Politics On Politics.


flyfishing3
 Share

Recommended Posts

But he also says he's in favor of the states handling the laws. So yes it's his personal opinion, but not his decision.You might be against legalization... but do you still want to see jail time? Especially for first time personal-use offenders? What about fines instead?

What if a state wants to bring back slavery? Some would.......

I'm fine with major jail time for any drug arrests. Shouldn't do them. Major jail will curtail use.

I'd be ok with capital punishment for dealers too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a state wants to bring back slavery? Some would.......

That's just some sky-is-falling BS. Why didn't you pick the easy one and claim states would have the power to legalize coke? I'm assuming the states you're thinking of would be in the deep south? If so... they have the highest concentration of black people. I don't really see that happening.

map_nhblack.gif

I'm fine with major jail time for any drug arrests. Shouldn't do them. Major jail will curtail use.

I think that's too simplistic of a view. Maybe it prevents people from trying it their first time. But once they start using, you really think they're afraid of jail? And you think their life is going to get back on track once they get out?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with major jail time for any drug arrests. Shouldn't do them. Major jail will curtail use.

I'd be ok with capital punishment for dealers too

Capital punishment is not happening, to many for profit prisons these days. :lol:

And because jails don't have plenty of drugs in them. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Tea Partiers are familiar with how this whole concept of apostasy went over within the Stalin regime? Cruz as Trotsky anyone?

436px-Trotsky_Portrait.jpgted_cruz6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my good friend Mike Lee. Study partners in college even helped him get elected as Student Body President. Amazing how times change people:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56951507-90/church-congressional-donate-government.html.csp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's add a little perspective to the whole question of who is funding what and who is holding the government hostage. I love historical civics lessons because they're so much more insightful than the stupid taglines like we're being held hostage by a minority of one party in one house in Congress in one branch of government.

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/what-the-media-isnt-telling-you-about-the-government-shutdown/

A little more insight on this from my perspective - and by the way I blame both parties for this stunt:

Don't forget that Congress holds the purse strings and has the right to fund or not fund any law through appropriations (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 7). Both the Democrats and the Republicans have done this on many occasions but more predominantly the Democrats since historically they've held the House (where appropriations happen) longer in the last 100 years.

Now in 1974, the Democratically controlled Congress changed the approach to budgeting through the Impoundment Control Act specifically because they were concerned that President Nixon was abusing his power of impoundment by withholding the funding of programs that he opposed.

Wait what? That sounds familiar you say?

They did not like the fact that the President could simply decide not to spend money to fund programs he disliked. And as a result the Democratically controlled House and Senate passed a law that said he could no longer impound funds.

But then what is the House really doing? Are they really withholding funds and causing the government to shut down? Actually no. Because since 2009 Congress hasn't actually passed a budget - like the law says they're supposed to through the appropriations process - but instead they've been passing Continuing Resolutions to fund various agencies in a piecemeal process. Doing so avoids dealing with sticky political issues that no one wants to have to take a stand on - kind of like that whole Fiscal Cliff question.

So the Republicans decided once they took back the House to approach funding in the same manner. And began passing piecemeal appropriations budgets and continuing resolutions to fund everything but the Affordable Care Act. Most recently, the Democrats allowed bills to pass to fund the military but decided to take a stand against further piecemeal funding because this would enable the Republicans to fund all other budgetary needs without submitting a bill to fund the ACA. That is the point when they demanded that a single clean bill be passed to fund all budgets rather than the piecemeal process they had used even prior to Republicans taking back the House.

Refer back to the concept of legislation through appropriations. Now, is there any precedence for this action? As a matter of fact there is. Democrats used this a number of times against President Reagan to defund certain programs he wanted to see proceed. And politicians of all stripes do this all the time: they vote for a particular piece of legislation to pass it as a law and then they turn around to vote against it in the appropriations process. So they can tell their constituents that they voted for the law but that darn Congress refuses to fund it.

So where does that leave us? Someone is refusing to move forward in funding the government. Depending on which side you agree with, you probably think it's the other side's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And politicians of all stripes do this all the time: they vote for a particular piece of legislation to pass it as a law and then they turn around to vote against it in the appropriations process. So they can tell their constituents that they voted for the law but that darn Congress refuses to fund it.

Is there a website which tracks this? Who voted for what, but would not vote to fund it? Seems like it would make for some interesting charts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a website which tracks this? Who voted for what, but would not vote to fund it? Seems like it would make for some interesting charts.

There are several that pull the database data from the Library of Congress which collects all of the voting data. There's not an easy way to compare voted for a bill vs. voted to fund it because it's complicated to split out the funding to each particular program. But it can be done:

https://www.google.com/search?q=congressional+votes+for+bills+vs+funding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=tracking+congressional+votes&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial

Look at the top 10 and you'll find the sources of information. This particular wiki offers the background you need:

http://www.wikihow.com/Track-US-Legislation-and-Congress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crash. And. Burn.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/fractured-gop-scrambles-to-save-face-amid-brutal-shutdown-polls

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/11/House-GOP-Caves-Will-Lift-Debt-AND-Reopen-Government

This is what happens when you walk into a negotiation without establishing a BATNA. Evidence that too many lawyers and not enough MBAs leads to disaster. How could they not have anticipated that this is where they were going to land? They have 6 more days before they needed to blink. This is not how Goldman Sachs would have handled it. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They forgot that Obama doesn't care. He's not up for reelection like he was the last time they negotiated the debt ceiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They forgot that Obama doesn't care. He's not up for reelection like he was the last time they negotiated the debt ceiling.

If he doesn't care, then every second term President didn't either, and you know that is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share