong reference. Don’t even go there.
Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.
Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.
For instance, most blacks find premarital sex unacceptable, according to the Gallup data. But, according to data from a study by the Guttmacher Institute, blacks are 26 percent more likely than any other race to have had premarital sex by age 18, and the pregnancy rate for black teens is twice that of white teens. They still have premarital sex, but they do so uninformed and unprotected.
That leads to a bigger problem. According to a 2004 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, black women have an abortion rate that is three times that of white women.
More specifically, blacks overwhelmingly say that homosexuality isn’t morally acceptable. So many black men hide their sexual orientations and engage in risky behavior. This has resulted in large part in black women’s becoming the fastest-growing group of people with H.I.V. In a 2003 study of H.I.V.-infected people, 34 percent of infected black men said they had sex with both men and women, while only 6 percent of infected black women thought their partners were bisexual. Tragic. (In contrast, only 13 percent of the white men in the study said they had sex with both men and women, while 14 percent of the white women said that they knew their partners were bisexual.)
So pitch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.
Oh, don't forget about the Obama puppy!! Prop & MASCOT!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law
The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.
The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.
Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.
Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson
The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.
Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.
Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.
Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8
The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.
ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.
In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.
Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy
The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.
In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:
"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...
"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"
The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.
Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.
In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."
Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda
Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.
In 1998, Mother Jones reported:
"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...
"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."
Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.
In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."
"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."
To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
You are right. I will obey the rules from now on. sm
Have a nice holiday.
Sure you don't break the rules
Sure you don't. Your fingerprints are all over the conservative board, but that's neither here or there but I could really care less.
Some of Pelosi's new rules sm
This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.
The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.
Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:
No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.
No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.
No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.
Temptations resisted
To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.
House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.
Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.
Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.
What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.
Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.
At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?
Can it work?
No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.
But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.
Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.
Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.
This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.
They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.
Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.
These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.
The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.
rules, forum
dd
Where does one find the rules? There have been...
many posts that were quite lengthy. Is there a limit on length or just cut and paste?
I understand that is against the rules, but
the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign. 
I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.
they have not changed the rules yet
Hedge funds are still doing sneak attacks on companies, driving them into the dirt.
Citigroup got hit today, down 23%. It is worth 6 bucks and one year ago was 40. They need to change the rules on these hedge funds. They can pick on any company and kill it in a day.
Okay. Thanks. I understand now. Different rules for different boards.
nm
Just playing by liberal rules
It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.
Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.
Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...
Have a nice night....
Actually I agree about the rules. But don't use the first when you really don't respect it.
x
And the monitor obviously has one-sided rules.
All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.
It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.
At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.
All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.
Says a lot about fairness on this board.
And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.
Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.
To Monitor: A CON says your rules are *stupid*
and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.
Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).
Please ask them to leave.
Posted By: huh? on 2006-03-10,
In Reply to: Oh, she revealed it on the Conservative Board - ??
The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.
I already posted the one that said your rules are stupid
in my post to you above. Another example is the post below.
Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.
There are other sites where the rules are enforced equally, even for liberals.
See ya.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Seems he likes to make up the rules as he goes along (sm)
You know, like a child playing a board game changes the rules all the way through to make sure he or she will win? If he was going to improve his aquaintances he should have done that a loooong time ago. Not right now before the election, looks kinda....fishy.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
thought this article was interesting.
Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan
How is it possible that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?
The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, “Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."
But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.
So how is it that the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn’t apply to her?
Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC’s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?
Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.
Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization’s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.
Bo Underwood promised to get back with me on how the Governor’s soon to be son-in-law got into the apprentice program.
The Alaska Standard has a call into the Governor’s office as well. We’ll let you know when we hear back from them on this issue.
Pardon me. Are you saying the rules are not enforced equally? sm
I asked for an example, i.e., a specific post. Which post is it specifically. I do not have time to read every post on this board. Also, you said insults. I asked for examples of that. Again, you did not provide any. I am not quite sure how I am to do something about anything when you are not cooperating. I have, in the past, posted equally on both boards regarding sticking to the boards you belong on. However, I can't assume that simply because someone disagrees with your point of view, that they are of a certain political persuasian. That would be, indeed, labeling and unfair on my part. I will post another reminder about which board to stay on, but I don't appreciate your insinuation that there is favoritism here. As the board owner has said before, if this board is not to your liking, you certainly have options.
Sounds like a petty, cruel god's rules
Actually this sounds like a human's idea of what a god would want. So obsessed with rules and regulations......
We haven't changed the rules at all. To what are you referring?
/
I follow the Old Testament and those rules aren't too
NM
Bush weakens EPA/ESA rules to pave way for
that would be mountain-top mining of the kind that has blown mountain tops off in the Appalchains. Ever seen a picture of this? Is this the kind of drill, baby drill you want?
My post is in accordance with forum rules.
Apparently, you have not read the moderator's post at the top of the Politics forum, which instructs you to keep religious posts where they belong on the Faith forum. The moderator has indicated that religious posts will be removed from the Politics forum and placed on the Faith forum, as they should be. If you have a problem with this, maybe you should discuss it with the moderator.
I don't make the rules, Sir Percy. The Administrator was. The fact is. sm
I agree with you. But this board has a history and as you can see, on both boards, the minute an opposing point of view comes on board, the moderators are summoned. It's a fact. This used to be a combined board but it was separated because of constant insults and failure to behave as mature adults.
Court rules Bush violated Clean Air Act
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html
Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.
New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.
It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.
In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.
Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.
Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.
President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.
Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.
The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.
EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.
EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.
The other two judges on the panel were David S. Tatel and Janice Rogers Brown.
The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.
Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
U.S. military violated own rules on mentally ill troops...sm
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET May 13, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. - U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions.
The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.
In 1997, Congress ordered the military to assess the mental health of all deploying troops. The newspaper, citing Pentagon statistics, said fewer than 1 in 300 service members were referred to a mental health professional before shipping out for Iraq as of October 2005.
And: Study the comma rules and capitalize 'European'
You see, every day you learn something new, from me.
Hehehehe!
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
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.)
Usually, the majority is right!!!!
.
A majority of 2.
Does it get anymore pathetic?
The majority, as you put it, did not even
know who they were voting for. They heard one thing: CHANGE. Yet, change is not what we are getting. It's politics as usual. O does not know how to lead. He only knows how to follow. He is letting people like Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, and countless others walk all over him. He has no clout. He is a lamb being led to the slaughter, yet he doesn't realize it yet.
If he wants to be a good president, he would stop the antics going on now, but I really don't think he knows how to do it. It's a shame, too, because although I did not vote for him, I had hope.
Check photos of him lately. He's not looking so confident anymore. He is starting to think he got in over his head and unless he takes control of the dems, he will go down in history as a president worse than Jimmy Carter.
JMHO
And this has WHAT to do with the fact that the majority..sm
of jobs paying minimum wage are not held by teenagers looking for extra money to buy ipods.
I'm waiting scarecrow with a brain....
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
Because he will likely have a majority in Congress....
and THAT is how you get things passed.
No, Majority knows O could use those qualities
Remember TACT? DIPLOMACY? 2 things that are important qualities in a leader. Especially if you ever want your country to be taken seriously again. Right now it's a laughing stock.
You still here? -being in the majority makes you
nm
The majority of them truly believe in their mission.
I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff. There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know. That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.
The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq. A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours. The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.
The Majority of Citizens?
Let's see tomorrow morning.
The moral majority is neither
all that moral, or the majority. Don't assume who the majority is until they cast their vote.
What I meant was when the majority
of people want same sex marriage, the measure will pass. Until then, they will just have to keep putting it to a vote. We the people have the right to decide what we want; majority rules and most don't want same sex marriage. Have a civil union, have the same benefits, etc, but don't call it marriage.
And just how do you propose to know what the majority
This is exactly the kind of post that completely undermines any credibility that you might perceive that you have.
Speak for yourself. You know nothing of anyone else's reasons for voting for our NEW PRESIDENT. You're going to have a pretty miserable 8 years ahead of you unless you stop beating this old, dead horse.
you don't even realize who the majority are
You seem to fail to remember that not everyone in America voted this election.
69,456,897 people voted for the O
234,367,743 did not
I would not say the majority of America voted for him. He didn't even get 1/3 of America's votes.
He won by a majority...unlike the last guy!
So what's your point?
Oh, but the majority of Americans DOES
More than the majority of Americans still support OUR LEADER - thank you very much
|
