Al Franken...is this for real?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In this case the Federal government should not have the "authority" to tell states how to standardize who gets to vote or how those votes are counted. Pretty straight forward or was that too complicated for you?

The federal judiciary has ruled otherwise...repeatedly. Most recently in a challenge to HAVA.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

IBut damn, its impossible to have a rational discussion with you (on many topics) when you choose to ignore the facts as you so often do.

No what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Your impression is that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you when people don't agree with everything you spew as fact when it is nothing more than an opinion. And when people fail to eventually agree with everything you say you say they are ignorant. Hardly a discussion.

I don't recall promising to put you on ignore.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The federal judiciary has ruled otherwise...repeatedly. Most recently in a challenge to HAVA.

How do you explain the differences between the states on how votes are counted, how voters are registered, and who can vote and who cannot vote?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Your impression is that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you when people don't agree with everything you spew as fact when it is nothing more than an opinion. And when people fail to eventually agree with everything you say you say they are ignorant. Hardly a discussion.

I don't recall promising to put you on ignore.

You're the only one I have called ignorant

[TheMercenary]

The voter ID Act has been upheld in GA. That is quite different from many states.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're the only one I have called ignorant

Because I refuse to believe many of your opinions? Who made you God or a mind reader for that matter? Did you learn that when you were a lobbyist sucking up on The Hill?

[classicman]

There can be different discussions, one may be of what is (based upon facts) and another could be a discussion of ideals which MAY be supported with facts. The latter leads to a discussion of ideals and desires. Its not only about what is, but what we want to make it as well. Whether a court has ruled one way or another is meaningless in the second. It also may turn out to be meaningless in the first as well.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Because I refuse to believe many of your opinions? Who made you God or a mind reader for that matter? Did you learn that when you were a lobbyist sucking up on The Hill?

Ignorance is when you ignore the facts, not opinion.

Ignorance is insisting that Congress has no oversight role in foreign affairs that justify foreign trips by Democrats.

Ignorance is insisting that the latest budget proposal was not transparent when by any and all standards it has been fully transparent.

Ignorance is insisting that the Democrats did not initiate ethics and lobbying reform when the law is presented to you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Ignorance is when you ignore the facts, not opinion.

Ignorance is insisting that Congress has no oversight role in foreign affairs that justify foreign trips by Democrats.

Ignorance is insisting that the latest budget proposal was not transparent when by any and all standards it has been fully transparent.

Ignorance is insisting that the Democrats did not initiate ethics and lobbying reform when the law is presented to you.

Sorry mate, most of those things are measured by you and do not hold up to close examination. That makes them your opinion.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Ignorance is when you ignore the facts, not opinion.

Ignorance is insisting that Congress has no oversight role in foreign affairs that justify foreign trips by Democrats.

Still trying to justify Pelosi's jaunt to Italy>

Ignorance is insisting that the latest budget proposal was not transparent when by any and all standards it has been fully transparent.

The one they released in it's final version three days before the vote?

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, this morning issued the following statement after Democrats released a 3,565-page FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on later today.

“An initial review of this 3500 plus page bill confirms that this legislation is a bad for deal for American taxpayers, American families and the fiscal future of our children. Democrats squandered an opportunity to work together on a clean bill that is free of wasteful earmarks and budget gimmicks.

“Just three years ago, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the refusal to allow Members three days to read legislation before voting on it ‘martial law.’ Abandoning her word, Speaker Pelosi is now engaging in ‘martial law’ herself by trying to force a 3500 page bill containing 11 individual spending bills through Congress before anyone knows exactly what is in it.

“We know that this bill contains over 8000 earmarks. Those earmarks, combined with budget gimmicks that hide billions of dollars and other added-on spending ensure that the Democrats’ bill is well over the spending level requested by President Bush. While providing additional funds for our veterans is important, that extra spending must be offset elsewhere in this trillion dollar budget…

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Still trying to justify Pelosi's jaunt to Italy>

The one they released in it's final version three days before the vote?

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, this morning issued the following statement after Democrats released a 3,565-page FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on later today.

“An initial review of this 3500 plus page bill confirms that this legislation is a bad for deal for American taxpayers, American families and the fiscal future of our children. Democrats squandered an opportunity to work together on a clean bill that is free of wasteful earmarks and budget gimmicks.

“Just three years ago, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the refusal to allow Members three days to read legislation before voting on it ‘martial law.’ Abandoning her word, Speaker Pelosi is now engaging in ‘martial law’ herself by trying to force a 3500 page bill containing 11 individual spending bills through Congress before anyone knows exactly what is in it.

“We know that this bill contains over 8000 earmarks. Those earmarks, combined with budget gimmicks that hide billions of dollars and other added-on spending ensure that the Democrats’ bill is well over the spending level requested by President Bush. While providing additional funds for our veterans is important, that extra spending must be offset elsewhere in this trillion dollar budget…

LOL....not exactly...re: Pelosi....I am defending the Constitutional role of Congress in the oversight of foreign policy, including appropriately meeting with foreign leaders to discuss trade agreements and security issues with G-8 partners, consultating with NATO allied commanders and meeting with US military leaders troops stationed in Europe....basic civics that even a child would understand....its called checks and balances.

Bigger LOL....that is an FY 08 omnibus budget proposal from several years ago.

I was referring to the FY 2010 budget proposal that was submitted to both the House and Senate at least 7-10 days before they began debate....after which hearings were held in both the House and Senate and the Republicans given opportunities to submit amendments...and then further open discussion, debate and amendments offered on the floor of the House and Senate.

And the ethics/lobbying reform in 2007 that you deny.....the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was enacted and signed...it is not a figment of my imagination nor my opinion (I have said repeated that I dont think it goes far enough...but much better than any recent reform)...it was signed into law and as a matter of fact, includes some provisions for greater transparency for earmarks that you continue to insist doesnt exist.

You are in denial, dude.

[TheMercenary]

The discussion was about Pelosi. Not whether Congress can go on trips, even though they are running for President, as in the case of Hillary and McCain.

You think Congress was controlled by the Republickins in 2008? What planet were you on when the Demoncrats took control in the 2006 election cycle?

The 2006 United States midterm elections were held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. All United States House of Representatives seats and one third of the United States Senate seats were contested in this election, as well as 36 state governorships, many state legislatures, four territorial legislatures and many state and local races. The election resulted in a sweeping victory for the Democratic Party which captured the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures from the Republican Party. Turnout was very high in the election. In some states it was reported it neared presidential levels or turnout normally expected in a presidential election.

The victory of the Democratic Party in the 2006 Congressional elections was a major historic milestone for an additional reason: it saw the election of the first woman to serve as the Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, became the highest-ranking woman in the history of the government of the United States upon her election as Speaker in January 2007. In the United States, the Speaker is not only the presiding officer and leader of the majority party, the Speaker also directly follows the Vice President of the United States in the line of succession to the presidency. It was also the first election in U.S. history in which the losses for one side were so lopsided that the victorious party did not lose a single incumbent or open seat in Congress or governor's mansion.

LOL....carry on.

[classicman]

How long did they have to read the 11,000 page bill earlier this year? How long should they have? How long would it really take an average person to read and comprehend all that? What was the rush to get it done "that week" again?

Originally Posted by classicman

How long did they have to read the 11,000 page bill earlier this year? How long should they have? How long would it really take an average person to read and comprehend all that? What was the rush to get it done "that week" again?

In fact, the president is required by law to submit a budget proposal in Feb of every year and Congress is supposed to adopt a budget resolution by the end of April.

The size of the bill is nothing new nor is the fact that members of Congress dont read bills..that is why they have staff.

That is what was done this year.

But it doesnt mean that a budget was adopted...the budget proposal is simply a blueprint....it doesnt even go back to the president for signature..again by law.

The next step are 13 separate appropriation bills which make up the budget, again, where Republicans will have opportunities to offer amendments on each of those bills.