tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post8662598850283132474..comments2024-03-29T03:40:00.298-04:00Comments on Progressive Eruptions: The Stupids of the Republican PartyShaw Kenawehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-50391165804729189292013-06-29T21:14:24.106-04:002013-06-29T21:14:24.106-04:00There are no solutions to those who would insist t...There are no solutions to those who would insist that every aspect of life is a problem, and that every attempt to solve a particular problem just opens up an infinite series of additional, even more perplexing problems.<br /><br />The same holds true for those who respond to every answer to a question with more questions. <br /><br /><br />Helen HighwaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-30840932422661182472013-06-29T13:28:12.916-04:002013-06-29T13:28:12.916-04:00I find it telling that a question on specifics jus...I find it telling that a question on specifics just brings more generalities...part of the problem, not of the solution.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-81715245016397304442013-06-29T12:36:26.036-04:002013-06-29T12:36:26.036-04:00"The partisan, when he is engaged in a disput...<i>"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."</i><br /><br />~ Socrates (470-399 B. C.)<br /><br />This is true of partisans of ALL stripes -- not just "Conservative Christians," or advocates of Free Market Capitalism."<br /><br />Surely you must remember when Tom Daschle used every trick in the book to block Republican initiatives that were largely sympathetic to the objectives of Democrats simply because leaders of the Democratic Party did not want the Republicans to be able to take credit for any worthwhile accomplishment? Harry Reid does the same sort of thing all the time. The late Robert Byrd was <i>famous</i> for using his superior knowledge of "The Rules" to stymie any and all sorts of initiatives with which he -- or his party -- were not in sympathy.<br /><br />Unfortunately, politics is little more than a GAME. One-sided sessions hurling stink bombs and grenades at the "other" side may make members of The Club feel good, but it's essentially bigoted, petty, self-indulgent behavior that does little or nothing to promote the best interests of society as a whole.<br /><br />What I say applies equally to right and left alike, so please don't accuse me of being a scold. A Teller of Truth would be the term of preference. <br />FreeThinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-12482745447841915502013-06-29T10:34:51.824-04:002013-06-29T10:34:51.824-04:00I was looking for specific details of what was use...I was looking for specific details of what was used to prevent Sims from talking. Perhaps it was never detailed more than "procedural objection". Thanks for your efforts.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-45459369812609258892013-06-29T09:10:05.624-04:002013-06-29T09:10:05.624-04:00The majority can never vote away equal protection ...The majority can never vote away equal protection under the law for the minority. Stop and read that again. People who hate homosexuals (and the testimony in the Prop. 8 trial made that very clear as the reason for the law) cannot vote away the rights of homosexuals to have the same freedoms and rights as non-homosexuals. This is why those folks in the black robes are making the news. Equal justice under law. Go read Loving v. Virginia, the case that ended the prohibitions against marriages between different races. The states where same-sex marriage bans still exist are relieved that the Prop. 8 ruling wasn't as broad as that in Loving v. Virginia, but that decision IS coming. Those states can continue to be on the wrong side of history, but discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? It's done.<br />steverino247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-28939771517892646282013-06-29T07:28:44.577-04:002013-06-29T07:28:44.577-04:00Well, a legislative body must have a code by which...Well, a legislative body must have a code by which to establish and maintain proper decorum and order. Which of course should allow for the airing of all views, concerns, and possible remedies. Unless of course the party, or parties become disruptive or disrespectful of others in said legislative body.<br /><br />When the majority party blocks the views of dissenting members it is acting to insure tyranny of the majority over the rights of the minority to be heard. This is contrary to our founders vision and it contrary to our Constitution.<br /><br />Liberty is not something reserved to the majority.<br /><br />Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-39350143719146254042013-06-29T07:28:19.341-04:002013-06-29T07:28:19.341-04:00Octo,
I'm not as naive and as stupid as you im...Octo,<br />I'm not as naive and as stupid as you imagine.<br /><br />Beating someone into submission -- and I'm including outvoting a faction as "beating into submission -- is a temporary change. Convincing is what is needed!<br /><br />Follow the Constitution? Sure. Then work on persuasion. Otherwise, the sore festers.Incognitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-60259890885933947772013-06-29T00:17:47.580-04:002013-06-29T00:17:47.580-04:00Jerry: "I asked a serious question and I'...<b>Jerry</b>: "<i>I asked a serious question and I'm not sure i am getting a serious answer.</i>"<br /><br />I'll attempt a serious answer but I make no promises (and I hope someone here comes up with a more erudite explanation).<br /><br />When a majority controls a legislature (the Pennsylvania House in this case), the presiding officer of the parliamentary body may rule - under <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5C's_Rules_of_Order" rel="nofollow">Robert\'s Rules of Order</a> - anything he/she wants subject to the caprice and whims of the majority party. <br /><br />Here's your clincher: "<i>There's no free speech on the floor.</i>" And this: The Democratic colleagues who rose to defend Sims were blocked from speaking too.<br /><br />What offends many people is when a long-standing tradition of deliberation subject to these "Rules" is abridged and abused by partisans. Does this answer your question?(O)CT(O)PUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07589336822561030860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-62940174827741498182013-06-28T17:23:10.899-04:002013-06-28T17:23:10.899-04:00I asked a serious question and I'm not sure i ...I asked a serious question and I'm not sure i am getting a serious answer. Unless I am misunderstanding the situation, Sims was a state representative trying to address his fellow representatives, not just someone off the street who wanted to speak. Metcalfe was able to stop him from speaking by some procedural objection. I was wondering what the specific procedural objection was. How can they stop one of their own members from talking?Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-25907180646979177462013-06-28T15:16:11.414-04:002013-06-28T15:16:11.414-04:00Jerry Critter: "What kind of 'procedural...Jerry Critter: "What kind of 'procedural objection' prevents a member from speaking?"<br /><br />It's called the "Tyranny of the Majority "Christianists" [not the same as Christians] Procedural Objection." And that majority sees nothing wrong with imposing their religious will and tests on other people. IOW, they behave very much like the fundamental Muslims [or other fundamental religionists] who carry it one step further by killing those who do not follow their particular brand of worshipping gods.<br /><br />(O)CT(O)PUS has shown in his comment that this is NOT an isolated occurrence and that fundamentalists of all religious persuasions bully those who are not their co-religionists as well as non-believers.<br /><br />Matthew, this is another example of how a majority is blind to their own actions when it is contra our Constitution. However, they scream bloody hell when they feel they've been victimized because they're expected to follow the Constitution.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-7307696520420051762013-06-28T15:03:07.012-04:002013-06-28T15:03:07.012-04:00Jerry,
As I understand, all procedural objections ...Jerry,<br />As I understand, all procedural objections in this matter are arbitrary and capricious, i.e. tantamount to bullying, disenfranchisement, and oppression.<br /><br />All town council meetings set aside time for citizen feedback. In this case, the mayor and vice mayor took it upon themselves to decide who may be regarded as citizens <i>versus</i> who may be denied the right to speak.<br /><br />The Jesus Police decided that Humanists are not entitled to full citizenship - meaning having a voice at town counsel meetings. Thus, the rights of Humanists were violated.<br /><br />There is a HUGE amount of HUBRIS here. An election to public office does not confer an absolute right to preside as dictator or Inquisitor over others. (O)CT(O)PUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07589336822561030860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-72278547608653306492013-06-28T14:17:29.240-04:002013-06-28T14:17:29.240-04:00What kind of "procedural objection" prev...What kind of "procedural objection" prevents a member from speaking?Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-3438970299138540672013-06-28T13:56:06.679-04:002013-06-28T13:56:06.679-04:00Incognito: "Elected officials reflect local ...<b>Incognito</b>: "<i>Elected officials reflect local demographics. That's what democracy means -- for good or for bad.</i>"<br /><br />A rather naive and incomplete understanding of what democracy means or what Constitutional rights entail. No majority may deprive a minority of fundamental "<b>inalienable rights</b>" as clearly stated in the Preamble, and Amendments #1, #4, #5 and #14. <br /><br />Recently, in the City of Vero Beach Florida, the mayor and vice mayor refused to allow a spokesperson of the Humanist Society from addressing the Town Council. Grounds? The mayor alleges that humanist are not Christians and believers in Jesus Christ. Citizens who objected to the actions of the mayor and City council at public meetings were threatened with arrest.<br /><br />There is now a lawsuit against the City and a petition to remove the mayor and city council. I am a signatory to this lawsuit. (O)CT(O)PUShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07589336822561030860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-51471249679171495022013-06-28T13:12:50.176-04:002013-06-28T13:12:50.176-04:00Metcalfe cited "god's law" to stop S...Metcalfe cited "god's law" to stop Sims from speaking on the PA House floor. It's Sims whose 1st Amendment rights, as well as his rights as an elected PA representative, were violated. The PA House violated them on the basis of a "god's law" citation that perfectly obviously is not PA law. That basis in fact violates other rights protected by the US Constitution, including "no religious test for public office".Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-5639724224649829292013-06-28T13:10:16.826-04:002013-06-28T13:10:16.826-04:00Metcalfe mistook the state house of representative...Metcalfe mistook the state house of representatives for a Christian church, and got away with it.<br /><br />Imagine if a Muslim had done the same, eh? The conservative blogs would be bloody with outrage, but since it was a Christian who defamed the Constitution, it didn't bother anyone very much.<br /><br />Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883838569462983439.post-30204492099200416612013-06-28T10:23:50.993-04:002013-06-28T10:23:50.993-04:00All elected officials get elected because the peop...All elected officials get elected because the people of that district vote for them. Elected officials reflect local demographics. That's what democracy means -- for good or for bad.Incognitonoreply@blogger.com