PDA

View Full Version : Rebellion Time?



llotter
03-16-2010, 01:46 PM
I think a lot of tea party folks are going to rebel if the health care legislation passes, probably through non-payment of taxes.

LWW
03-16-2010, 01:57 PM
Or harsher.

A dark cloud is forming on the horizon.

LWW

pooltchr
03-16-2010, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a lot of tea party folks are going to rebel if the health care legislation passes, probably through non-payment of taxes. </div></div>

Especially if they push it through the house without even voting on it!!!!!!!!!!

Steve

Sev
03-16-2010, 02:31 PM
Somebody is going to be burned at the stake.

LWW
03-16-2010, 03:42 PM
I blame Bush.

Seriously.

LWW

Sev
03-16-2010, 03:48 PM
I blame Truman. If Patton was allowed to go into Russia and MacArthur to go into China we would not have half the problems in the world we do today.

LWW
03-16-2010, 03:53 PM
I was speaking of Obama.

If Bush had the stones to stand up to the seditionists and swamp water drinkers in congress and the MSM and not allowed the insane and malicious lies to become accepted as common knowledge then dearest leader would still be harassing tellers in the lobbies of Chicago's inner city banks.

LWW

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:38 PM
I doubt it. They don't have the spines to go through the audits and have their wage garnished.

eg8r

LWW
03-16-2010, 07:43 PM
They don't have the manpower to go after everyone.

LWW

eg8r
03-17-2010, 12:06 PM
This does not detract from what I was saying. While what lotter was saying might appeal to people it simply will not happen on any grand scale.

eg8r

Qtec
03-18-2010, 01:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a lot of tea party folks are going to rebel if the health care legislation passes, probably through non-payment of taxes. </div></div>

<u>Especially if they push it through the house without even voting on it!!!!!!!!!!</u>

Steve </div></div>

Those pesky facts again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). <u>They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.</u>

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). <u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) </span>there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.</u>
</div></div>

Just another example of Republican hypocrisy.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-18-2010, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a lot of tea party folks are going to rebel if the health care legislation passes, probably through non-payment of taxes. </div></div>

<u>Especially if they push it through the house without even voting on it!!!!!!!!!!</u>

Steve </div></div>

Those pesky facts again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). <u>They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.</u>

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). <u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) </span>there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.</u>
</div></div>

Just another example of Republican hypocrisy.

Q </div></div>

And right wing media propaganda!

LWW
03-19-2010, 10:37 AM
And how many of these involved the passing of laws?

Y'all are aware that the SCOTUS has ruled this tactic illegal in passing legislation aren't you ... or do you even care?

LWW

eg8r
03-19-2010, 11:57 AM
Responding to qtip's stupidity is hilarious. Self-executing rules have never been used on policy at this grand of scale. However, qtip just did a great job of proving Steve is correct, the House is going to try and push this through without even voting on it. They are thinking about doing this because they know they cannot get the bill approved if people actually had to hang their names on it. They all want to separate themselves from this bill.

eg8r

pooltchr
03-19-2010, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Responding to qtip's stupidity is hilarious. Self-executing rules have never been used on policy at this grand of scale. However, qtip just did a great job of proving Steve is correct, the House is going to try and push this through without even voting on it. They are thinking about doing this because they know they cannot get the bill approved if people actually had to hang their names on it. They all want to separate themselves from this bill.

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, here is what is about to happen.
Peliso is telling house democrats that they are voting on the changes to the Senate bill on Sunday. Some of them actually believe her

If the house votes yes on Sunday, they are, in effect, voting to pass the Senate bill as is, without voting on it. Nancy will certify the Senate bill as having deemed to have passed. The ammendment with the changes will immediately be separated from the Semate bill. The Senate bill gets certified by the Senate and goes to Obama who will take about 30 seconds to sign it into law. We will then have national healthcare, and Obama can take off for the far east.

Meanwhile, the ammendment with the changes still has to go to the Senate where it is unlikely that it can pass, so it will die.

The house dems will try to claim they didn't vote for the senate bill (How the heck did it pass is they didn't vote for it???)

The Senate Reps will bring to light every bribe and dirty deal in the bill and force the howse Dems to defend their bribes.

Reps will gain seats in both houses in November, but we will already have government healthcare, so Obama will be happy. And his presidency will have been saved.

Damn the torpedoes....full speed ahead!!!!!!!

Steve