Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[daveman]

like all those ideas that had to be put in the constitution?

There's a major difference:

The ideas in the Constitution limit the powers of government to maximize individual freedom.

The left's ideas seek to limit individual freedoms to maximize the power of government.

So you say.

And yet... anarchists are universally recognized as far left and thjey want to do away with formal 'government' altogether.

It's not me who says it. It's history and current events.

 

[daveman]

The American Republican stance pretty much says the same thing. Republicans seem to want to be in control of everything that goes on in this country, and that free will be destroyed. If a Republican thinks anything I do to be "immoral" or any other thing they dont agree with, they want to make a law against it.

Conservatives want maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

Gay Marriage?

I support gay marriage. Anyone who believes in individual rights does.

China is a Communist nation.

That's funny shit right there

And it's true.

 

[JBeukema]

Where do you come up with this shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's good for politicians to put riders into unrelated bills to avoid an honest vote on something?


We'll remember that the next time the Dems do it and you bitch about it.

Why would that be wrong? Unless both the Senate and the House rewrite their rules to make every single bill that gets passed standalone, prohibiting any amendment that does not directly bear on the original bill, that is the way things will always get done. Can you imagine the gridlock if Congress had to debate every issue separately, and deliver an up or down vote based solely on the merits of that issue? The government would grind to a halt, and the only things that would get done each year would be the things that are impossible to ignore. While I, and others like me, would view that as an improvement, I suspect you would soon be clamoring for a return to the status quo.

It would surely force a change in the constitution which would be good. Ending pork and exposing trash is a good thing for all of us. What I suspect the change would be, is to make two chambers of the house & split the load so it can be debated. That would mean doubling up on the numbers or representatives, but also steering legislation away from those that might oppose it, much like judge shopping. 2 chambers, and those bills passing go onto the Senate. That would wake that body of sleepers up and give them something to do.

It would not change the Constitution one iota. Targeted spending, aka pork, is not a Constitutional issue because it falls within the powers of Congress, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Requiring Congress to vote on pork separately might make it easier to track but it wouldn't eliminate it because it is too entrenched in the system. If you want to eliminate it you need to cut back on the revenue that the federal government gets and require them to work with a balanced budget.

 

[The T]

Why would that be wrong? Unless both the Senate and the House rewrite their rules to make every single bill that gets passed standalone, prohibiting any amendment that does not directly bear on the original bill, that is the way things will always get done. Can you imagine the gridlock if Congress had to debate every issue separately, and deliver an up or down vote based solely on the merits of that issue? The government would grind to a halt, and the only things that would get done each year would be the things that are impossible to ignore. While I, and others like me, would view that as an improvement, I suspect you would soon be clamoring for a return to the status quo.

It would surely force a change in the constitution which would be good. Ending pork and exposing trash is a good thing for all of us. What I suspect the change would be, is to make two chambers of the house & split the load so it can be debated. That would mean doubling up on the numbers or representatives, but also steering legislation away from those that might oppose it, much like judge shopping. 2 chambers, and those bills passing go onto the Senate. That would wake that body of sleepers up and give them something to do.

It would not change the Constitution one iota. Targeted spending, aka pork, is not a Constitutional issue because it falls within the powers of Congress, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Requiring Congress to vote on pork separately might make it easier to track but it wouldn't eliminate it because it is too entrenched in the system. If you want to eliminate it you need to cut back on the revenue that the federal government gets and require them to work with a balanced budget.

That task gets the attention of the POTUS. He can Veto any spending bill if he doesn't like it in whole or in part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[1) so that would be why most republicans in this country has decided to get the government to make a law against homosexuals getting married right?
AND the fact that they want all elected officials to believe in the God of their perceptions, right?

That is your own misinformed perception of the democratic agenda.

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?




Wrong again, the Republicans were totally shut out of the process, they had no amendments, those that were there, were put there to satisfy the so called blue dogs

and another misinformed jackass pours out of the works to defend a misinformed perception that the original guy couldnt get himself out of. Kk, Ill bite, I will take you on too.

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

as for your other statement:

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?

You just proved my statement for me. Millions of gay Americans want to get married nationwide. It is something that you nor anyone else has a right to decide for someone else. IE, freedom to have independence of thought or action...

conservatives then go to the government, be it state, fed, whoever, to try to legislate AGAINST independence of thought or action. GET IT?

Just because some Republicans like the mandate does not make it right, constitutional, or even a Republican idea.

Just for the record, every gay who wants to get married is free to do so, if they travel to one of the 5 states that allow it. I would also like to point out that California, a historically liberal state, and one that overwhelmingly voted Democrat in 2008, sweeping Obama in with over 60% of the vote, also voted against SSM. You need to take your partisan blinders off and stop blaming conservatives when the problem is actually something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It would surely force a change in the constitution which would be good. Ending pork and exposing trash is a good thing for all of us. What I suspect the change would be, is to make two chambers of the house & split the load so it can be debated. That would mean doubling up on the numbers or representatives, but also steering legislation away from those that might oppose it, much like judge shopping. 2 chambers, and those bills passing go onto the Senate. That would wake that body of sleepers up and give them something to do.

It would not change the Constitution one iota. Targeted spending, aka pork, is not a Constitutional issue because it falls within the powers of Congress, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Requiring Congress to vote on pork separately might make it easier to track but it wouldn't eliminate it because it is too entrenched in the system. If you want to eliminate it you need to cut back on the revenue that the federal government gets and require them to work with a balanced budget.

That task gets the attention of the POTUS. He can Veto any spending bill if he doesn't like it in whole or in part.

I know, yet they never do. That would be something to see, a president actually exercising his veto power to fight pork.

 

[daveman]

Where do you come up with this shit?

History. Current events.

Not HuffPo, DailyKOS, or DU.

 

[The T]

It would not change the Constitution one iota. Targeted spending, aka pork, is not a Constitutional issue because it falls within the powers of Congress, even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Requiring Congress to vote on pork separately might make it easier to track but it wouldn't eliminate it because it is too entrenched in the system. If you want to eliminate it you need to cut back on the revenue that the federal government gets and require them to work with a balanced budget.

That task gets the attention of the POTUS. He can Veto any spending bill if he doesn't like it in whole or in part.

I know, yet they never do. That would be something to see, a president actually exercising his veto power to fight pork.

Exactly my point. And the current one hasn't shown any restraint at all. And I am not fooled by his 'compromise' bill signing either.

His intent is already out there. He's just in a 'How can I fool them again' mode.

 

[Danaelle]

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?




Wrong again, the Republicans were totally shut out of the process, they had no amendments, those that were there, were put there to satisfy the so called blue dogs

and another misinformed jackass pours out of the works to defend a misinformed perception that the original guy couldnt get himself out of. Kk, Ill bite, I will take you on too.

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

as for your other statement:

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?

You just proved my statement for me. Millions of gay Americans want to get married nationwide. It is something that you nor anyone else has a right to decide for someone else. IE, freedom to have independence of thought or action...

conservatives then go to the government, be it state, fed, whoever, to try to legislate AGAINST independence of thought or action. GET IT?

Just because some Republicans like the mandate does not make it right, constitutional, or even a Republican idea.

Just for the record, every gay who wants to get married is free to do so, if they travel to one of the 5 states that allow it. I would also like to point out that California, a historically liberal state, and one that overwhelmingly voted Democrat in 2008, sweeping Obama in with over 60% of the vote, also voted against SSM. You need to take your partisan blinders off and stop blaming conservatives when the problem is actually something else.

First, I have never said that the mandate is right, or constitutional. In fact, I am on record here as stating that I DONT think it is constitutional. I did, however, state that the idea was originally brought forth by republicans, and brought evidence to bear supporting that supposition. That evidence stands unrefuted.

Second, the fact that a gay person has to go to one of 5 states which "allow" same sex marriage STILL makes my original statement true, which is that conservatives, ie the republican party, wants to legislate against freedom and independence of thought and action, and it makes them closer allied with the doctrines of communism, which seeks the same.
Keep arguing my point for me guys, you are doing it as well as I could ever have hoped for.

NEXT!

 

[Danaelle]

and another misinformed jackass pours out of the works to defend a misinformed perception that the original guy couldnt get himself out of. Kk, Ill bite, I will take you on too.

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed

Mitt Romney? In Massachusetts? thats it? Sorry but thats weak. No Republican supported THIS health care law and the mandate is going to be ruled unconstituitonal. also notice I said CONSERVATIVE and why would anyone want to impose a FAILED Massachusetts health law on the whole country genuus

as for your other statement:

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?
You just proved my statement for me. Millions of gay Americans want to get married nationwide. It is something that you nor anyone else has a right to decide for someone else. IE, freedom to have independence of thought or action...

conservatives then go to the government, be it state, fed, whoever, to try to legislate AGAINST independence of thought or action. GET IT?

Plenty of Polygamists want to have more then one spouse So?... Even in California they passed a law against same sex marriage. They can have civil unions IF IT IS APPROVED IN THIER STATES. These things cannot be imposed on the whole country by federal judges get it?

there ya go again: Passed a law, passed a law, PASSED A LAW AGAINST SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO GET MARRIED! If a federal judge rules the bans unconstitutional, they are NOT imposing ANYTHING on YOU! However, the mere fact that the state government passed a law that says a gay person cannot get married in their state MEANS that government HAS imposed their will upon others, depriving them of their individual liberties.

Its none of your business, get it!? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when someone passes a law against something that does no harm to anyone (unlike laws such as oh, rape? murder? driving while drunk?) Then they are bringing the government in to legislate individual rights?

As far as polygamists? Psh. IF the husband, and the other people in the "party" have no opposition to it, who am I to tell them that they cant marry more than one person? I tell ya who: NOBODY! Its none of my business.

 

[Danaelle]

1) so that would be why most republicans in this country has decided to get the government to make a law against homosexuals getting married right?
AND the fact that they want all elected officials to believe in the God of their perceptions, right?

Obama opposes gay marriage, too. You don't seem to be able to criticize him for it, though. And given the failure of so many gay marriage initiatives to pass, lots of Democrats oppose it as well.

That is your own misinformed perception of the democratic agenda.

2) The MANDATE that everyone should have to have insurance in order for the healthcare bill to be passed was a REPUBLICAN addition to the healthcare bill.

You are either a total idiot or woefully misinformed. For the time being, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Im going to go for the latter.

I'm going to need to see a credible link for that claim.

o yea, I have criticized Obama for a lot more than just that, and I now criticize HIM as well, for not having the balls to stand up and tell people that noone has a right to legislate another person's happiness. Dont worry, he isnt getting off scott free.

 

[Danaelle]

Conservatives want maximum individual freedom and minimal government interference.

Gay Marriage?

I support gay marriage. Anyone who believes in individual rights does.

China is a Communist nation.

That's funny shit right there

And it's true.

This is a nice statement. You are not the only conservative who thinks like that, but one of the few. With that in mind, I will remember to think carefully about your posts, and not lump you in with some of the others I see around here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Second, the fact that a gay person has to go to one of 5 states which "allow" same sex marriage STILL makes my original statement true, which is that conservatives, ie the republican party, wants to legislate against freedom and independence of thought and action, and it makes them closer allied with the doctrines of communism, which seeks the same.
Keep arguing my point for me guys, you are doing it as well as I could ever have hoped for.

NEXT!

No it doesn't.

You are assuming that the set of conservatives and the set of Republicans are identical, which makes any subsequent statement you make based on that assumption wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and another misinformed jackass pours out of the works to defend a misinformed perception that the original guy couldnt get himself out of. Kk, Ill bite, I will take you on too.

WASHINGTON — Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed

Mitt Romney? In Massachusetts? thats it? Sorry but thats weak. No Republican supported THIS health care law and the mandate is going to be ruled unconstituitonal. also notice I said CONSERVATIVE and why would anyone want to impose a FAILED Massachusetts health law on the whole country genuus

as for your other statement:

Wrong... Conservatives want the states to be able to make thier own laws ,based on what thier citizens want. Not have the big bad federal government come in with some unelected Judge's opinion telling them what they have to do based on thier scewed view of the Constitution get it?
You just proved my statement for me. Millions of gay Americans want to get married nationwide. It is something that you nor anyone else has a right to decide for someone else. IE, freedom to have independence of thought or action...

conservatives then go to the government, be it state, fed, whoever, to try to legislate AGAINST independence of thought or action. GET IT?

Plenty of Polygamists want to have more then one spouse So?... Even in California they passed a law against same sex marriage. They can have civil unions IF IT IS APPROVED IN THIER STATES. These things cannot be imposed on the whole country by federal judges get it?

there ya go again: Passed a law, passed a law, PASSED A LAW AGAINST SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO GET MARRIED! If a federal judge rules the bans unconstitutional, they are NOT imposing ANYTHING on YOU! However, the mere fact that the state government passed a law that says a gay person cannot get married in their state MEANS that government HAS imposed their will upon others, depriving them of their individual liberties.

Its none of your business, get it!? Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when someone passes a law against something that does no harm to anyone (unlike laws such as oh, rape? murder? driving while drunk?) Then they are bringing the government in to legislate individual rights?

As far as polygamists? Psh. IF the husband, and the other people in the "party" have no opposition to it, who am I to tell them that they cant marry more than one person? I tell ya who: NOBODY! Its none of my business.

I see you are a sterling example of our fine public school system. All marriage laws are designed to restrict marriage in one way or another. Have you noticed how many conservatives are here arguing that the government should get out of marriage altogether? That is because we are intelligent enough to understand that, and find it abhorrent.

Yet you sit back and try to blame us for the actions of those who think like you do.

 

[The T]

Second, the fact that a gay person has to go to one of 5 states which "allow" same sex marriage STILL makes my original statement true, which is that conservatives, ie the republican party, wants to legislate against freedom and independence of thought and action, and it makes them closer allied with the doctrines of communism, which seeks the same.
Keep arguing my point for me guys, you are doing it as well as I could ever have hoped for.

NEXT!

No it doesn't.

You are assuming that the set of conservatives and the set of Republicans are identical, which makes any subsequent statement you make based on that assumption wrong.

Indeed. Conservative and Republican are not synonymous these days. Heck? The Republicans are constantly Reminded daily that they are on Double-Secret Probation courtesy of the people...

 

[The T]

And with that in mind? Democrats are just plain untrustworthy no matter what they do, period.

 

[daveman]

1) so that would be why most republicans in this country has decided to get the government to make a law against homosexuals getting married right?
AND the fact that they want all elected officials to believe in the God of their perceptions, right?

Obama opposes gay marriage, too. You don't seem to be able to criticize him for it, though. And given the failure of so many gay marriage initiatives to pass, lots of Democrats oppose it as well.

That is your own misinformed perception of the democratic agenda.

2) The MANDATE that everyone should have to have insurance in order for the healthcare bill to be passed was a REPUBLICAN addition to the healthcare bill.

You are either a total idiot or woefully misinformed. For the time being, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Im going to go for the latter.

I'm going to need to see a credible link for that claim.

o yea, I have criticized Obama for a lot more than just that, and I now criticize HIM as well, for not having the balls to stand up and tell people that noone has a right to legislate another person's happiness. Dont worry, he isnt getting off scott free.

Good. Now, are you going to back up your claim:

The MANDATE that everyone should have to have insurance in order for the healthcare bill to be passed was a REPUBLICAN addition to the healthcare bill.​

...?

 

[daveman]

Gay Marriage?

I support gay marriage. Anyone who believes in individual rights does.

That's funny shit right there

And it's true.

This is a nice statement. You are not the only conservative who thinks like that, but one of the few. With that in mind, I will remember to think carefully about your posts, and not lump you in with some of the others I see around here.

 

[Danaelle]

Obama opposes gay marriage, too. You don't seem to be able to criticize him for it, though. And given the failure of so many gay marriage initiatives to pass, lots of Democrats oppose it as well.

I'm going to need to see a credible link for that claim.

o yea, I have criticized Obama for a lot more than just that, and I now criticize HIM as well, for not having the balls to stand up and tell people that noone has a right to legislate another person's happiness. Dont worry, he isnt getting off scott free.

Good. Now, are you going to back up your claim:

The MANDATE that everyone should have to have insurance in order for the healthcare bill to be passed was a REPUBLICAN addition to the healthcare bill.​

...?

In a thorough search to back that claim, I am going to have to adjust my wording on that. I have been reading about all this and it was my assumption. Truth is, Obama realized he wouldnt be able to pass it without paying for it, and since the Republicans supported the individual mandate through past years of health care reform litigation, he most likely figured it would be the only way he could get the bill through.

So, Im going to have to wipe the egg off my face on this one, but I still say that the republicans are being disengenuous by trying to use this part of the bill as political weight, since they have supported it in the past.