In one month of republican rule

[Sparx]

Well, it's been one month since the November 2 elections, with a Republican president and Congress, and what a month it's been! To recap some of the highlights:
· His Republican Senate colleagues humiliated Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector, who campaigned as a "moderate" and forced him to retract his commitment to preserve Roe v. Wade.
· The Republican House Caucus changed their rules to allow Tom Delay to continue serving as Majority Whip even if he is indicted.
· Congress added restrictive anti-choice language to the omnibus appropriations bill without even a vote.
· That same appropriations bill also included a provision allowing staff members of certain congressional committees to read the tax returns of any American. When Democrats discovered the language, Republicans denied any of them were responsible (including Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), whose name was attached to it) and finally blamed it on anonymous "staff members."
The Republican congressional leadership tried to erase this embarrassment without voting to remove it, but Democrats pointed out the solution was to give members of Congress time to read bills, so this kind of problem would not arise again. Republicans -- you're really going to be surprised by this -- refused.
So here we are after just one month after the election: humiliated moderates, overturned ethics laws, restrictions on choice, and intrusions into everyone's privacy.
Are we ready for 2006 yet??

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's the part you missed:

The voters have spoken. They elected not only a Republican President, but increased the Republican numbers in the House and Senate. They voted FOR the Republican agenda in nice fat numbers. So it really wouldn't make sense for those elected Republicans to kowtow TO the opposition and AGAINST the people that put them in office, now would it?

You can cry that you're not getting your way all you want. The fact is that you were outvoted and majority rules. And the majority wants what the Republicans have to offer.

 

[dems4me]

Well, it's been one month since the November 2 elections, with a Republican president and Congress, and what a month it's been! To recap some of the highlights:
· His Republican Senate colleagues humiliated Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector, who campaigned as a "moderate" and forced him to retract his commitment to preserve Roe v. Wade.
· The Republican House Caucus changed their rules to allow Tom Delay to continue serving as Majority Whip even if he is indicted.
· Congress added restrictive anti-choice language to the omnibus appropriations bill without even a vote.
· That same appropriations bill also included a provision allowing staff members of certain congressional committees to read the tax returns of any American. When Democrats discovered the language, Republicans denied any of them were responsible (including Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), whose name was attached to it) and finally blamed it on anonymous "staff members."
The Republican congressional leadership tried to erase this embarrassment without voting to remove it, but Democrats pointed out the solution was to give members of Congress time to read bills, so this kind of problem would not arise again. Republicans -- you're really going to be surprised by this -- refused.
So here we are after just one month after the election: humiliated moderates, overturned ethics laws, restrictions on choice, and intrusions into everyone's privacy.
Are we ready for 2006 yet??

sparx... are you still here?

 

[Pete]

Here's the part you missed:

The voters have spoken. They elected not only a Republican President, but increased the Republican numbers in the House and Senate. They voted FOR the Republican agenda in nice fat numbers. So it really wouldn't make sense for those elected Republicans to kowtow TO the opposition and AGAINST the people that put them in office, now would it?

You can cry that you're not getting your way all you want. The fact is that you were outvoted and majority rules. And the majority wants what the Republicans have to offer.

You forgot to remind him that this is not "the first month of Republican rule" the next term does not start until January, so this is technically the old term. That means he has 4 full years of hell to handwring over ahead.

ALL ABOARD.......TRAIN 682 Departing for Montreal and Toronto. Be sure you have a job lined up, cash or a critical skill because Canada doesn't take losers, vagrants, broke people, or Union reps. They have standards.

 

[cattitude]

ALL ABOARD.......TRAIN 682 Departing for Montreal and Toronto. Be sure you have a job lined up, cash or a critical skill because Canada doesn't take losers, vagrants, broke people, or Union reps. They have standards.

And don't get sick.

 

[Pete]

And don't get sick.

If you do get sick please have the forethought to make your appointment 3 months ahead of time.

 

[dems4me]

You forgot to remind him that this is not "the first month of Republican rule" the next term does not start until January, so this is technically the old term. That means he has 4 full years of hell to handwring over ahead.

ALL ABOARD.......TRAIN 682 Departing for Montreal and Toronto. Be sure you have a job lined up, cash or a critical skill because Canada doesn't take losers, vagrants, broke people, or Union reps. They have standards.

I think he's already departed... you scared him away again

 

[Pete]

I think he's already departed... you scared him away again

He probably just needed to go change his maxi.

 

[Sparx]

You forgot to remind him that this is not "the first month of Republican rule" the next term does not start until January, so this is technically the old term. That means he has 4 full years of hell to handwring over ahead.

ALL ABOARD.......TRAIN 682 Departing for Montreal and Toronto. Be sure you have a job lined up, cash or a critical skill because Canada doesn't take losers, vagrants, broke people, or Union reps. They have standards.

I work with union reps from Canada all the time. Check your facts

 

[dems4me]

He probably just needed to go change his maxi.

kinder, softer, gentler :shrug:

 

[dems4me]

I work with union reps from Canada all the time. Check your facts

You're back!!! my hero!!!!

 

[Ken King]

I work with union reps from Canada all the time. Check your facts

That in itself doesn't mean you know anything.

 

[Pete]

I work with union reps from Canada all the time. Check your facts

It was meant as a sarcastic insult. Allow me to explain; I put the title "Union Reps" in with a series of less desirables separated with coma's. One normally assumes that in a list like that the same theme would follow throughout the series. Thus insinuating that Big labor employees hold the same social stigma as bums, vagrants and moochers. Quite simple, yet Union Reps would hardly qualify as a critical skill unless Canada changes their immigration law to include extortionists, con artists, used car salesmen and telemarketers.

 

[Pete]

You're back!!! my hero!!!!

you have pretty low standards for hero's. I suppose the guy who goofed up your fuel pump is up for Sainthood.

 

[dems4me]

you have pretty low standards for hero's. I suppose the guy who goofed up your fuel pump is up for Sainthood.

It was a hired mechanic --

 

[SmallTown]

They voted FOR the Republican agenda in nice fat numbers.

I wouldn't say I voted for a Rebublican agenda. I voted a person. When you say things like "voted for the republican agenda" you contradict what many people praise themselves for - voting for people, not just along party lines

There are many things about Bush's "agenda" I do not approve of. But between the two choices, well, sh!t happens.

 

[vraiblonde]

I voted a person. When you say things like "voted for the republican agenda" you contradict what many people praise themselves for - voting for people, not just along party lines.

But the fact is that very few people voted for a Senator or Representative because he was a nice guy or had a cute smile. They voted for his campaign platform, or agenda. That doesn't mean you voted along party lines - it means that this candidate just so happened to represent a lot of your same views, and just so happened to be a Republican. So you, in essence, voted for a Republican agenda over the Democratic one.

 

[FromTexas]

Well, it's been one month since the November 2 elections, with a Republican president and Congress, and what a month it's been! To recap some of the highlights:
· His Republican Senate colleagues humiliated Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector, who campaigned as a "moderate" and forced him to retract his commitment to preserve Roe v. Wade.
Wrong. He stated the words the Dems wanted to use were taken out of context. They said he would provide a litmus test against those who might oppose RvW. He came out and said he would provide no litmus tests to any judges coming in. After all, you do say there shouldn't be litmus tests as you have posted in talking points before? Oh yeah, litmus tests only matter when its a test you approve of!!!

· The Republican House Caucus changed their rules to allow Tom Delay to continue serving as Majority Whip even if he is indicted.
It was in case he was indicted on charges that should not have been brought against him. The prosecuting office involved has since said there is no illegal connection between Delay and the circumstances involved and dropped the idea of charging him.
· Congress added restrictive anti-choice language to the omnibus appropriations bill without even a vote.
*cough* obtuse *cough*
· That same appropriations bill also included a provision allowing staff members of certain congressional committees to read the tax returns of any American. When Democrats discovered the language, Republicans denied any of them were responsible (including Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK), whose name was attached to it) and finally blamed it on anonymous "staff members."
The Republican congressional leadership tried to erase this embarrassment without voting to remove it, but Democrats pointed out the solution was to give members of Congress time to read bills, so this kind of problem would not arise again. Republicans -- you're really going to be surprised by this -- refused.
Dems wanting a means to fillibuster further when they have lost control due to the voice of America people is all the "time to read" comes down to. If there wasn't enough time to read then how did this get discovered?

The person involved has been identified FYI and it was nothing so conspiratorial, if you bothered to get real facts instead of news snipits. Currently, there are 3 gatekeepers in Congress who control access to IRS facilities/information for Congressional purposes. T

he allowance for review of facilities/information is already there with Ways and Means. The issue that arose on the staffers part was he was blocked form entrance to a IRS facility for an oversight function he must perform because the Ways and Means committee gatekeepers did not provide the appropriate approval. The staffer wanted to get the permission ability restored to the oversight committee so they do not always have to go over to the Ways and Means Committee. He was frustrated by the process and is being dealt with. Oversight access includes the ability to enter controlled IRS facilities where IRS documents are open access within. But, you wouldnt know that because you get your news from talking points. In addition, the IRS helped write the legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29908-2004Dec2.html

So here we are after just one month after the election: humiliated moderates, overturned ethics laws, restrictions on choice, and intrusions into everyone's privacy.
Are we ready for 2006 yet??

Thanks for playing! How do you like the way I actually respond to what is stated?

 

[dems4me]

Thanks for playing! How do you like the way I actually respond to what is stated?

Sparx :shrug:

 

[SmallTown]

But the fact is that very few people voted for a Senator or Representative because he was a nice guy or had a cute smile. They voted for his campaign platform, or agenda. That doesn't mean you voted along party lines - it means that this candidate just so happened to represent a lot of your same views, and just so happened to be a Republican. So you, in essence, voted for a Republican agenda over the Democratic one.

No, I voted one guy over the other, and the winner of my vote just happened to be a republican. You would think that going by your logic, and all the crap on here about me being a liberal, it should have been a no-brainer that I would vote for Kerry.

Sure, if Bush was pro-choice and not trying to pass a gay marriage ban amendment, I would more gladly say I voted for a republican agenda.