B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 You need to read the opening of Ben Domenech’s Transom today. Just ponder this part. But for those in the media claiming this lack of leadership clarity and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)'s failure to launch is some terrible thing for the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential stakes – I’m sorry, it is to LOL. This Congress is incredibly unpopular, and disrupting its leadership is a good thing for a party whose base is incredibly frustrated with those they see as ignoring their frustrations. This is also the way the House was originally envisioned to work – with a lot more upheaval and changes in leadership in response to public will. 43 of the 53 Americans who have been Speaker held the job for less than 5 years, and that’s a good thing. Exactly. The passion in the House was a feature baked in by the Founding Fathers — like gridlock. Both are features in the system, not bugs. If anything, the gregarous, get along to go along House of the last forty years has been the bug in the system. The Founders knew that democracy was messy, so they created a representative democracy instead of relying on direct democracy. And they knew that the House would be the messy House, the House of Common(er)s. I mean consider that, though there was no real party composition in the beginning, 44% of the House of Representatives was anti-George Washington. Only 31% of the Senate was. {snip} This disruption we are now seeing is good. It is a restoration of the very democracy the House was designed to both perform and contain. The people pissed off about it are the people who love the oligarchy and the elite calling all the shots because they tend also to be the people contemptuous of the heartland. http://www.redstate.com/2015/10/09/feature-not-bug/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That's a absolute falsehood. With that said, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. With the present opposition leadership (The RINOS) all it would take is an executive order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 That's a absolute falsehood.. Why else do you think he hasn't responded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Why else do you think he hasn't responded?probably cuz I'm in Nashville chilling at opryland after a full day downtown. Anticipating a very good day tomorrow. But eventually I'll reply. Pretty sure the summation I read was NYT Edited October 11, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 probably cuz I'm in Nashville chilling at opryland after a full day downtown. Anticipating a very good day tomorrow. But eventually I'll reply. Pretty sure the summation I read was NYT No probably "cuz" it's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Well that is even !@#$ing stupider. Guns ARE safe!!! :wallbash: They're so safe, most every one of them has a "Safety" built right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 OK, Let’s Fight by Kevin D Williamson The free-for-all over choosing a new House speaker isn’t chaos; it’s democracy. The Republicans have decided to have a little bit of authentic democracy within their party, and polite Washington is flipping out. John Boehner decided that he no longer wants to be speaker of the House, or a member of Congress, so he is retiring. This in itself confuses and vexes official Washington: Why would a man who worked so hard in his life, rising from very modest origins to become the second-most-powerful man in government, voluntarily relinquish power? That there is a life beyond politics, even for the speaker of the House, is beyond them. Boehner’s No. 2, Kevin McCarthy, thought he wanted the job, but he didn’t. Facing a revolt on the Right and a Democratic caucus happy to see any Republican discomfited, and having himself made a crude and embarrassing error with his boasting about using the Benghazi investigation against Hillary Rodham Clinton, McCarthy decided that, for the moment, House majority leader is as far as he desires to rise. The decision was “a shocking move that throws the House into chaos,” CNN claims. But the House isn’t in chaos. It has a complete leadership structure in place, with Boehner staying on as long as needed. There probably will be another fight with the White House and congressional Democrats about various spending authorizations. In the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid already is blocking an energy bill in a purely political attempt to force Republicans to cobble everything together into one big Frankenstein’s monster of a bill that will be too big to stop. There will be a fight over legislation to raise the debt ceiling, which the federal government is expected to hit on November 4, and over general operational funding, which will expire in December. The usual hysterical ninnies will shriek that the United States is about to default on its debt (it isn’t) and that allowing general spending authorization to expire for a few days or weeks will lead to anarchy (it won’t). What really has the salon set shaking its head is that the Republican party, which has within it a steep disagreement about tactics, priorities, pace, and style, has decided to settle some of those questions through an authentic democratic process. There is, apparently, going to be a real race for the speaker’s gavel, rather than a negotiated settlement among party leaders organized around the question of whose turn it is. A real democratic fight instead of a backroom party-machine process — that is what CNN calls a House in chaos.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425380/speaker-fight-democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 OK, Let’s Fight by Kevin D Williamson The free-for-all over choosing a new House speaker isn’t chaos; it’s democracy. The Republicans have decided to have a little bit of authentic democracy within their party, and polite Washington is flipping out. John Boehner decided that he no longer wants to be speaker of the House, or a member of Congress, so he is retiring. This in itself confuses and vexes official Washington: Why would a man who worked so hard in his life, rising from very modest origins to become the second-most-powerful man in government, voluntarily relinquish power? That there is a life beyond politics, even for the speaker of the House, is beyond them. Boehner’s No. 2, Kevin McCarthy, thought he wanted the job, but he didn’t. Facing a revolt on the Right and a Democratic caucus happy to see any Republican discomfited, and having himself made a crude and embarrassing error with his boasting about using the Benghazi investigation against Hillary Rodham Clinton, McCarthy decided that, for the moment, House majority leader is as far as he desires to rise. The decision was “a shocking move that throws the House into chaos,” CNN claims. But the House isn’t in chaos. It has a complete leadership structure in place, with Boehner staying on as long as needed. There probably will be another fight with the White House and congressional Democrats about various spending authorizations. In the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid already is blocking an energy bill in a purely political attempt to force Republicans to cobble everything together into one big Frankenstein’s monster of a bill that will be too big to stop. There will be a fight over legislation to raise the debt ceiling, which the federal government is expected to hit on November 4, and over general operational funding, which will expire in December. The usual hysterical ninnies will shriek that the United States is about to default on its debt (it isn’t) and that allowing general spending authorization to expire for a few days or weeks will lead to anarchy (it won’t). What really has the salon set shaking its head is that the Republican party, which has within it a steep disagreement about tactics, priorities, pace, and style, has decided to settle some of those questions through an authentic democratic process. There is, apparently, going to be a real race for the speaker’s gavel, rather than a negotiated settlement among party leaders organized around the question of whose turn it is. A real democratic fight instead of a backroom party-machine process — that is what CNN calls a House in chaos. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425380/speaker-fight-democracy You are accounting for the point of view the author has - correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 You are accounting for the point of view the author has - correct? Congratulations. It is an opinion piece yes. and since it is unlikely that you would have read (or even considered) that viewpoint is why it was posted. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) as promised: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/03/support-for-gun-control-isnt-dead-new-poll-shows-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/ The Hopkins 2015 study found large majorities favored gun regulations that are stronger than those currently seen in federal or most state laws. For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners. And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent. “The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said. Edited October 12, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 as promised: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/03/support-for-gun-control-isnt-dead-new-poll-shows-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/ The Hopkins 2015 study found large majorities favored gun regulations that are stronger than those currently seen in federal or most state laws. For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners. And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent. “The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said. So you found the one article whose purpose is to pick apart the polling data that shows that support for gun control is waning? So what is your definition of "overwhelming?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 as promised: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/03/support-for-gun-control-isnt-dead-new-poll-shows-it-just-matters-how-you-frame-the-question/ The Hopkins 2015 study found large majorities favored gun regulations that are stronger than those currently seen in federal or most state laws. For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners. And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent. “The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said. The title of said article Support for gun control isn’t dead, new poll shows. It just matters how you frame the question And that's your confirmation ? And the last line after your quote “The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said. "They just don’t support gun control in the abstract." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 So you found the one article whose purpose is to pick apart the polling data that shows that support for gun control is waning? So what is your definition of "overwhelming?" 80% is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 80% is overwhelming. 80% is for background checks, which is already part of the frickin law of the land. Show me the overwhelming support for more gun regulations than the thousands of pages of code that already exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Congratulations. It is an opinion piece yes. and since it is unlikely that you would have read (or even considered) that viewpoint is why it was posted. . I read it - till it became apparent I was wasting my time. I defer to George Costanza "Jerry....remember.....it's not a lie if you believe it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 80% is for background checks, which is already part of the frickin law of the land. Show me the overwhelming support for more gun regulations than the thousands of pages of code that already exist. you guys always feign ignorance of the loopholes but that's just, well, ignorant: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-close-gun-loophole-tighten-background-checks-article-1.2391734 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) you guys always feign ignorance of the loopholes but that's just, well, ignorant: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-close-gun-loophole-tighten-background-checks-article-1.2391734 Well at least you're not advocating the government taking away all guns like the nut job I was talking with on FB. Edited October 12, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Well at least you're not advocating the government taking away all guns like the nut job I was talking with on FB. well at least you'r enot stiucking to the bs line of argument that gunshows aren't filled with loopholes. glad to see you've abandoned the lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 well at least you'r enot stiucking to the bs line of argument that gunshows aren't filled with loopholes. glad to see you've abandoned the lie. Describe the "gun show loopholes", please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Describe the "gun show loopholes", please? ah, so you haven't abandoned it. you likely know these laws more closely than I do. this is really tiresome. why not try a little intellectual honesty? it's actually admirable as I opposed to what you are. anyway, from my link: Under current rules, those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone "who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts