• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Democracy at work in House of Representatives?

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The two don't even compare. To say so is being intellectually dishonest.

How so? Both appear to have violated parlimentary procedure, one just happens to be on a popular video and from a party here few like.

I find it amusing that no one here has even mentioned what the vote was about. Can anyone say without first looking at this link? Being Congress they created a committee to examine the issue and apparently decided in the end it was wrong in the end.

I am by no means blind to the fact that whatever party is in power in Congress will sometimes bend the rules, whether it is the Democratic or Republican party. I can cite numerous examples from just the past decade where shennanigans have occurred when the ruling party wants to get something done. Ironically, one of the more well-known examples when the Republicans were in control of Congress has echoes of the controversy cited here. When they passed the prescription drug benefit for Medicare the Republican leadership extended the vote almost 3 hours past the regular 15 minutes to get the votes they needed. Or the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo which was passed by the Senate with only 3 members present and after the President had signed it. Where is the outrage about those acts? Oh yeah, they were from the other party.......:eek:

So was it right? No. But spare me the outrage, unless you want me to pull out more examples of Congress and other parts of the government doing dumb stuff, it is pretty damn easy to do with both parties.
 

NUFO06

Well-Known Member
None
As Robert Gibbs says, "We will continue to fight the power."

How do you fight the man once you become the man?
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
What's most dissapointing is that most folks around here get their marching orders in a round about way via these miserable elected individuals. 2010 can't come soon enough. Ugh.
What's most disappointing and enraging is that this man still has a job.

If there's any truth to there being a video back in the day of him discussing the possibility of a bribe paired with this video of him blatantly disregarding Congressional procedures, how is this man not ousted from Congress? Why isn't he in prison?

I mean, people make claims about Congress being corrupt and all that jazz, and most of the time they're told to take off the tinfoil hat. Videos like this actually give credibility to those people.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why isn't this man facing the death penalty for treason?
Speaking of tinfoil hats . . . taking bribes != treason. Reread the Constitution; it's the only crime defined there.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Ah I used webster instead, and the definition was much more general.

dictionary.com said:
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

And considering that he's blatantly violating Congressional procedures to achieve his own means in the posted video, I'd say that qualifies as a violation of allegiance to the U.S.

Editing post.
 

JIMC5499

ex-Mech
The company that I work for has asked me to go to some of the technology summits that the County where we are located has. Problem is that either Murtha or Specter are usually there. I keep declining the invitation. I have asked my Boss how it would look for the company if I punched out Murtha or Specter. Personally I have no desire to meet the second ex-Marine in history. Not that I'm partial to Jarheads, but my Father was one.
 

HercDriver

Idiots w/boats = job security
pilot
Super Moderator
Ah I used webster instead, and the definition was much more general.



And considering that he's blatantly violating Congressional procedures to achieve his own means in the posted video, I'd say that qualifies as a violation of allegiance to the U.S.

Editing post.
It is a stretch to call disregarding parlimentary procedure treason. If so, I'll bet that there are a lot of members of the house from both parties that would be hung from yardarms.

And why is there so much chest-beating about the how we need to clean house? We hold elections every cycle and the people in power are elected by their constituents. And as much as I hate pork-barrel politics that is what quite a few folks have sent their congressman to DC for...to take care of them. To ensure that their district is getting funding for new roads, urban renewal projects, schools, etc. If they declined government funding and so many of these projects didn't happen, they would be tossed out on their ear.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
....And why is there so much chest-beating ....???
Well, probably 'cause it comes with the breed, you Nancy-boy Coastie ... :)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Only the spirit of attack born in a brave heart will bring success to any .... aircraft no [/FONT]matter how highly developed it may be."[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]--- [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adolf Galland[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"There is always more spirit in attack than in defense." --- Titus Livius
[/FONT]

And I (a former chest-beating ATTACK Puke) did the ^ color just for you ... as one can shirley (sic) see ... :)
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
And why is there so much chest-beating about the how we need to clean house?
Because they don't govern according to the Constitution and people are sick of it.

HercDriver said:
And as much as I hate pork-barrel politics that is what quite a few folks have sent their congressman to DC for...to take care of them.
And that in there lies the problem. It's not the government's responsibility to take care of us. I want the government to step aside so I can't take care of myself and for anybody else around me that I choose to.

HercDriver said:
To ensure that their district is getting funding for new roads, urban renewal projects, schools, etc. If they declined government funding and so many of these projects didn't happen, they would be tossed out on their ear.
How is any of this the Federal Government's responsibility?
 

HercDriver

Idiots w/boats = job security
pilot
Super Moderator
Well, probably 'cause it comes with the breed, you Nancy-boy Coastie ... :)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Only the spirit of attack born in a brave heart will bring success to any .... aircraft no [/FONT]matter how highly developed it may be."[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]--- [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adolf Galland[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There is always more spirit in attack than in defense." --- Titus Livius[/FONT]

And I (a former chest-beating ATTACK Puke) did the ^ color just for you ... as one can shirley (sic) see ... :)

That's it. I'm marching out to my mailbox and retrieving your Christmas card, and your name shall be stricken from the list.
Because they don't govern according to the Constitution and people are sick of it.
Elaborate, please.
And that in there lies the problem. It's not the government's responsibility to take care of us. I want the government to step aside so I can't take care of myself and for anybody else around me that I choose to.

How is any of this the Federal Government's responsibility?
How often do constituents send a member to congress and request that they don't get federal funds for their district? Everyone brings up the tired "throw the bums out" line every few years, but the incumbent can usually point to the great things he has voted on and how he has improved the local area, brought in money for jobs programs, etc., and gets reelected. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, simply that it is the paradigm we are working with right now.
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
It is a stretch to call disregarding parlimentary procedure treason. If so, I'll bet that there are a lot of members of the house from both parties that would be hung from yardarms.

And why is there so much chest-beating about the how we need to clean house?
This "Parliamentary procedure" is not some gentleman's agreement between representatives, it's the law. It derives directly from Article 1 of the Constitution, which all these members are sworn to uphold. Failing to abide by them is breaking the law, and people who do so should be punished like every other criminal.

So what do you call it when one breaks the law to achieve his own self interests at the expense of a country he is supposed to be serving? Treason might be a stretch, but there is no excuse that this man is still allowed to serve in Congress. Yes, he can be voted out, but that gives this man the opportunity to be re-elected...an opportunity he shouldn't have.

There is a big difference between a Congressman trying to push for funding for his constituents legally and blatantly violating the Constitution by not counting votes.
 

OnTopTime

ROBO TACCO
None
This "Parliamentary procedure" is not some gentleman's agreement between representatives, it's the law. It derives directly from Article 1 of the Constitution, which all these members are sworn to uphold. Failing to abide by them is breaking the law, and people who do so should be punished like every other criminal.

No. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that each house determines its own rules for proceedings, and may "punish its Members for disorderly Behavior..." Failing to follow parliamentary procedure as established by the House or the Senate is not a violation of law, but it may be a violation of the rules of the House or Senate. Huge difference.
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
See Article I, Section 8
What about it? You're not suggesting that Article I, Section 8 is the basis for Congress's responsibility to provide funding for new roads, urban renewal projects, and schools are you?
 

Steve Wilkins

Teaching pigs to dance, one pig at a time.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This "Parliamentary procedure" is not some gentleman's agreement between representatives, it's the law. It derives directly from Article 1 of the Constitution
No, each house gets to make their own rules and those rules are subject to change.
 
Top