GOP Kills Science Jobs Bill By Forcing Dems To Vote For Porn

OK let's say the stimulous did its job. We don't need MORE "stimulous" now do we.

What does this absurdity, "we know what congress will continue to do, because congress has always been the same" mean?

You do realise congress has changed quite a bit over the past 200 years, right?

And, after all, Obama promised "change......."

Obama can promise all he like, doesn't mean it will come true.

Like I said, our politicians have been the same for a long time in terms of character. Hell, even some of our founders have had their moments.

Look up John Adams and the Alien & Sedition Act he passed.


Let's just try to remain on topic.

You (and/or the article) claims that Republicans are practicing some sort of obstructionist parlimentary game, for no reason other than being "obstructionist."

I say they're trying to control spending.

You say, no, they alone want to only control CERTAIN spending. There is OTHER spending that they alone don't mind, and that Democrats shun?

Where you have evidence of this since January 2009?
 
Let's just try to remain on topic.

You (and/or the article) claims that Republicans are practicing some sort of obstructionist parlimentary game, for no reason other than being "obstructionist."

I say they're trying to control spending.

You say, no, they alone want to only control CERTAIN spending. There is OTHER spending that they alone don't mind, and that Democrats shun?

Where you have evidence of this since January 2009?
:eusa_eh:


The bill had passed the committee last month with bipartisan support, in a vote of 29 to 8.

"If at any point during the 48 hearings we've held on this bill, the Minority brought up their concerns with isolated incidents of federal employees viewing pornography, or if they had made an amendment in order during any of the three Subcommittee markups, the Full Committee Markup, or the Floor Consideration, I would have been happy to vote for that amendment," Gordon said in a press release after the vote.
 
And the troll remains in character!!!! Kudos!!!!!!! :clap2:

So wait, one of the biggest trolls here at USMB is trying to call me a troll? You make me laugh xsited.

Again, totally in character. Of course, everyone knows I'll sometimes troll to get a reaction from the idiots who just don't get it (usually Libtards like yourself), but the fact is that I know that I troll and freely admit I do. You troll, but deny it. You're obviously the superior troll. Your troll posts consistently get a troll post rating of 9 and above. Kudos! :clap2:

:eusa_hand:

Could you please confirm that I'm NOT one of "the idiots that just don't get it."

I'm very insecure, and suseptible to complexes.:confused:
 
Let's just try to remain on topic.

You (and/or the article) claims that Republicans are practicing some sort of obstructionist parlimentary game, for no reason other than being "obstructionist."

I say they're trying to control spending.

You say, no, they alone want to only control CERTAIN spending. There is OTHER spending that they alone don't mind, and that Democrats shun?

Where you have evidence of this since January 2009?
:eusa_eh:


The bill had passed the committee last month with bipartisan support, in a vote of 29 to 8.

"If at any point during the 48 hearings we've held on this bill, the Minority brought up their concerns with isolated incidents of federal employees viewing pornography, or if they had made an amendment in order during any of the three Subcommittee markups, the Full Committee Markup, or the Floor Consideration, I would have been happy to vote for that amendment," Gordon said in a press release after the vote.


This is NOT an example of spending that Democrats did not support, but that republicans did support.

Thus the term "bipartisan support."
 
This is NOT an example of spending that Democrats did not support, but that republicans did support.

Thus the term "bipartisan support."

My point is they were being obstructionists because the Republicans clearly had no problem with the bill in committee last month. Which is where it passed with bipartisan support.
 
GOP Kills Science Jobs Bill By Forcing Dems To Vote For Porn | TPMDC

In an example of Republican obstructionism rendered beautiful by its simplicity, the GOP yesterday killed a House bill that would increase funding for scientific research and math and science education by forcing Democrats to vote in favor of federal employees viewing pornography.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the ranking member of the House science committee, introduced a motion to recommit, a last-ditch effort to change a bill by sending it back to the committee with mandatory instructions.

In this case, Republicans included a provision that would bar the federal government from paying the salaries of employees who've been disciplined for viewing pornography at work.

The bill had passed the committee last month with bipartisan support, in a vote of 29 to 8.

"If at any point during the 48 hearings we've held on this bill, the Minority brought up their concerns with isolated incidents of federal employees viewing pornography, or if they had made an amendment in order during any of the three Subcommittee markups, the Full Committee Markup, or the Floor Consideration, I would have been happy to vote for that amendment," Gordon said in a press release after the vote.

"We're all opposed to federal employees watching pornography. That is not a question; but that's not what this was about," he went on. "The Motion to Recommit was about gutting funding for our science agencies."

At this point, is there really any excuse for the obstructionism, other than to just say the Dems didn't get anything done? :eusa_eh:

The bill -- a re-authorization of the 2007 COMPETES Act -- has been supported by interests usually seen as aligned with Republicans, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

If I may, let me suggest that, when using TPM as your source, consider changing the obviously misleading headline. No one is forcing anyone to vote for porn. No one is looking "to vote in favor of federal employees viewing pornography." The provision is about barring the government from "paying the salaries of employees who've been disciplined for viewing pornography at work."

This is NOT an example of spending that Democrats did not support, but that republicans did support.

Thus the term "bipartisan support."

My point is they were being obstructionists because the Republicans clearly had no problem with the bill in committee last month. Which is where it passed with bipartisan support.

When last month did the bill clear committee? Before or after the SEC porn "scandal?" Seems to me the Republicans are being more opportunist than obstructionist...
 
Last edited:
This is NOT an example of spending that Democrats did not support, but that republicans did support.

Thus the term "bipartisan support."

My point is they were being obstructionists because the Republicans clearly had no problem with the bill in committee last month. Which is where it passed with bipartisan support.

Normally, I'd agree with you.

But the fact that government spending is gotten so uncontrolled that support for spending increases dries up after one month tells me that perhaps even I am underestimating the magnetude of the problem.

Actually, I begin to hope you are right, because if obstructionism is not the goal, then we are headed for some really deep financial shit.
 
When last month did the bill clear committee? Before or after the SEC porn "scandal?" Seems to me the Republicans are being more opportunist than obstructionist...

Again, this is a much more comfortable answer to their change of heart than the possibility that spending has become so uncontrolled that republicans are trying to put on the breakes wherever possible.
 
Sexist? Where did I ever say that? You're making up shit about my words, once again. Or, hallucinating...hard to tell.

The fact of the matter is, you have issues with women. Most women here already know that. You don't

Once again, you haven't the capacity.

I do? Really, do tell, with some evidence. Also, which women? I'd love to know.
Wait? STAFF is asking me to share PMs?

What

the

fuck?????




Damn, the stupid is thick here.

Thicker and slicker than swamp mud.
 
When last month did the bill clear committee? Before or after the SEC porn "scandal?" Seems to me the Republicans are being more opportunist than obstructionist...

Again, this is a much more comfortable answer to their change of heart than the possibility that spending has become so uncontrolled that republicans are trying to put on the breakes wherever possible.

More comfortable? Yeah, I can see that. It was not comfort, however, that brought to that suggestion. Just a different look at the issue. I'd like to think that neither party is opportunistic or obstructionist, but instead interested in cutting spending and saving money. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any evidence of this. Unless of course the other party is in power, and that's just hypocrisy...
 
When last month did the bill clear committee? Before or after the SEC porn "scandal?" Seems to me the Republicans are being more opportunist than obstructionist...

Again, this is a much more comfortable answer to their change of heart than the possibility that spending has become so uncontrolled that republicans are trying to put on the breakes wherever possible.

More comfortable? Yeah, I can see that. It was not comfort, however, that brought to that suggestion. Just a different look at the issue. I'd like to think that neither party is opportunistic or obstructionist, but instead interested in cutting spending and saving money. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any evidence of this. Unless of course the other party is in power, and that's just hypocrisy...

When prime interest rates begin to climb above 10%, then it will be too late, and then government budgets will begin to shrink.

IMHO
 
Socialists/Progressives love Porn so why are they feigning such outrage over this stuff? Seems pretty desperate & lame to me. The Democrats have presided over the worst Congress in U.S. History. Blaming the Republicans for this just isn't gonna cut it with common sense thinking people. My God,they even managed to f*ck up a Super Majority. Only Democrats are capable of pulling that off. It's time to wave bye bye to this Dem-led worst Congress in U.S. History. Make 2010 count people.
 
ONe bill, one vote. Enough of this bullshit of putting nonsense into a bill, or combining irrelevant things.
 
I find your worship of scientists to be quite fascinating, rdean. You realize, do you not, that being a 'scientist' doesn't automatically mean you are intellectually superior to the rest of mankind? 'Scientists' know a LOT - about their own particular field. But, they don't necessarily 'know' much about anything else. That doesn't automatically make them smarter than the rest of the world.... except, of course, those who believe in 'Obama money'.

Just a little reality check for ya....

Ah, then you do believe that "science is a religion". Very interesting, and revealing.

There has been this misconception that the educated aren't well "versed" in other aspects of living. The uneducated perpetrate this "myth" as a way, in their minds, to "level the playing field".

The thing about education is that everyone can get it. It's not limited to a certain group of people.

Now getting into Annapolis because daddy and grand daddy were Admirals and graduating 5th from the bottom out of 899 or getting jumped over thousands at Harvard because daddy pulled strings are limited to a select few. Sons of former presidents and people like that.

Basic comprehension skill failure, rdean. It is you who demonstrates the worship of science as a religion, not me.

You are the one who quotes the same figure (inaccurately) time and again in some sad attempt to justify your pathological hatred of Republicans.

The problem with your comment about the 'uneducated' is that I am not one of them. In fact, quite the opposite.

Fact remains.... scientists are, basically, just smart in their particular field. I know a good few exceptionally smart people.... a lot of them can't open a jar without instructions.

Pure BS.

Back to the old, "Smart People are Secretly Stupid" theory. Next, you'll be telling us Bush and Palin are "secretly smart".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Basic comprehension skill failure, rdean. It is you who demonstrates the worship of science as a religion, not me.

You are the one who quotes the same figure (inaccurately) time and again in some sad attempt to justify your pathological hatred of Republicans.

The problem with your comment about the 'uneducated' is that I am not one of them. In fact, quite the opposite.

Fact remains.... scientists are, basically, just smart in their particular field. I know a good few exceptionally smart people.... a lot of them can't open a jar without instructions.

projection or jealously? hard choice...
 
Basic comprehension skill failure, rdean. It is you who demonstrates the worship of science as a religion, not me.

You are the one who quotes the same figure (inaccurately) time and again in some sad attempt to justify your pathological hatred of Republicans.

The problem with your comment about the 'uneducated' is that I am not one of them. In fact, quite the opposite.

Fact remains.... scientists are, basically, just smart in their particular field. I know a good few exceptionally smart people.... a lot of them can't open a jar without instructions.

projection or jealously? hard choice...

what is even more funny is that the CTO of our company who has published science related research for ~15 years is also a gourmet chef

:lol::lol::lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top