| Author | Message | ||
     Hybridmomentspass |
honolulu - where in NC are you at? Your profile says triad, i am just outside of Winston Salem. Also, the lottery thing mentioned earlier wouldnt work, in my opinion. Like it or not, would you rather have some rich guy that 'doesnt connect with the community' calling some shots, or some poor schmuck that cant keep his cell phone on? I'd be afraid some loser would be elected in that lottery. Im not very political, but enjoy the back and forth in these threads. Please, keep it up guys. | ||
| Dannyd |
I received this from one of my foreign friends and thought it was so appropriate: Shut the f*** up and appreciate what a truly fantastic, free and incredibly beautiful country you all live in and just f****** get along, and work together on solving the relatively small problems you are dealing with. You're not in f***** Somalia. You're blessed ! Good stuff!!  | ||
| Dannyd |
And watch this for another perspective from somebody who understand how lucky we truly are to live in this country: http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/news/Graham_B ensinger_InDepth/26116817#news/Graham_Bensinger_In Depth/26116817 | ||
| Sifo |
So why ask for the question if you're unwilling to answer? Pathetic! | ||
| Xdigitalx |
You must be Bitching to your foreign friends, maybe you should take their advice. haha. | ||
| Darth_villar |
This point has already been made, if the select 12 supercongressman don't have any more power or influence over the whole process, why would anyone deem it necessary to make the change? And if the change is only positive, why would anyone argue against it? Though the forefathers may not have been able to predict the advances in technology, why didn't they do this super congress in the first place? Perhaps because it wouldn't have equal representation by all the states and would circumvent the very idea of congress? Just one very basic example. The super congress puts forth a terrible bill, and no one wants to chose it. But if no action is taken, that the bill was addressing, the consequences would be even worse. In this case, it may be in the best interest to vote "yes" instead of shooting the bill down, because of the dire consequences. Whereas if we left congress as it was intended, it could be debated, changed, and eventually accepted once enough compromises were met. I see no good coming from this, even taking the standpoint that it is judicially sound. How exactly can this benefit the American people? Phil | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"Whereas if we left congress as it was intended, it could be debated, changed, and eventually accepted once enough compromises were met." did you see the Cspan coverage of the HealthCare debate?!?!? Do you honestly believe they read any more than their own pork barrel earmarks ? If there is to be unemployment, I like starting with them, | ||
| Ulyranger |
"Ulyranger: The only problem I see on the "no gravy" front is that it would effectively eliminate most folks from the pool of potential candidates, in that most can't afford to spend that much time away from work without pay. Only those with nice deep pockets could afford to serve, which is basically the way it is now." Honolulu, not saying every point was completely thought out.....just spit ballin' but I do believe I addressed that. That Congress does NOT need to be in session 8-10 months of the year. I suggested twice a year, a few weeks per. Special sessions could be called for major crisis and such. If someone cannot make the commitment then they have no business putting their name on a ballot. Job protections could be put in place similar to those for Military service. It should NOT be easy, should not raise one above their peers, nor fill their pockets. I tend to think we have gotten so deep in the mire precisely because they spend entirely too much time in DC getting their ears bent and pockets filled by lobbyists. Some seem to lament when they go home for vacations.......I actually celebrate......less damage can be inflicted on the People then. I think these same people expect that Congress should be constantly passing legislation, I say they should only be passing what is necessary and proper. Good, solid laws, but fewest possible to attain the goal. .....but what the heck do I know? They're just ideas and nobody really cares enough to do anything anyways. Status quo..... | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Hybrid: I'm in Winston-Salem Sifo: I've answered your question over and over and over. I'm done trying to explain my position to you. If you really believe this bill is unconstitutional, you should challenge it and have it overturned. It would be a waste of time, because as I've explained over and over again, it isn't unconstitutional. Why? Because it doesn't create two tiers of congress, despite the fact that you've chosen to believe it does. Olddog: You can't be serious. I've cited specific Article and Sections of the Constitution. I've cited the actual bill we've been debating. I've come to the realization that some folks aren't going to listen to logic and law. That is unfortunate, but it is what it is. Have fun agreeing with each other. (Que Sifo saying: just answer the question! Enter me responding: I already have! Read all of my previous responses to your question! Rinse and repeate. That should keep you busy for a while) | ||
| Ulyranger |
dannyd, with all due respect, who the f*** cares what your foreign friend thinks. I don't care what he thinks of his country's plight, why should he care what my or any other American's opinion of internal matters is? I guess the way I take his message is that we should all just put up our feet, fire up the tele, tear into a bag of cheetos and just let the minions continue the fundamental transformation without questioning. Wonder what's on the tube..... | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
with all due respect, who the f*** cares what your foreign friend thinks. I don't care what he thinks of his country's plight, why should he care what my or any other American's opinion of internal matters is? Therein lies a part of your problem, in your country you've always been brought up with a "we're the top dogs, f*** everybody else" attitude, this doesn't endear you a lot of people. If you take his message as being do nothing, you can't have been reading the same one as me, I read it as being more on the lines that your country's problems are of your own making & so should be simple enough to resolve with a collective effort. Personally I couldn't give a rat's what you think of foreigners, but I can assure you that from many people's point of view, you're blessed, but still bitching about the colour scheme in the toilets of paradise. The fact that you don't care says it all. What's on my tube? dust! I can't be arsed to watch it. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
having been overseas all too often, and in many shiate holes where people kill people because of the day of the week, their address, the color of their skin, their last name, or the city they live in (or came from) There is nothing like a good old fashioned ethnic clensing to make you realize we have things pretty well off here.... until you start to see the same undercurrents here that LEAD to those same conflicts overseas. There is a domestic struggle brewin = and maybe it gets branded as 'racist' for a call to arms propoganda; but it is as it always has been = power, money, influence, control, personal ego. Hell Al Gore is already calling for a bloody American Spring uprising.... (how many people believe his 'Inconvenient Truth' the notion that he is out shopping a 're-evolution' should be more than a passing curiosity) There is a wind blowing from DC, and I don't like the smell of it. I hope I am wrong - I am hedging my bets overseas. I really hope I dont have the occassion to say 'I F'cking told you so' .... but then again they did pass the healthcare bill, and the financial one right after it - WITHOUT READING EITHER! There is no clearer indication of Legislation/Taxation without Representation. Popcorn from overseas - pics as it happens. | ||
| Oldog |
Blue: I have read several pages of this and see 1 repeated theme, evasion, several pointed requests for an answer. You more than most seem to have been civil Kudos for that. the basic idea here is. the congressional leadership has decided to set up a Committee to draft a bill for a vote, The idea in leaderships' minds is to streamline the process. the question is it constitutional, I'm not sure that it is not. whats more important is what are the recommendations ( the bill ) to start the debit reduction process or the like. If its bad can it, Seriously spend some time watching C span I did the budget sessions in particular, What I saw from the democratic reps was Beyond my ability to comprehend, That thinking is why this country is in the state it is in economically .. I hope to GOD that 2013 sees a major house cleaning and perhaps the growth of the TEA party. The US is in serious trouble, the coffers are empty, The current prez and advisers are out of touch, and worse, Micromanaging, arrogant and incompetent. They seem to have missed the Soviet unions' Economic collapse and its lessons. I have been in one central American country, that was poor but improving, we really don't understand poverty | ||
| Sifo |
Honolulu, I'll ask a different question at this point. Can all Congressmen debate the content of a bill proposed by this committee and propose amendments to the bill? A simple yes or no will suffice. No need for a longer sentence claiming "I've already told you so". | ||
| Sifo |
Hell Al Gore is already calling for a bloody American Spring uprising.... I have no idea if this group was following ManBearPig's suggestion or not, but it's clear that race riots are on the way... http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/126825018.htm l (Message edited by SIFO on August 06, 2011) | ||
| Oldog |
Al Gore = Irrelevant | ||
| Blake |
Justin, You are certain that the bill is constitutional? Yet former federal judge Andrew Napolitano says it may be unconstitutional. Explain and justify please. | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>you're blessed, but still bitching about the colour scheme in the toilets of paradise. Please don't rattle me out of my comfortable xenophobia. It's not the colour, it's the person who left a streak of scat for the person following. The riots in Wisconsin. Saw the news and thought to my self, Self, this should make Eric Holder happy. | ||
| Blake |
In theory, the so-called super congress could draft legislation mandating thal all Texas must provide cowboy boots and Stetsons for all Americans. The vote could carry the bill in the house despite "no" votes from the Texas representatives. It could also carry in the senate absent the ability of a Texas senator to debate the bill (filibuster being the extreme of "debate")  . That theoretical scenario reveals the unconstitutionality of the bill plainly I'd think. I'm no attorney. | ||
| Moxnix |
'The growth of subcommittee government has further weakened the congressional parties, as members are free to pursue their own policy interests without much concern for formal positions of power.' ~American Foreign Policy Making and the Democratic Dilemas, Spanier & Uslaner, 4th edition, 1985 I'm no attorney, either, but have brought cases 'pro se' in two US District courts, didn't lose. (Message edited by moxnix on August 06, 2011) | ||
| Dannyd |
I guess a lot of folks missed the point of my friends e-mail entirely. He was trying to say we as Americans are so blessed to be living in this country but all we seem to do is argue lately about everything. This thread is a perfect example of that!! | ||
| Moxnix |
When congress taxes arguing, we'll take the high road. | ||
| Oldog |
Blake I had not considered that as a possibility, granted its out there Right or wrong I think the idea is to limit the bill to the issue at hand the "super committee" meeting and congressional vote should be televised. My guess is that the leadership wants to avoid, being seen as responsible for cuts to programs at home. Limit or eliminate the pork that is attached. etc Granted the folks in Texas can send me a set of boots size 12 1/2, I have a stetson  | ||
| Moxnix |
There are many threads available, most are not full of my avocational whining about our government. The First Amendment gives us the right to bitch. May I move to Denver and come out to the shop every day for a session of the "hot stove league?" | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Can all Congressmen debate the content of a bill proposed by this committee and propose amendments to the bill? No. they can debate the content, and they can vote yes or no, but they have no ability to propose amendments (although they can propose additions to the content prior to introduction of the bill, as I understand it. I don't think we disagree on that. Where we disagree is whether that makes the bill unconstitutional. In my opinion, it isn't, for all the reasons stated above. Sorry if it pisses you off that I don't want to copy and paste what I've already said, but its above and you can just as easily scan up through the pages and find it as I can. Blake: First, he says it may be unconstitutional. The flip side of that is, you guessed it, that it may be constitutional. As I said, you can scan up to find the basis for my opinion that it is constitutional. Also, while I'm glad you've found a former judge who believes this may be unconstitutional, but I hope you understand that what a former judge thinks isn't necessarily correct. I'm confident he would tell you that he has been wrong a time or two. | ||
| Sifo |
Can all Congressmen debate the content of a bill proposed by this committee and propose amendments to the bill? No. they can debate the content, and they can vote yes or no, but they have no ability to propose amendments (although they can propose additions to the content prior to introduction of the bill, as I understand it. I don't think we disagree on that. I'm glad we can agree that this makes some Congresscritters more equal than others. Sorry to hear that you think that somehow falls withing the intent of the Constitution. I'm happy to let anyone reading this thread decided for themselves what to think about your "answers" to my question on this. I would point out that a reply doesn't necessarily make an answer. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: You've accused me of lying in this thread for doing much less than you've done here. Where did we "agree that this makes some Congresscritters more equal than others?" Do you think it would be appropriate for me to call you a liar now? | ||
| Sifo |
Where did we "agree that this makes some Congresscritters more equal than others?" Gee, I don't know... I don't think we disagree on that. I really don't care what we agree on at this point. What I know is that there will be 12 Congresscritters that will have powers that differ from the other 523 Congresscritters. Equality is a simple Boolean equation where different is unequal. At least that's how it works for a software engineer. I guess I have no clue how it works for a lawyer. It really doesn't matter. I have no desire to try to convince you, and like I said in my last post, anyone reading this thread can make up their own minds. If you will feel better about yourself calling me a liar, please do so with my blessing. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Thanks for the permission. Personally, I hope that anyone reading this thread makes their decision about this bill based on their own reading of the United States Constitution as well as the bill itself, as opposed to the ramblings of a software engineer and a lawyer. | ||
| Blake |
Sifo is an honest man. Seek truth. |
