House to read Constitution

83 replies [Last post]
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009

'We the people' to open next Congress

The Constitution frequently gets lip service in Congress, but House Republicans next year will make sure it gets a lot more than that - the new rules the incoming majority party proposed this week call for a full reading of the country's founding document on the floor of the House on Jan. 6.

Finally, the grown ups will try to bring some sanity to the looney bin that has overtaken Washington. Not that Obama really cares what "we the people" think. He has his own political agenda and will continue to dictate instead of lead.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Senate rule changes on Jan 5th

The United States Senate permits rule changes on the first day of each new session. Rule changes are by majority vote (51 votes).

53 Senate Democrats have signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid indicating their support for a change to the current filibuster rule. Right now, any single Senator can invoke a filibuster and essentially tie up the Senate in parlimentary knots for weeks at a time. The Republicans successfully exploited this rule for the past two years, invoking filibusters more in the past two years than in the previous 100 years combined.

The new rule is simple and devastating to Republicans: You want to invoke a filibuster? Fine. Get 40 of your colleagues onto the Senate floor and debate the measure. Take as long as you like. When one of your forty leaves the Senate floor, debate is considered to be over and we'll have a vote.

This will restore the concept of "majority rule" while retaining the "supermajority rule" for really important measures.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Talk about a death wish

Does anyone with a rational mind think this will go unoticed by the American voters? The Dems don't seem to get it. Certainly 2012 will fix that, but until then I believe having control of the House will be sufficient to prevent the creation of more bad legislation - especially if they listen to the reading of the Constitution that first day. Wonder if Nancy Pelosi will be there.If she has to fly commercial back to Washington, she may not make it. Can you see her getting pulled out for extra screening? "Do you know who I am!"

Do you think the Republicans will use their 60-65 Senate majority in January of 2013 to overturn this new rule? Or do the Dems somehow believe they will still have a majority in the Senate then? Kinda funny.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Death wish, eh?
Robert W. Morgan wrote:

Does anyone with a rational mind think this will go unoticed by the American voters?

The American public in general has been quite clear on this: they don't want to hear about the labor, they just want to see the baby.

Robert W. Morgan wrote:

Do you think the Republicans will use their 60-65 Senate majority in January of 2013 to overturn this new rule?

This gets my vote for the third stupidest prediction in Citizen Blog history (Behind Mudcat's "McCain will win in a landslide!" and oofu's "Massive food inflation in 2010!")

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Facts and story's again huh bacon?

Like the saying goes never let facts stand in the way of a good story.

I believe my prediction was for 4% inflation at the end of this year and next year. Now if you think that is "Massive" then I can see why Ms. Bacon is disappointed.

But why quarrel over anything as trivial as the truth.

Observerofu wrote:

First Hope you have a safe and happy Thanksgiving and remember what it really means.

Second you have to suspend all intelligence to ignore the evidence from across the Country as well as the commodity indexes.

I gave you absolute proof of same but you choose to ignore it. So to excoriate others for doing what you yourself do, well is a little hypocritical don't you think?

Chris P. Bacon wrote:

I invite you to prove my data wrong...sadly, your personal opinion, like that of your lying spineless brethren Observer, doesn't pass muster with regards to being verifiable.

Well Ok.

Here are your facts:

"In 2010, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food is projected to increase 0.5 to 1.5 percent--the lowest annual food inflation rate since 1992. Food-at-home (grocery store) prices are also forecast to increase 0.5 to 1.5 percent, while food- away-from-home (restaurant) prices are forecast to increase 1 to 2 percent."

But here is what you conveniently leave out:

"Although inflation has been relatively weak for most of 2009 and 2010, higher food commodity and energy prices are now exerting pressure on wholesale and retail food prices. Hence, food inflation is predicted to accelerate during the final months of 2010 and the first half of 2011, leading to a forecast of 2 to 3 percent food price inflation in 2011."
"The CPI for all food increased 0.2 percent from September to October 2010, increased 0.3 percent from August to September 2010, and is now 1.4 percent above the October 2009 level. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/usda-retail-food-inflation-fore...

Cherry picking information to fit your facts is dishonest bacon. Some (you) would call it LYING.

And again here:

Observerofu wrote:

your vaulted secondary education is showing bacon. Is that the best you got?

Again you attempt to misdirect. Show me where I have said that food prices have ALREADY gone up 4%. I believe I have said and SHOWN where it is going (present tense)up. Reuters whom apparently is too right winged for you stated that food has already risen by 4% and you have as of yet not dis-proven that fact.

This is what I said:
"Inflation is already up past the 2% mark Benberyankme wanted." (MY STATEMENT)

"Have you been grocery shopping lately? Foods prices are already up 4-5% and rising."(Reuters Story)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F3UC20100316

Now clearly linking to the Reuters story and their article clearly outlined the 4% mark I believe that infers my statement was both true and factual and an accurate reflection of the story.

Your claim was inflation has been (past tense) lowest since 97 and that is correct. I stated as much. However you left out info that clearly showed food prices has risen and is still rising through out the rest of this year and next.

Instead why don't you man up and realize you cherry picked info to back up your point of view and when I corrected you with facts you can't handle it.

Now Bacon why don't you jump to another topic claim victory misstate me again. It is after all what you do best. Leave the facts to others more qualified.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Observerofu: No no no no

"Have you been grocery shopping lately? Foods prices are already up 4-5% and rising."(Reuters Story)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F3UC20100316

That's NOT what the Reuters story said. It was a prediction that hasn't been in any way proven to be reality THEN, when you posted it, or NOW. Yet again. How many times are we going to have this debate when you have NEVER posted any link whatsoever that contained the line "Have you been grocery shopping lately? Foods prices are already up 4-5% and rising." That's YOUR statement YOU posted here, not a Reuters' story or a link where someone else stated that. YOU said that and it's not accurate.

What's even more stupefying is that is now the 4th different URL you have thrown out when referencing the original story from Reuters back in March when challenged. Yet, none of the 4 say anything whatsoever about food inflation "already being 4-5%." NONE. ZERO. The only one who stated that line is you.

Just admit you extrapolated a story and mangled the numbers and move on already. It's hardly a big deal except with how you keep trying to Clinton your way out of it instead of simply saying "OK, I screwed that one up, moving on."

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Moving on

. .is not easy for some - but worth learning. It makes life so much easier. Very few people are 'right' all the time - because TIME MOVES ON.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Nuk yet again coming to bacon's defense

Nuk I am not rehashing the argument suffice it to say your have an interpretation as do I. The headline says it. Good enough for me. Now as to why this was posted go back a couple of post to bacons incorrect statement of I said "Massive" inflation. I never said it and you know it.

Stay on point my good man. It is after all just an opinion. The quotations where incorrectly placed. What is hanging you up is you think I meant that Reuters said that it was an opinion Nuk. I corrected that earlier you simply missed it. What is the point however is bacon's tendency to lets say "re-state" incorrectly and intentionally others statements across multiple topics.

Now that was the point.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"It is after all just an opinion"

Nobody has a problem with your opinion. People have problems with your tendency to lie about facts (and attributing these false "facts" to others) in your posts.

The fact that you refuse take responsibility for your falsehoods speaks volumes as to your lack of honor and character.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well bacon I have asked multiple times to present those lies

and as of yet you have not done so. Go cherrypick some more info to fit your views I will be here to show your hypocrisy.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Part of a pattern

You'll recall oofu has a history of distorting facts and then claiming a legitimate news source as his basis.

Case in point:

Progressives and Liberals host “Anti-honor” Rally this Saturday.
At least that is how the New York Times bills it.

LINK

oofu tried to have us believe that the NY Times was calling anyone who attended the anti-Beck rally back in October to be "anti-honor", when of course the Times said nothing of the sort.

I've met bellicose cowards like oofu before. They'll take a grain of truth and distort it to the point where it no longer has any basis in reality.

When their lies are caught and exposed, they get belligerent and try to bluster their way out of the situation, doing anything and everything to avoid admitting they were in error.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon welcome back how was Christmas?

Oh you hurt me so with your insults.

You wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and smacked you in the mouth.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon and the art of interpretation

Bacon you have wondered why I have not responded to your questions. Let me take the time to answer that question now.
It is because you are not an honest purveyor of conversational debate. You see you are, as I have said before, simply a contrarian. You do not want a debate. You simply want to disagree and like I told Gort you may disagree with my opinion, it still does not make you right it simply makes you disagreeable.

You claim anyone that disagrees with you is a liar and then a coward for not admitting it. Yet you offer nothing in the way of a counterpoint or counter argument. Oh when pressed you sometimes come up with a Huff piece or an opinion blog that somehow you assert backs up your point of view, but generally you just disagree and then fall back on the tried and true bacon standard fare of insults and misquotes.

Let’s examine what you call a lie I will even use your example.

Progressives and Liberals host “Anti-honor” Rally this Saturday.
Now that was the title of my topic. Nowhere in that title do I explicitly or even infer that this was in any way a headline from any newspaper.

The second line was “At least that is how the New York Times bills it.

Now you used this one line as your absolute evidence of a LIE by claiming I am STATING that the New York Times has written an article with the title of “Anti-honor” or “Anti-Beck”. This never occurred. It was an opinion based on editorials written by the Times and the commentary of Maddow and Oberman on MSNBC. This was later defined in later postings. I provided links to the stories themselves. Nowhere did I ever state I was quoting an article. So by misstating that fact intentionally is what the definition of a lie is.
Definition of a lie:
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; anintentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
http://www.thecitizen.com/node/4172

Here is the link now look at post #22 through #32 the argument is clearly defined. You claimed I said the topic was from an article from the Times it was never said or even implied. Yet you still persist months later.

You have made this an art. You take statements from others not ideologically aligned with you and then falsely claim they said something else.
Then you go from topic to topic telling the lies trying to convince others of your superior intelligence and moral authority.

Bacon as I have said before you are a pseudo-intellectual. You really should look to JeffC as your example of someone who has intellect and character and would serve yourself best by emulating him.

JeffC in his article titled “Carter correct on North Korea”

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/12-14-2010/carter-correct-north-korea

Here Jeff and I were on opposite spectrums of the Carter presidency. In comments #2-#9 Jeff and I disagreed on the substance of the point. Neither he nor I insulted each other, called each other a liar nor did we attack the others family.
Unlike you JeffC is therefore an honest purveyor of Conversational debate.

In another topic JeffC stated in comment #62 and #107 that the Constitution guarantees us the right to vote.
Opusman and I both corrected him in on-going arguments. In comment #111 I give him absolute concrete evidence that he is in-correct. JeffC then after considering his opinion realizes he is incorrect and admits so.
He did this without rancor, insults or jumping off topic arguing points not in play. He simply reviewed his opinion and made the correction. Note I never called JeffC a liar or jumped topics to claim he made statements he did not in fact make.

http://www.thecitizen.com/node/3348

Bacon you seem at least semi-literate. The moment you devolve into insults you have lost the debate. I believe you already know this. So why do you do it? Well I guess only you and your Psychologist knows for sure.

Future debate with you is therefore impossible. You don’t want a debate. So I will simply link to this post and move on.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Same old song 'n dance
Observerofu wrote:

You claim anyone that disagrees with you is a liar and then a coward for not admitting it.

I did not say anyone. I said *YOU* were a liar and a coward for not owning up to your lies.

Observerofu wrote:

Let’s examine what you call a lie I will even use your example.

Progressives and Liberals host “Anti-honor” Rally this Saturday.
Now that was the title of my topic. Nowhere in that title do I explicitly or even infer that this was in any way a headline from any newspaper.

The second line was “At least that is how the New York Times bills it.

Now you used this one line as your absolute evidence of a LIE by claiming I am STATING that the New York Times has written an article with the title of “Anti-honor” or “Anti-Beck”. This never occurred. It was an opinion based on editorials written by the Times and the commentary of Maddow and Oberman on MSNBC. This was later defined in later postings. I provided links to the stories themselves. Nowhere did I ever state I was quoting an article. So by misstating that fact intentionally is what the definition of a lie is.

Pathetic, weak spin.

Anyone with half a brain will realize what you attempted to do: give your rancid opinion a veneer of respectability by incorrectly attributing it to the New York Times.

I called you out on your deliberate falsehood and you lack the character to admit your error.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Call all you want the number is disconnected
Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
OofU - David's Mom does the same thing.

Maybe they are the one in the same????

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Joe DM is not so bad

at least she will debate you. Granted her views are tinted by decades of progressive entanglements and decades of being stuck in the 50/60's, however that being said she does retain her intellect during these arguments and makes cogent counter points at least from her perspective. Only every now and then does she besmirch your educational level. That is just the progressive elitism coming out in her.

Bacon is none of that. He like Mainstream uses emotion and little intellect to argue. Makes for a tiresome debate.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Stupid prediction - Me? Are you nuts? I'm right this time

Since you somehow keep track of everyone's predictions - file this one away and see where we are in exactly 2 years as the next group of U.S. Senators is elected.

The 2013 Senate will have 62 Republicans, 4 Independents (probabaly the same 2 that are there now plus 2 former Dems who have to break from Prezbo to get elected) and the rest will be Dems from safe states like Calif and NY. Ok? Write it down or save it for 2 years.

FYI, there are 21 Dems and 2 Ind. up for reelection in 2012 and to make my predicted numbers, only about half of them need to lose or retire or flee knowing Obama's coattails are non-exisistent. Debbie Stabenow, Ben Nelson, Claire McKaskell, Jim Webb? the list grows from there.

Prezbo helped yesterday by saying he's still hung up on attacking small business - or in his words, ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,0000 or $250,000 - it changes every day, but it is still the old wealth envy/fairness thing. If he keeps that up for 2 years and unemployment remains at 10%, even the stupidest unemployed independent voter is going to see the connection. The stupidest Dem voters may not fully understand it, but they have shown that they will vote for "hope and change" and in 2012 that slogan will mean something much different that before.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Yup Bacon - Filibusters

June 10, 1964

Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.

BTW, those "Democrats" filibustered for 54 days.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wasted hot air by a few

As we look back on history - that was a lot of hot air wasted by a few. At least having to have 40 of the supporters of the issue being filibustered present during the session will keep a few (like the southern Democrats of old) from tying up legislation that the American people wanted - even if the south didn't.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
*

*

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Sha-na-na-na, the reflex...flex flex flex flex

Is there some sort of conservative rule here that anytime someone mentions the word "filibuster", a conservative must reflexively respond with the 1964 civil rights act?

Compare the filibuster of the civil rights act with the 2010 filibuster over the Food Safety Bill. Do you think the Republicans were really philosophically opposed to a safer food supply? Hint: they weren't.

They filibustered the Food Safety bill solely because they could, and were determined more than anything else to deny President Obama a legislative accomplishment. The shorthand for this is "Party first, Country second".

When the minority party routinely abuses rules for petty and selfish reasons, it's time to review the rules themselves.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
Bacon & The Food Safety Bill

The bill was controversial and rightly so. It will give the FDA unprecedented authority to issue regulations to small producers who grow & harvest most fresh, local produce. Most food safety problems/recalls come from big Agri-business operations and they have the money/llobbyists to give them protection from adverse regulations. So what I'm saying is that I don't think that it was "just because they could"--there was some method in the madness!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG
Quote:

I don't think that it was "just because they could"--there was some method in the madness.

Are you sure the ‘method’ wasn’t to protect their 'friends' in the 'big business ' end of the spectrum?

Are you still in Bozeman?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
DM & Food Safety

No, I'm not "sure" of anything! When it comes to political maneuverings in Congress, I don't know how ANYONE can be sure. And yes, I'm still in Bozeman--will return to Atl Tuesday.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

Keep enjoying your holiday!! Hope someone sent you pictures of our 'white' Christmas. It was beautiful!! I'm with you on the 'certainty' of anything political. :-)

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Well actually Bacon,

I find it interesting how one political party wishes to tweek parliamentary procedures in order to wield the bigger weapon. To tell you truth, if the shoe was on the other foot I would still have problems with it.

As for my choice for the 1964 CRA, I choose that only because that's what came up prominently in a Google search. But I am curious about the "shorthand" message those Democrats projected at that time. It certainly wasn't country first now, was it?

After reading some of the concerns regarding the Food Safety Bill, I can see why Senator Coburn M.D., was not in favor of it. But nonetheless, Democrats simply embraced the title of the bill without regard of substance and once again yelled, "it's the party of NO". That bill did finally past the Senate.

BTW, it must be a slow day Bacon, you usually don't respond to my post's.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Food Safety
Cyclist wrote:

I find it interesting how one political party wishes to tweek parliamentary procedures in order to wield the bigger weapon. To tell you truth, if the shoe was on the other foot I would still have problems with it.

Again, the minority party has shown its willingness to abuse the procedures, filing more filibusters in the past 4 years than in the past 100 years combined. They need to understand that actions have consequences.

Cyclist wrote:

As for my choice for the 1964 CRA, I choose that only because that's what came up prominently in a Google search. But I am curious about the "shorthand" message those Democrats projected at that time. It certainly wasn't country first now, was it?

I reject your notion that this was a "Democrat" filibuster. Unlike today, "Democrat" is not a synonym for "liberal/centrist". Back in the 1960s, we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. The civil rights filibuster was a coalition of conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans. For some reason, this "selective amnesia" shows up here every 2 to 3 months.

Cyclist wrote:

After reading some of the concerns regarding the Food Safety Bill, I can see why Senator Coburn M.D., was not in favor of it. But nonetheless, Democrats simply embraced the title of the bill without regard of substance and once again yelled, "it's the party of NO". That bill did finally past the Senate.

No bill is "perfect" in its initial form, that's why bills are debated. Both Republicans AND Democrats offered meaningful amendments to the bill. The filibuster was overkill, designed solely to deprive President Obama of a legislative success prior to the election. Party first, Country second.

Cyclist wrote:

BTW, it must be a slow day Bacon, you usually don't respond to my post's.

You're all I've got today!

Observerofyou does his road crew community service on the weekends, Petey C. Observer takes all day Sunday to dry out from his Saturday night binge, and Hutch was busy playing Princess Barbies with his daughters all day (at least that is what I was told...."daughters" could be a euphemism for Git Real and Joe Kawfi)...

Ohhh.....and the correct grammar is "my posts" not "my post's". :p

In any event, Happy First Day of Kwanzaa to you and yours!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Food (sic) Safety
Chris P. Bacon wrote:

No bill is "perfect" in its initial form, that's why bills are debated. Both Republicans AND Democrats offered meaningful amendments to the bill. The filibuster was overkill, designed solely to deprive President Obama of a legislative success prior to the election. Party first, Country second.

After all we have to pass the bill to find out what is it.
Like Gump would have said. Congressional bills are like a box of Chocolates. You never know what is in them until you cram them down the throat of the person sitting next to you.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Bacon, Fat, Salt, Sugar & Food Safety

Again, the minority party has shown its willingness to abuse the procedures....

Fine, but just remember; what comes around goes around.

I reject your notion that this was a "Democrat" filibuster.

Who cares what you reject....it still happened.

No bill is "perfect" in its initial form, that's why bills are debated.

Then why have filibusters?

BTW, Cris "P" Bacon I would be careful if I were you. The First Lady and the new federal Food Police are coming after you. You just ain't healthy. You know, "basmati" rice might be OK albeit in moderation. ☺

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Fairness what an arcane subject

"As political scientist Gregory Koger, an expert on the filibuster, writes, the Senate minority's ability to gum up the works requires that "the majority and minority party haggle over the process for debating major legislation to ensure that members of both parties are able to deliberate fully. Without the minority party's power to filibuster, it is likely that the majority party in the Senate would be no more generous than its counterpart in the House."

I mean of course why would the Democrats NOW want to change the rules?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/in_defense_of_the_f...

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Great!

it needs to be done away with. The majority voting is what we want. If the majority don't vote the way we the taxpayers feel they should, then kick them out next election.

The right on a few having a temper tantrum and filibustering is total BS.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Should-Congress-regulate-political-ad-money

This debate will have an important impact on 'our' right to know. What do you think?

From the Christian Science Monitor

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Liberals-Constitution is 100 year old document not relevant

LIBERAL STAR BLOGGER EZRA KLEIN: CONSTITUTION ‘HAS NO BINDING POWER ON ANYTHING’; CONFUSING BECAUSE IT’S OVER 100 YEARS OLD

http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has...

All you need to know about the Progressive movement in America. The Constitution is no longer relevant or necessary.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerofu

Happy New Year all! I hope you're watching the magnificent Rose Parade. Two high schools from Georgia were great! They represented the folks in Georgia in great style!! Thank heavens the Constitution is relevant - and the opinion of bloggers is not! (Laptops are great – but I’m jealous of my friends with their Ipads! The Ipad is so flexible!!)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Taxes and Mr. Morgan

I thought I would finish up this thought for you. Your premise is that Mr. Morgan does not pay taxes. I submit that he pays plenty of taxes. If you think about it you will come to and answer on your own.

Now we could simply say that those that don't pay any Federal Income Tax shouldn't vote, but that is not what I said. I said those that pay no tax should not be able to vote, there's not many of those.

I also said that government workers should not be able to vote. Look at my forum on this subject.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC OBSERVER

Your premise: Check with RW. He shared his status with us in an earlier post. Later!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Congresswoman Diane Watson

Many here called her a racist. She represented her community well - and built bridges for the varied ethnic communities in her district.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0101-diane-watson-20110101,0,135...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Diane Watson?

She can't stop lavishing praise on one of the sorriest pieces of trash to ever run and hold hostage a country-Fidel Castro-so she obviously holds ideals that are very alien to most Americans, no matter how she sugarcoats it with "look what I am doing for my district" and her whole career of race-baiting nonsense.

Really, DM, you can find a lot better role model than Watson.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Nuk_1 - No

No I don't believe DM can find a better role model, Ms. Watson is right up her alley, so to speak.

An alley as everyone knows is a great place for armed robbery.

BTW, when Castro is finally gone and freedom thrives in Cuba there will mass graves found that no one knew existed. Such is the evidence of ultimate state control.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
PTC-O & Role Model

I suspect it's also the shared "Educator" thingy!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Georgia Conservatives

At least some of you read it!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
PTCOb: Cuba

What's your thoughts on the continued Cuba-related restrictions and de facto embargo? Do you support lifting all restrictions or maintaining the present course, some combination of both , etc?

My own view is that it's way past time to open it up and let freedom(and everything else) flow into the island, even if that means alienating a very vocal group of Cuban ex-pats in Florida that might make some politicians pay for it with their political lives. It's time to discard the old strategies of the failed past and move forward IMO.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Nuk_1 - Cuba

The only way to freedom for Cuba is free trade. The only condition that we should put on it is that there should be no tariffs in either direction.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk_1

Nope! Who are your role models? If a member of Congress does not deliver for their district - they should be sent home. With all of Cuba's problems - they classify all of their citizens as CUBAN - unlike our wonderful country - where RACE is part of our classification on all documents. Maybe one day - we'll all become AMERICANS. Fidel's ideology failed - but to African Americans - back in the day - he was a ray of hope. I know, I know - you don't get it. OK.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Nothing like

Nothing like having a little "ray of hope" that is a mass murderer.

Why do you think race is a classification on all documents in this country?

I bet you can figure it out if you try.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC
Quote:

"ray of hope" that is a mass murderer.

Manifest Destiny - Walk of Tears. Who were the mass murderers?

Quote:

Why do you think race is a classification on all documents in this country?

Maybe to continue the fallacy that there is a 'pure' white race in this country - especially here in the south.
Also - to make sure that this thing called 'white superiority' is maintained. What's your thought on this?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
So, DM we can

We can excuse a mass murderer because of other things that happened in the past? He is our "little ray" of hope? Explain this a little so I can understand your train of thought here.

Maybe? To continue? "White superiority"?

I am not following you on this, don't you think that race is so important in our society because we allow our politicians to separate us into groups. That race has become the method of the dispersal of government largess? How else can they divide things up if they can't tell what class of people you belong to? Race continues to be perpetuated by government and politicians that cater to these different racial groups.

You seem to be a bit angry today. Did you stay up too late last night?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oops! PTC

Don't mean to sound angry. Politicians using 'race' to divide is right on. As communities become more integrated - race is no longer needed to qualify for 'grants', etc. Income, education, gender, location - these classifications can be used to meet the needs of those who may need assistance from charitable organizations or government. My statement was not meant to excuse Castro or Hitler for that matter - it was to point out that there are also mass murderers in our history. We seem to 'overlook' them. (The graves of Indians are still pointed out as one visits Native American reservations, etc.) Mass graves are apparent after the conquerors have 'finished'. Race has been/is the weakness of our great country that our enemies use to try to overcome the natural strength that we have as unified Americans. For those here who continually try to deny this is folly IMO.

Going to watch the Rose Bowl game.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Enjoy your roses DM

I cannot in anyway defend the indefensible, but I certainly cannot say that a mass murderer of today is a "ray of hope" to anyone. After all Mussolini made the trains run on time but he was a mass murderer. We should live in the here and now, learn from the past, but not be a slave to it. Blaming people of today for past crimes is intellectuality dishonest and near sighted.

Castro is a demon and those that support him are co-conspirators in his crimes. If your cousin supports him in any way she is equally guilty of his crimes. No one, especially one in power, should support murder and enslavement of innocent people.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Castro/Bautista

We have cousins who are still in Cuba. Those who suffered under Bautista found SOME relief for a few years under Castro. The murders credited to Bautista and The Mob in Cuba aren't discussed too much in our country - but many citizens in Cuba suffered under the Bautista regime. Ignoring past crimes is intellectually dishonest in my opinion also. Ignoring the good that was accomplished for those who suffered under repressive regimes is also intellectually dishonest. Those who lost their property and life style under the Castro regime were certainly victims. Many that were repressed by Bautista and The Mob felt liberated with their departure. In a democracy, if we see that a leader is not leading or benefitting our country - we can change that leadership. Not possible in a dictatorship. Castro was/is a dictator. There are those in parts of the world who want to punish Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for what they consider 'war crimes' - and all those who 'supported' them. That's us. Castro is a dictator whose ideology caused the suffering of many. For many who suffered under Bautista - he appeared to be a liberator - who brought equality to all Cubans. What is obvious is that there were some Cubans who were more equal than others under his regime. The opportunities we have as Americans to succeed regardless of color, class or creed is acknowledged throughout the world. We have had 'leaders' (national and state) that are considered demons by others. Others and I supported Castro for his effort in bringing all Cubans together in a 'classless society'. His effort did not work. The ideology of communism is not the answer to that issue. Castro made the effort towards an integrated society before the US started moving in this direction with legislation passed to end segregation. (We're still dealing with sexual orientation). My point – Cuba exchanged one demon for another one. China. Russia and Cuba are excellent examples of the failure of the communist ideology in securing equal opportunity for all its citizens. Opportunity, accessibility, accountability to the electorate places our form of government above all others. If our government fails, it will be because the electorate did not act responsibly by participating in the voting process.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Castro

"Others and I supported Castro for his effort in bringing all Cubans together in a 'classless society'. His effort did not work."

My first memories of the terror of Castro's effort was the firing squads, people lined up at a trench and shot so their bodies would fall into the trench. This was shown on American TV on a weekly basis in the early 60's. Castro's great purge. Castro would give his speeches hours on end talking about enemies of the state. You should not justify the actions of Castro by the dictator he replaced, no matter what. He is a mass murderer, I guess so was Bautista. Neither had moral justification for what they did or what Castro does today.

The fact that you could have supported Castro to establish a classless society says a lot about you DM. I am certain that you were young then but the truth was and is inescapable. I was young too but could not condone these actions in the name of class equality.

A classless society is a socialist myth used to justify and perpetuate state control. This myth is an unrealizable hope and plays into the hands of tyrants.

There are no classless societies, if you believe this is possible then you are naive.

What class controls Cuba today? It’s the socialist/communist party: The Ruling Class. The fact that a Congresswoman, your cousin, can support Castro is beyond belief but given the current make up of the Congress I am sure she is not alone.

I have said this before but these socialist ideas are what all free men and women should fight against, and not support. When we are all equal, we become unequal. Utopia is dangerous to your health.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

One thing that I learned from MLK - allow people to grow and change. We would be 'stuck' in this country if those who were segregated could not accept the change that is occurring daily. I have learned to respect 'history' and take steps to make sure the ugliness of history is not repeated. That you cannot do this says a lot about you. What did I say to make you think I support Castro today? A 'classless' society to me when I was young meant that I would not be repressed or discriminated against. That was a big ‘hope’ for a ‘black’ girl. I know too well that classless is not possible today – but at least progress has been made in this country and I am protected by law to achieve based on my skills and character. . . as it is illegal to discriminate against me because of my gender and/or race. Is that too difficult for you to understand? How nice it must be to always be secure while looking in on someone else's misery. Sometimes instead of looking in from the ‘outside’ – you may just try to imagine what it would be like to be inside another’s ‘skin’.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Race & a classless society

Life, Liberty and Property

I too have no problem with laws that protect these three principles. All I am saying is that there are no classless societies. Never has been, never will be, it's not possible today and it will never be possible. If you believe that it is possible you are naive

I don't "respect" history but I learn from it and move on, this seems to be something that you cannot do. I believe what you write, if you don't mean it don't write it, think about it before you write it.

I would rather believe that you don't support Castro, but then your cousion is your role model and she does.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
My statement regarding Castro 'support'
Quote:

Others and I supported Castro for his effort in bringing all Cubans together in a 'classless society'. His effort did not work. The ideology of communism is not the answer to that issue. Castro made the effort towards an integrated society before the US started moving in this direction with legislation passed to end segregation.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't support what Castro has done to Cuba.

Quote:

All I am saying is that there are no classless societies. Never has been, never will be, it's not possible today and it will never be possible. If you believe that it is possible you are naive

Naive? I've lived through it and beyond it. You are the one who is stuck! Classless and equal opportunity for all is what America is achieving - in spite of those who are in la-la land like you. As you 'move on' - have you noticed and abided by the reality that equal opportunity brings? Do you know what that change is? As a woman - I'm making an assumption here - as I don't really know your sex - you should appreciate the advantages that have been afforded you because of a 'change' in law. History is just that - HIS story. Try seeing the events of the past from another point of reference.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - you

You don't know if I am a woman, or a black, or a transgender, or a homosexual either. Your lectures on racial bias assume a lot but one thing for sure I don’t wear my “class” on my sleeve.

However, no matter what “class” I fall into in your mind, I don't have role models that support "brilliant" murderers. They are not a little “ray of sunshine” to me.

I support all laws that protect Life, Liberty, and Property and a Republic for which this stands. Would you like to discuss civil rights?

Let’s move on and explore more of your ideas, we seem to be at an impasse with this one.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - Impasse continues
Quote:

However, no matter what “class” I fall into in your mind, I don't have role models that support "brilliant" murderers. They are not a little “ray of sunshine” to me

How clever to continue to ignore my statement that I do not support Castro. George Washington was a brilliant murderer. You don't support him? Interesting. I'm sure you're a conscientious objector - regardless of your class, color, and gender - right?

Quote:

I support all laws that protect Life, Liberty, and Property and a Republic for which this stands. Would you like to discuss civil rights?

Please be specific. Do you support Life, Liberty and Property and a Republic for all Americans regardless of their 'class', color, and gender? It is difficult to discuss Civil Rights unless I am clear about your stand on who is entitled to these 'rights'. It is suspect to discuss any issue with someone when you have no idea what their experience has been as a citizen of this country. For all I know - you may not have even been born here or you may not even be a legalized citizen. Care to share what your experience has been as an American? I question why you find it difficult to understand a different perspective of 'rights' in America by those who may be different from 'others'.

Impasse continues.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Laws - DM

"Please be specific. Do you support Life, Liberty and Property and a Republic for all Americans regardless of their 'class', color, and gender?"

If you happen to be human, then I support your rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If you happen to be an American then I support a Republican (not party DM) government to protect those rights. You are American aren't you?

I hope this is specific enough.

You pick the next idea you would like to get across to this "classless" individual.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - SELF IDENTIFY?
Quote:

"classless" individual.

Is this how you identify yourself? Interesting. You answer my question with a question. OK. I'm an American. . .and you? My freedom as an American ends where yours begins. Do you believe that? I think that I have self-identified in our discussion. I just know from your words that you are a human who uses the label American and believes in life, liberty, and property. You haven't stated that you feel this is for all Americans. Hmmmmm. Talking to you is like talking to a blank wall - who are you?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I am

I am a socialist's worse nightmare.

I have answered you question about laws I support, you're not listening.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU?

????????????

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - no need

No need to become hysterical about it.

I am simply a person that believes in freedom......not state control.

I have an idea, since you admire the Cuban way of life so much why don't you simply emigrate there? I think both countries would benefit.

Bon Voyage!

Or you can pick the next subject?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC -

Difficult to discuss anything with the 'unknown'.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU?

???????????? Not hysterical - just excited at an interception. Multi-tasking.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - Secret identity - important?
Quote:

Blaming people of today for past crimes is intellectuality dishonest and near sighted.

Again, thanks to MLK - most Americans are not ' blaming people of today for 'past crimes' - but for the remnants of the segregated thought that still exists in some areas of our society. Why are you hesitant to identify how you fit into the American ‘quilt’? Almost everyone here has identified at least his or her 'gender'. Why try to keep it a secret?
I'm proud of who and what I am. And you?

Most people are not surprised at my stand on certain issues - given my background. I am not surprised at those who felt very strongly earlier and today about 'reverse racism'. One learns by understanding the motivation for one's thought.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Identity DM

Difficult isn't it Mom?

When you have to defend ideas based on rational thought without relying on the "class" crutch, it keeps us focused on ideas.

For example, the idea that " George Washington was a brilliant murderer. You don't support him?" is an interesting and provocative idea. Unless my history is wrong, General Washington commanded an army. That army could have dug trenches and shot people, but I find it nowhere in history. In fact, after the war I don't find it anywhere where General or President Washington decided to have a purge. On the other hand our "little ray of hope" did this on numerous occasions. So, comparing General Washington to a murderer is more than a little off the mark. Weren't you a teacher? Did you teach children that General Washington was a murderer? How about Castro? How could you confuse these two people?

Now if you don't believe these two people are equal, why would you write it as an argument to your position? Is this something that is simply in your nature?

I am proud of who I am, I am a member of the human race, but I try not to use this fact as a way of getting around logic.

How about you?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Reality PTC

Excellent point. Unfortunately, Castro felt he was a military leader - as did Bautista. Did you miss that in your version of 'history'? What has your experience as a member of the human race afforded you that you feel that the actions of some with a certain label are OK - when those same actions of another under another label are not? You must be a conscientious objector. . .right? You know - in England, George Washington is considered a traitor who murdered/purged the sons of many Brits. I guess it's just the viewpoint that is 'real' to some. Your reality is not the only reality on this earth - nor is mine. But I'm respectful of those who are knowledgeable enough to realize that there just may be another point of view to an issue.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Point of View

I suppose that your viewpoint is just to you, but I fail to understand how you can compare these two individuals as equal.

It is not I who came out with the statement that you have a role model that supports Castro and calls him “brilliant”. It is not I that said I supported him and thought him a “little ray of hope” for a “classless” society. It is not I that continues to defend him through simplistic example. It is you that wrote these words in support of a “classless” society, I believe you mean what you write. You show your inter-self to us in your muse. The more you write the more you reveal to us about your nature and your philosophy.

A viewpoint that can't draw a distinction between right and wrong is worse than flawed. It is the same viewpoint that gave us Stalinist Gulags, Nazi Concentration Camps, North Korea Starvation, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Cuban political prisons and mass murder at Hue. All socialist endeavors that supported the notion of “the end justifies the means”, whatever it takes to deliver our Utopian “classless” society. Apparently this is difficult for you to understand. You are using an example that is justifying the actions of a mass murderer on the graves of those that started a revolution that lead to our freedom and the first representative government in human history. A government formed by imperfect men and by a man that could have been King if he desired. He was the most powerful and respected man of his time, but chose to give up power and invest in a representative republic. He was an 18th century Cincinnatus. How in heaven’s name can you compare Washington to Castro? I cannot support your view, it is beyond corrupt and you should stop trying to defend the indefensible. Castro is a murder.

I think that when Cuba is free, you should be part of the humanitarian team that goes down to Cuba to identify mass graves. The American Army did the same thing in Germany following VE Day. They made the people that supported the German National Socialist Party go out and help bury the people killed in the concentration camps by the SS. No amount of hyperbolae by you can defend the Cuban revolution and its dictator.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC - WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU?

Your point of view is wonderful. Bless you. Manifest Destiny, oh - why bother. Whatever is done by Americans anywhere in the world is justified. For the record, I will again repeat - I do not support Castro; I did when he supported an integrated society that Americans were fighting for here in the United States. He is brilliant - he's kept us out of his country for many, many years. We may not like the result of his political will - but it worked for him. I've been to Cuba (2003) I will go again once all of the 'phony' embargoes are removed. There are 'modern' cars in Cuba - and most of our companies still sell to the Cuban government. What hypocrisy! I am firmly against war anywhere. You need to study all war in order to understand the futility of war. You know - I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth - while you continue to say nothing but tired talking points. Your words indicate that you justify killing as long as it benefits your philosophy. Ugh! Why? PTC Observer - as long as you remain a 'blank' - there is no need to discuss anything further with you. My words define who and what I am today, who and what I was yesterday, and who and what I will be tomorrow, WHO OR WHAT ARE YOU?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Oppression of one form begets slavery of another

DM I am not surprised to find out that she is your cousin nor am I surprised that you believe "blacks saw Castro as a Ray of Hope". I guess in your 60's radical styled groups this was true.

However your stereotyping a group/minority as all Dictator mass murderer loving Communist is just a little insulting. In my circles that I traveled I saw many of the Van Jones type but I also saw more of the hard working America loving Citizens.

I guess it depends on which group one travels in. The hate America first crowd or others.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerofu
Quote:

DM I am not surprised to find out that she is your cousin nor am I surprised that you believe "blacks saw Castro as a Ray of Hope". I guess in your 60's radical styled groups this was true

That you classified those who wanted equality in the '60's as 'radicals' says a lot about you - and is not surprising to me. Are you saying that those in this country then and now who stand for equal opportunity for all American citizens HATE America? That's what I'm hearing from you and PTC. This is not a conservative American thought - it is an antiquated thought of the insecure who 'want their country back' - the way it was. . . America for the 'acceptable class' only. No minorities allowed. Most Americans are proud of the progress we have made in this country since the Civil War. How about you?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
NUK & Watson

Watson was also a member of the "Congressional Progressive Caucas", along with Georgia's own Hank Johnson, he of the "island-tipping" expertise (Guam).

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
To Georgia Conservatives:

I'll be here in 2011 - hopefully discussing common sense with those who are so determined to find fault with any and every idea that is not part of their individual ideology. Although I was brought up in California - my roots are here in Georgia. . .and I realize your thought is a 'majority' thought in suburbia Georgia - but it is not always based on American principles and values. At least you should be aware that there is a different opinion/view of America than the one that you hold so dear - and fear that the communists, socialists, and fascists will ruin. Oh - it's going to be an interesting year!! ☺

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I for one

I for one am glad that you post here, you give us insight into how many Americans think.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Online
Joined: 01/18/2007
DM & Georgia Conservatives

I think you're wrong if you believe that all "conservatives" who post here derive their beliefs from "suburbia Georgia". I believe that most of us were born & brought up in other parts of the country and, for various reasons, landed in Georgia at some time in our life, and, for whatever reasons, chose to remain here. I also believe that most conservatives are much more tolerant toward new ideas than you give credit for--you cannot take the rants of a select few as gospel for the beliefs of all. At least we can agree on one thing--it will indeed be an interesting year!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

You're right. Not all. Back to football!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
My Diane

I'm very proud to state that she has been a role model since my early childhood. SHE'S MY COUSIN! She devoted her life to bringing diverse people together to work towards common goals. She didn't always succeed - but her 35 years in public service benefitted many. The family was involved in serving the public long before the advent of the internet and texting to spread the word and unify the community. I know that people with divergent ideas can work together for common goals. We in this country don't realize it yet - but following one ideology will not 'save' our country - working together as Americans with the common goal of unifying our country will 'save' our country. UNITED WE STAND - DIVIDED WE FALL. So this liberal will continue to post and share. Sorry folks. Until Cal runs me off - you have David's Mom for another year at least. :-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - compromise

I too believe in compromise but not in principles.

How can we have common goals when the primary goal is to take wealth from one group of people against their will and give it to another group of people?

The best solution to this issue is to get the government out of the redistribution business.

I suppose there is no compromise on the principle of, "Thou shall not steal".

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

I'd love to discuss this with you. Need some clarification. What has the government taken from you personally?

What 'wealth' has been redistributed without the benefit of receiving a 'service'? (I can think of an answer - but just want to make sure we have a similar basis for discussion.) You know of course that as soon as your 'libertarian' views are expressed - I have a problem with that. :-) We’re not too far apart on fiscal conservative principles. I still don’t see the feasibility of ‘Love your neighbor’ (be charitable towards your neighbor) being handled solely by volunteer (charitable) organizations. I think we are on the same page regarding corruption and fraud. Correct me if I’m wrong.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Online
Joined: 04/23/2007
Well DM

I think we do agree on corruption but I also believe that your principles of governmment control lead to more of it.

It is not the fact that the government takes some of the money they take and provides services, the question is what service should the government provide? This is a much bigger question. In my view government should be limited to: protection of life, liberty, and property. Anything else is a "service" that government should not provide.

I don't need my taxes to study the sex life of frogs. Just one of a million of things that my property is use for. It has no value to me because it doesn't protect the three things that government should protect.

Charity can work just fine if government isn't trying to take over the role of charities. Government forces out effective charity.

" as soon as your 'libertarian' views are expressed - I have a problem with that." Please explain what view you disagree with and why, I am really curious about this.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC

I'll get back to you. Watching the Rose Bowl game. What a colorful pageant!!

justacitizen
justacitizen's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
House to read Constitution

I re-read the Constitution during the Clinton trial. I learned a lot. I hope that when they read it in the House it is not to a bunch of empty seats. The camera need not be on the reader but on the house seats. I doubt that will happen. I am still clinical with good reason. We got change in November but we still need to watch and hold their feet to the fire.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Why just read the Constitution?

I propose that they use it to create a HB and make it a law. What the heck, it would have to be constitutional, right? To me, reading it is just theater, and to make it more entertaining, they could dress in period costumes.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Carbonite52

Period costumes. (They may get better viewer ratings - and some of the chairs may be filled)!! LOL

Recent Comments