I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
RE: Attacking a woman and insinuating she has testicles Â
It's ok, I said he had a sandy vagina. While I don't have testicles, I don't whine like a bitch about everything and everyone. So yeah, I guess I am ballsy.
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
Except for the part about buford. What she may or may not "add to the discussions" is opinion. I thoroughly disagree with her, but she has as much right to post as anyone. She's no more disagreeable than most including me.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
Like it or not, there are criteria for embryo, fetus and toddler. You have accepted the sanitized version of what is being done, most people do, I did before I watched the videos. It's how this gruesome practice continues. And to the poster who cited the research angle, the fetal cells can be replaced by adult stem cells. Link - ( New Window )
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
we always believe that we are in the right, that we are in the majority, that we are the center, when in truth we just have an opinion and view which has no less but no greater legitimacy than anyone else's. Failure to recognize this leads to intransigence and hostility.
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Obviously. And I'm not arrogant enough to think my ideas are absolutely correct, that's why I ended my post with "IMHO". I am willing to change my mind when presented with facts or experience, and I have.
You're dead wrong. Everyone showed up expecting Murphy to be selected. When he backed out, the candidates needed time for electioneering. There was no candidate standing that had a shot at half the caucus yesterday, let alone 218. It had nothing to do with Ryan, and everything to do with not racing through a process to pick the Speaker given a bizarre development.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is considering a bid for Speaker, a source close to the congressman told The Hill.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is considering a bid for Speaker, a source close to the congressman told The Hill.
Issa would be a fiasco- Newt 2. Pass
RE: 15 percent of the Republican Caucus wants 100 percent of their agenda Â
passed or nothing gets done or they shut down the Government. So 9 percent of the House either gets what it wants or no soup for you
Or the democrats... or the republicans. Don't be obtuse. This all or nothing permeates the entire congress. I think Newt started it and Pelosi and Reid were just as bad.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
"McCarthy fell to a conservative coup." The House is in serious trouble, and thus Republican party is in trouble, and the country is in trouble, unless the non-Tea Party Republicans figure out a solution to this crisis, and soon. Note what the Tea Partiers in the House are demanding:
Quote:
Even if Ryan or another figure can temporarily unite the caucus, the conservatives’ demands will inevitably lead to chaos. As I wrote earlier this week, they’re seeking not just showdowns over spending but procedural changes that would bring anarchy, including unlimited freedom to amend legislation; a ban on legislation that doesn’t have the support of a majority of GOP members; and a refusal to take up compromise legislation worked out by the Senate.
From the viewpoint of anyone who thinks we need to have a functioning government, these are scary times.
Again, Buford, if you don't want Boehner "acting like a dictator," you must have an alternative in mind. What is it? Link - ( New Window )
RE: buford, it's your strongly stated ignorance... Â
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
to the Milbank column, Issa says that no one had anything close to the 200 votes that McCarthy had. (I still dont like Milbank from his days as a reporter)
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Can you specify which ones and what they say that is crazy?
I get that he's a guy who could swing 220+ votes, and Boehner probably thinks that Ryan may be the only one who can do that. And Boehner mostly wants a replacement in place and to GTFO (prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should JB go into lobbying).
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
You're dead wrong. Everyone showed up expecting Murphy to be selected. When he backed out, the candidates needed time for electioneering. There was no candidate standing that had a shot at half the caucus yesterday, let alone 218. It had nothing to do with Ryan, and everything to do with not racing through a process to pick the Speaker given a bizarre development.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
No, McCarthy did not have the votes. So either he pulled out or he was told to pull out. There were a few others who were trying to get support and I don't have a problem with delaying the vote. But what Boehner is doing is trying to hand select his successor and since McCarthy put his foot in his mouth, they now want Paul Ryan. And Boehner says unless Ryan takes the job, he will stay. If that isn't being dictatorish or even royalty like, I don't know what is.
The House members complaints about Boehner wasn't just that he wasn't conservative in reality, it is that he did not allow for open debate and individual voices to be heard. This is just viewed as another extension of that.
RE: buford, it's your strongly stated ignorance... Â
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
See my post to Deej. Again, professed liberals attempting to understand what the feelings are in the Republican House among members and the people who voted for them is hilarious. There are a few members who have said they are interested. How about giving them time to get support rather than strong arming someone who doesn't want the job because you feel he can be controlled? Let the process play out. Let the people who were elected to represent the people of the US have their voices heard. This whole thing started because house members and voters were sick of Boehner and the way he runs things. Letting him dictate what happens after he is gone is the wrong way to go. It would be horrible for Ryan to be burdened with that.
McCarthy wasn't going to have the votes even before the Benghazi Â
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
just find me one GOP MOC who said that the vote should have proceeded and that someone would have been elected.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
I get that he's a guy who could swing 220+ votes, and Boehner probably thinks that Ryan may be the only one who can do that. And Boehner mostly wants a replacement in place and to GTFO (prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should JB go into lobbying).
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
just a small correction.
(prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should when JB go into lobbying).
On the other hand, please identify what part of what he describes the Tea Partiers as demanding is incorrect. Whining that you don;t like him isn't the same as describing where he gets his facts wrong.
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
Quote:
To seize this “opportunity,” they presented the three contenders for the speakership — McCarthy, Jason Chaffetz and Daniel Webster — with a list of demands that would increase the (already deafening) voice of conservatives in the House.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want — and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that “we can't shut down the government,” said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight — “even if we fail.”
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world. Link - ( New Window )
RE: McCarthy wasn't going to have the votes even before the Benghazi Â
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
I dont think it is an interim speaker gig. At least I havent seen it proposed that way.
This is an interesting play by Ryan. I suspect he just genuinely doesnt want the job, either because he's happier doing policy than vote counting, or in particular doesnt want to be incharge of this group at this moment. In some ways it is too soon in any event. Lets say he becomes Speaker now. What does he do when that ends in 2-8 years? He's too young to peak now.
just find me one GOP MOC who said that the vote should have proceeded and that someone would have been elected.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
We don't know if someone would have been elected. There were two other candidates who put their names forward. And again, Boehner has not just postponed the vote, he is pushing for Ryan or he will stay. And yes, there are many people in the house who are not happy with this. Louie Gohmert for one.
Instead of complaining about "you liberals," please answer the following:
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
He doesn't want the job. I believe him when he says he doesn't. Right now he's getting leaned on heavily by all the bigwigs to take it because there really aren't any other candidates who both want and can get the position. The interim thing was just a guess on my part, based on the idea that he makes such an offer to get them off his back and try to keep this from becoming more of a fiasco.
Instead of complaining about "you liberals," please answer the following:
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
Sorry if you object to being called a liberal, but you are. And your views have been made quite clear here. My solution is to let the process play out as it is supposed to. Have people who want the job put their names forward and let the members vote. Enough of this top down strategy. That is why Boehner was a horrible speaker in the first place. You don't agree, fine. But your perspective is a bit skewed. Whether you want to admit it or not.
My guess is that Ryan will continue to say no... Â
even on an interim basis, unless the Freedom Caucus takes their demands off the table. The job is distasteful, unpalatable and damaging to Republicans generally unless they do.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
I think the smart move is to let this play out. Show the Freedom folks that chaos isnt a plan. Then after a few weeks, someone to the right of 2/3 of the caucus will emerge and be generally acceptable. Rushing it will just get you a Speaker who is too weak to get the bare minimum of business done.
There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, he's Louie fucking Gohmert. It's like if I told you that Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters said something, and then pretended that it somehow mattered.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
It's ok, I said he had a sandy vagina. While I don't have testicles, I don't whine like a bitch about everything and everyone. So yeah, I guess I am ballsy.
Quote:
I really enjoy reading Eric's posts on these threads because he's obviously a very intelligent person and seems like a really good guy, so I'm curious to see why his positions are often (though not always) so different than my own on some of these issues.
People like buford really add nothing to these discussions (sorry, but it's true) but I hope Eric keeps allowing these threads and keeps contributing to them.
THIS^^^^
Except for the part about buford. What she may or may not "add to the discussions" is opinion. I thoroughly disagree with her, but she has as much right to post as anyone. She's no more disagreeable than most including me.
Quote:
In comment 12535654 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12535623 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12535601 schabadoo said:
Quote:
A nineteen week old fetus is not an embryo.
And no one said it was.
Buford and Eric are calling embryos babies, however.
How old do you think the fetuses are in these videos? Many are 18 weeks or more. Those are not embryos. The embryo stage is about 10 weeks. Then it's a fetus.
You need to call the fetal tissue they're selling babies. That's on you.
It must play better, lumping embryos and fetuses in with babies.
You are the one doing the lumping. As I said, the organs (not tissue) are harvested from fetuses above a certain age. Not embryos. And in a few weeks those fetuses would be babies that could survive outside the womb. You are the one who has to use sanitized terminology to make it more palatable for you to accept.
I'd think you were kidding, but I fear you're not.
You can call fetuses and embryos toddlers, you'd be just as accurate.
Like it or not, there are criteria for embryo, fetus and toddler. You have accepted the sanitized version of what is being done, most people do, I did before I watched the videos. It's how this gruesome practice continues. And to the poster who cited the research angle, the fetal cells can be replaced by adult stem cells.
Link - ( New Window )
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Quote:
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
The Speaker is a dictator? Of course he is, that is his job. IMHO Boehner wasn't enough of a dictator. That is why Pelosi got stuff done. If you screwed with Pelosi, she cut your nuts off...
Yes, Pelosi made the trains run on time....
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Quote:
In comment 12535940 buford said:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Well I'm sure those people think your political positions are wrong too.
Obviously. And I'm not arrogant enough to think my ideas are absolutely correct, that's why I ended my post with "IMHO". I am willing to change my mind when presented with facts or experience, and I have.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
Hope you are doing well
Any update?
Hope you are doing well
Issa would be a fiasco- Newt 2. Pass
Or the democrats... or the republicans. Don't be obtuse. This all or nothing permeates the entire congress. I think Newt started it and Pelosi and Reid were just as bad.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
It wont be Issa. The alleged skeletons in his closet (whether true or not) will be too much to overcome.
From the viewpoint of anyone who thinks we need to have a functioning government, these are scary times.
Again, Buford, if you don't want Boehner "acting like a dictator," you must have an alternative in mind. What is it?
Link - ( New Window )
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
+1
Preening, snotty, obnoxious etc. Just a huge douchebag.
Quote:
Boehner is acting like a dictator. He shut down the election for speaker until he can get a candidate that he (and K-Street) like. Ryan is a good guy, but he would be more of the same establishment and he doesn't want the job. Boehner needs to step aside and let the House decide. That is the main problem, he has been a dictator as speaker and that is what many members have rebelled against.
And while many of you may not agree with me on issues, you have to see that this situation is exactly what is wrong with DC today. Guys get into Congress, stay for decades, get into leadership, get rich from donors/lobbyists and land deals that they push legislation for, and then rule over the representatives that we elect. Our voices are being stifled by corporatist in both parties that put their personal advancement above their job to represent the people. Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard. Not to just be fodder for the DC machine.
I'll vote for someone who is against this, even if I disagree on certain issues. Someone who understands what the role of DC should be, not what it is now. Someone who will represent the people, not the donors or K street. Not someone who will flip flop on issues to be the flavor of the month. Someone who will stop the disastrous course we are on of increased taxing/spending/debt of endless regulation by agencies that are not elected. Someone who will stop the strangulation of business which could flourish and boost our economy so that we can solve some of our financial issues. But if you are happy with the status quo, and you think things are honky dorry, then keep voting for the usually DC politician. They are the ones who got us into this mess, what makes you think that they will even try to get us out of it?
I actually agree with much of this post in principle. But
Quote:
Why are you calling people who are against that crazies? It's not just about social issues. The Freedom Caucus is fighting to have their voice heard, to have the voices of the people who elected them heard
those voices are just so wrong headed and some, yes, crazy IMHO.
Can you specify which ones and what they say that is crazy?
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
Are you just making up this criticism? Did anyone in the room come out and complain that the vote was put off?
No, McCarthy did not have the votes. So either he pulled out or he was told to pull out. There were a few others who were trying to get support and I don't have a problem with delaying the vote. But what Boehner is doing is trying to hand select his successor and since McCarthy put his foot in his mouth, they now want Paul Ryan. And Boehner says unless Ryan takes the job, he will stay. If that isn't being dictatorish or even royalty like, I don't know what is.
The House members complaints about Boehner wasn't just that he wasn't conservative in reality, it is that he did not allow for open debate and individual voices to be heard. This is just viewed as another extension of that.
Boehner is acting like a dictator? Really? How about needing to find a candidate that can get 218 votes? Buford, do you have such a candidate in mind. Certainly, if Boehner is handly this incorrectly, you must have an alternative in mind? No one from the right side of the party will get 100 votes, let alone 218.
So what the fuck do you propose that he do? He really doesn't want this assignment. Nor does he think that shutting down the government is a great idea for the party or the country, or defaulting on the debt, which would be an extraordinary disaster for both.
What, or who, is your solution?
See my post to Deej. Again, professed liberals attempting to understand what the feelings are in the Republican House among members and the people who voted for them is hilarious. There are a few members who have said they are interested. How about giving them time to get support rather than strong arming someone who doesn't want the job because you feel he can be controlled? Let the process play out. Let the people who were elected to represent the people of the US have their voices heard. This whole thing started because house members and voters were sick of Boehner and the way he runs things. Letting him dictate what happens after he is gone is the wrong way to go. It would be horrible for Ryan to be burdened with that.
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
Putting aside my disagreements with Ryan's ideology, the guy is an ivory tower type, not a vote counter. There is no reason to think that he could ride herd over the GOP caucus. This is a problem that the Freedom Caucus folks dont seem to grasp -- the Speaker position is inherently political and not policy based. You need a Speaker who can move legislation and keep a coalition together. And Ryan to date has no experience doing that.
just a small correction.
(prob with a preference for someone he gets along with should when JB go into lobbying).
There aren't a lot of descriptions of the Freedom Caucus demands, which were described at a luncheon on Wednesday, on the Net, yet. Here's another one.
There may only be a few dozen die-hard conservatives in the caucus, but, as Boehner and McCarthy have learned, if they withhold their votes, they deny Republican leaders a majority. Any would-be speaker, therefore, had better do what conservatives want — and that includes likely showdowns over a debt-ceiling increase, an omnibus spending bill, a transportation bill and Export-Import Bank legislation.
Beyond that, the conservatives demand that the speaker never punish them for voting against the caucus; let them amend legislation on the floor at will; never let bills come to the floor without the support of a majority of Republicans; and refuse to take up Senate-brokered compromises.
That would lead to shutdown and default in short order. But this did not seem to be a major concern over lunch. Labrador, mocking GOP leaders' claims that “we can't shut down the government,” said he would prefer a leader who would be willing to fight — “even if we fail.”
I have yet to find any article that claims that these are NOT what the Freedom Caucus is demanding.
Counter examples? Anyone? If not, do you think this it is reasonable for thirty-odd Congressmen on the extreme right of their party to demand a set of rules that puts them in pretty much full control of the House?
Where I come cfrom, that is called a coup, and has absolutely nothing to do with running a constitutional democracy, nor is it replicated in a functioning democracy in the history of the US or the developed world.
Link - ( New Window )
Deej - what I'd guess happens is that Ryan, as a compromise candidate who both sides of the party generally approve of, agrees to serve as a sort of interim speaker for the rest of this session as a means of buying time to find a speaker for the next season. This lets Weepy go home as he wants to do and at least lets the whole media frenzy die down a bit. On Ryan's part, it makes him look good - he's the reluctant good solider, which is always a positive light.
I dont think it is an interim speaker gig. At least I havent seen it proposed that way.
This is an interesting play by Ryan. I suspect he just genuinely doesnt want the job, either because he's happier doing policy than vote counting, or in particular doesnt want to be incharge of this group at this moment. In some ways it is too soon in any event. Lets say he becomes Speaker now. What does he do when that ends in 2-8 years? He's too young to peak now.
You cant do that. And as such, complaining that Boehner shut down the vote is silly. Complaining that he did it for the purpose of hand picking his successor and that he's a dictator because of that is even sillier. HE SHUT IT DOWN BECAUSE NO ONE COULD BE ELECTED AND THERE WAS AN 11TH HOUR GAME CHANGER. Why do you need to go ahead and fabricate a nefarious motive?
We don't know if someone would have been elected. There were two other candidates who put their names forward. And again, Boehner has not just postponed the vote, he is pushing for Ryan or he will stay. And yes, there are many people in the house who are not happy with this. Louie Gohmert for one.
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
1) Do you think the Freedom Caucus demands are reasonable?
2) Do you think their willingness to shut down the government and default on the debt is reasonable? Would they lead to a House that could function at all?
3) Is there any potential candidate for Speaker who would accede to those demands and still garner 218 votes?
4) If not, what is your solution?
Calling me a liberal doesn't deal with the political science issues currently on the table. So, either come up with an alternative that doesn't simply state "you guys don't understand," or let actual adults discuss this.
Sorry if you object to being called a liberal, but you are. And your views have been made quite clear here. My solution is to let the process play out as it is supposed to. Have people who want the job put their names forward and let the members vote. Enough of this top down strategy. That is why Boehner was a horrible speaker in the first place. You don't agree, fine. But your perspective is a bit skewed. Whether you want to admit it or not.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
I think the smart move is to let this play out. Show the Freedom folks that chaos isnt a plan. Then after a few weeks, someone to the right of 2/3 of the caucus will emerge and be generally acceptable. Rushing it will just get you a Speaker who is too weak to get the bare minimum of business done.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
Quote:
Ohforchristssake. Louie fucking Gohmert.
He's a member of the House Republicans. And has a right to a voice, as they all do. If you want to keep your members marginalized, that's fine. But that is not how it is supposed to work.
On the other hand, he's Louie fucking Gohmert. It's like if I told you that Alan Grayson or Maxine Waters said something, and then pretended that it somehow mattered.
I can dream.