Some HRs the Dems currently have in the bin.... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

NCB · 10-24-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I tracked it down by chasing the blog trail back to the original document. Here it is: http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/102306_demagenda.doc.

There we have it. Didnt know it was going to creat such a stir. If people here were really concerned whether the bills existed or not, they wouldve simply went ot the LofC and entered the bill numbers. However, that wasnt what this was all about; it was a simple "kill the messenger" thingy.

Now that we have re established the bills authenticity, would anyone care to comment on their content?

dc_dux · 10-24-2006, 09:33 AM

No...it was not a "kill the messenger" thingy...it was an "expose the OP for the Repub misleading propaganda that it is" thingy.

Quote:

Now that we have re established the bills authenticity, would anyone care to comment on their content?

As I said in my first response, I agree these bills have little merit.

And I also said that they have virturally no support, and as a result, received no Congressional hearings and will cease to exist at the end of the current session. So, whats the point of further comment?

Every member of Congress puts up bills that they know have no chance of passage...they are for show for the constituents back home.

Would there be any value in me posting Repub bills that want prayer reinstated in public schools, "thought police" to monitor radio and tv, restriction on freedom of the press if it is critical of the country's actions during war, federal funding for abstinence only education and on and on.

NCB · 10-24-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No...it was not a "kill the messenger" thingy...it was an "expose the OP for the Repub misleading propaganda that it is" thingy.

Yes, exposing liberal agendas via posting summaries of their own bills is quite a sneaky tactic. You caught me.

dc_dux · 10-24-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Yes, exposing liberal agendas via posting (misleading and inaccurate) summaries of their own bills is quite a sneaky tactic. You caught me.

No...i think you exposed youself with your pants down and your dishonest propaganda showing

ratbastid · 10-24-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Yes, exposing liberal agendas via posting summaries of their own bills is quite a sneaky tactic. You caught me.

It's not the existence of the bills that I was curious about. It was the origin of the biased and misleading descriptions of them (Oh, sorry: the NCB-declared-and-therefore-it-must-be-so "accurate descriptions").

Now I see where they're from. They ARE Republican smear talking points. Mystery solved.

I note with some interest, NCB, your disinclination to follow the guidelines of this site.

NCB · 10-24-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No...i think you exposed youself with your pants down and your dishonest propaganda showing

You would have an excellent argument if not for the fact that these are actual bills in the House. The only thing you "exposed" was that these things are very much real and validates my initial post. They make your side of the aisle look every bit the socialists that the right says they are and thus I understand why the desire to portray this as a VRWC™

dc_dux · 10-24-2006, 09:51 AM

Feel free to validate what you want in your own mind and carry on with your anti-socialist crusade as the rest of the country passes you by. That's what makes America great!

I am content to let others judge for themselves if your initial post has been "validated"

Bill O'Rights · 10-24-2006, 09:56 AM

The bickering ends...here...and now 'nuff said?

NCB...I think that the "issue" that many have, is not so much the existence of the bills in question, but rather the blatant spin that was placed upon them. And they were, most unquestionably...spun.

Now...that we finally have a cited "source"...is there any further worthwhile discussion to be had here, or have we degraded well beyond that point?

The_Jazz · 10-24-2006, 10:02 AM

NCB, the description of the bills is clearly partisan. There's certainly a kernal of truth in what you posted, but that's the case in most propaganda. There's no shame in posting talking points, just own up to it, especially when someone questions you on it.

ratbastid · 10-24-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Now...that we finally have a cited "source"...is there any further worthwhile discussion to be had here, or have we degraded well beyond that point?

Wait, worthwhile discussion? There was never any worthwhile discussion to be had here. Far as I can tell, this thread never had any room for actual discussion.

host · 10-24-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

So quoting an accurate description of the bill is now "a republican smear"? Interesting.

As for the quote block, I make it a habit to quote initial posts, kind of what host does. Funny you dont question his quote blocking and labeling it "a liberal smear".

Please consider that I receive no "free ride" from members and from mods, as a consequence of my outspokenness on the politics forum. You don't see all of the "feedback" that I receive.

Bill O'Rights · 10-24-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Far as I can tell, this thread never had any room for actual discussion.

What can I say? I'm an optimist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I receive no "free ride" from members and from mods, as a consequence of my outspokenness on the politics forum.

I can, and will, vouch for the validity of that statement.

No reference citing required.

ASU2003 · 10-24-2006, 04:06 PM

Some of us were having a discussion...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Must service be REQUIRED of all? Would not most people serve without due cause? I'd much before a Robert Heinlein method where you have no obligation to serve but you can't vote unless you do.

I think it would make America a better place if everyone had to give back one or two years. Instead of being selfish consumers who try and make the most money and only do what is in their best interest, it might make people understand that they are part of the bigger society. And right now, I doubt that 10% of 18-42 year old perform civil service equal to two years (and the large percentage of those are in the military).

I wouldn't suggest taking away a person's right to vote. Just make them pay 90-100% in taxes when they are 41 and 42 if they haven't served yet.

Willravel · 10-24-2006, 04:20 PM

Starship Troopers. You vote when you serve. It was a dumb movie, and it's a dangerous idea.

I was born with a severe heart condition that prevents me from doing basic training. I cannot serve in any part of the military because I can't safely complete basic. So I guess Willravel doesn't get to vote. You're not an American if you don't go kill people, after all.

jorgelito · 10-24-2006, 04:43 PM

That's not necessarily true. You can serve in other capacities. Not everyone in the military is some dashing maverick pilot, or heroic swift boat veteran.

The military still needs tech people, chaplains, trumpet players, cooks, analysts, administrators, teachers, lawyers, dentists (presumably what Ustwo would be doing), arms instructors (DK Suddeth?), intel collectors, data processors (Host?), journalists, PR people, secretaries, counselors, pyschologists.....and so on and so forth.

I've wanted to join the Marines or the Navy but I don't know if I can make it past basic either. It's something I'm torn about. I'm also a pacifist, which is why I study war (totally for another thread).

hiredgun · 10-24-2006, 05:05 PM

Willravel, a service requirement wouldn't be restricted to physically intensive positions. I suspect community service-type things like Americorps or Teach for America, or all sorts of other opportunities (as well as tons of non-combat military roles) would count.

Willravel · 10-24-2006, 05:06 PM

Well the fact that I'm a pacifist is secondary to the fact that I am technically disabled. The only musicians that can bypass basic are the President's Own, and I'm not a good enough trombonist to make it. Besides journalists, I'm almost certian that everyone you named above has to go through basic.

jorgelito · 10-24-2006, 05:59 PM

Sure will, but I think the thrust of the bikk would mean that there would have to be new criteria or regulations regarding service. In theory of course. because for the so-called returning service members or older people suggested by others on the thread, I don't know if they could pass basic either. I mean think about it: if the bill were to include the majority and all facets of the population then they would have to alter the physical requirements in accordance to what type of role they would play, especially if it were non-combative.

I also wonder what the implications would be for the current outsourcing of military stuff if such a bill were to pass. Essentially, in a sense, the entire country would be militarised.

ASU2003 · 10-25-2006, 04:21 AM

I don't see the military growing by that much if this bill was passed. There would be plenty of jobs that help others in your local community. Maybe a group of people could help immigrants learn english, some others could do basic home repair on elderly people's houses, others could feed the homeless or clean up parks.

magictoy · 10-25-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yeah, I'm actually interested in the source of those particular words used to describe the legislation in question. I very strongly doubt it was the Library of Congress. I also doubt very much that we're looking at an original NCB work, here.

This has the stench of a republican smear talking point, and I'd just like to know where it's coming from. I mean, he posted inside a quote block. What are you quoting, NCB? Where'd you copy and paste that from?

Cliffs: "This is embarrassing for Democrats. Since it appears to be true, it's time to attack the source."

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

all of them except the social security act - - -social security will be fine if certain presidents will quit robbing it in order to make the debt/deficit picture look better.

Which presidents would those be?

ratbastid · 10-25-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

Cliffs: "This is embarrassing for Democrats. Since it appears to be true, it's time to attack the source."

If you actually read what the legislation is about, in many cases you'd have to agree it's not a bad idea. If you read the slanted summaries presented in the OP and the republican committee attack piece it's quoted from, then yes, I suppose it appears embarrassing for Democrats.

NCB · 10-25-2006, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

If you actually read what the legislation is about, in many cases you'd have to agree it's not a bad idea. If you read the slanted summaries presented in the OP and the republican committee attack piece it's quoted from, then yes, I suppose it appears embarrassing for Democrats.

Please, explain to us the merits of the bills.

dc_dux · 10-25-2006, 07:48 AM

NCB.....The fact that you want to continue to focus on these dead-end bills (yes, I agree with you, for the most part, they have no merit..and no support and no chance of passage) only demonstrates to me that you have nothing positive to say about the success (?) of your own party’s agenda over the last five years.

What I find amusing is that some here seem to think that only Dems introduce bills that have no merit and have no wide spread support even among their own party and will never see the light of day.

The difference is that the Dems havent demagogued the Repubs by creating a list of such meritless Repub bills that have no support within their own party, with inaccurate descriptions, and that they know full well, have no chance of passage.

***
Magic Toy......in response to which President robs the Social Security Trust Fund in order to make the debt/deficit picture look better....alll recent presidents have, but none to the extent of Bush:

Bush has requested and the Repub Congress has approved over $400 billion in "supplemental appropriations" to fund the war in Iraq over the last 5 years.

Supplemental appropriations are "off budget" spending, meaning that there is no budget authorization to pay for these expenses, so what the government does in "borrow" from the Social Security Trust Fund.

It is basically a paper transfer, but without a paper trail, so this $400 billion never shows up in the deficit figures.

ratbastid · 10-25-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Please, explain to us the merits of the bills.

I'm really not all that interested in perpetuating or responding to this smear attempt.

Some of them are clearly feel-good junk designed to impress the constituency, I don't deny that. But just to take the first one on the list, though: some sort of subsidized fuel program makes sense to me, especially if it piggybacks on and is largely funded from "windfall taxes" on oil company profits. Your slanted description of the bill didn't mention that part of the proposal, but it's in there. Oh, but... that's *gasp* socialism!

By the way, NCB, since you're so interested in accuracy, why don't you tell us about the crap legislation the Republicans proposed this term? That would give us a nice, accurate, complete picture of congress, wouldn't it? This has been widely heralded as the least effective congress ever--and... who's in charge? Hm.

NCB · 10-25-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm really not all that interested in perpetuating or responding to this smear attempt.

Some of them are clearly feel-good junk designed to impress the constituency, I don't deny that. But just to take the first one on the list, though: some sort of subsidized fuel program makes sense to me, especially if it piggybacks on and is largely funded from "windfall taxes" on oil company profits. Your slanted description of the bill didn't mention that part of the proposal, but it's in there. Oh, but... that's *gasp* socialism!

By the way, NCB, since you're so interested in accuracy, why don't you tell us about the crap legislation the Republicans proposed this term? That would give us a nice, accurate, complete picture of congress, wouldn't it? This has been widely heralded as the least effective congress ever--and... who's in charge? Hm.

Summary: You cant defend your own

Bill O'Rights · 10-25-2006, 12:53 PM

Enough is enough.

10-24-2006, 09:51 AM	#47 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Feel free to validate what you want in your own mind and carry on with your anti-socialist crusade as the rest of the country passes you by. That's what makes America great! I am content to let others judge for themselves if your initial post has been "validated" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-24-2006 at 09:57 AM..

10-24-2006, 09:56 AM	#48 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	The bickering ends...here...and now 'nuff said? NCB...I think that the "issue" that many have, is not so much the existence of the bills in question, but rather the blatant spin that was placed upon them. And they were, most unquestionably...spun. Now...that we finally have a cited "source"...is there any further worthwhile discussion to be had here, or have we degraded well beyond that point? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

10-24-2006, 10:02 AM	#49 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	NCB, the description of the bills is clearly partisan. There's certainly a kernal of truth in what you posted, but that's the case in most propaganda. There's no shame in posting talking points, just own up to it, especially when someone questions you on it. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-25-2006, 07:48 AM	#63 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	NCB.....The fact that you want to continue to focus on these dead-end bills (yes, I agree with you, for the most part, they have no merit..and no support and no chance of passage) only demonstrates to me that you have nothing positive to say about the success (?) of your own party’s agenda over the last five years. What I find amusing is that some here seem to think that only Dems introduce bills that have no merit and have no wide spread support even among their own party and will never see the light of day. The difference is that the Dems havent demagogued the Repubs by creating a list of such meritless Repub bills that have no support within their own party, with inaccurate descriptions, and that they know full well, have no chance of passage. *** Magic Toy......in response to which President robs the Social Security Trust Fund in order to make the debt/deficit picture look better....alll recent presidents have, but none to the extent of Bush: Bush has requested and the Repub Congress has approved over $400 billion in "supplemental appropriations" to fund the war in Iraq over the last 5 years. Supplemental appropriations are "off budget" spending, meaning that there is no budget authorization to pay for these expenses, so what the government does in "borrow" from the Social Security Trust Fund. It is basically a paper transfer, but without a paper trail, so this $400 billion never shows up in the deficit figures. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-25-2006 at 08:23 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

10-25-2006, 12:53 PM	#66 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Enough is enough. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

10-24-2006, 04:20 PM	#54 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Starship Troopers. You vote when you serve. It was a dumb movie, and it's a dangerous idea. I was born with a severe heart condition that prevents me from doing basic training. I cannot serve in any part of the military because I can't safely complete basic. So I guess Willravel doesn't get to vote. You're not an American if you don't go kill people, after all.

10-24-2006, 04:43 PM	#55 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	That's not necessarily true. You can serve in other capacities. Not everyone in the military is some dashing maverick pilot, or heroic swift boat veteran. The military still needs tech people, chaplains, trumpet players, cooks, analysts, administrators, teachers, lawyers, dentists (presumably what Ustwo would be doing), arms instructors (DK Suddeth?), intel collectors, data processors (Host?), journalists, PR people, secretaries, counselors, pyschologists.....and so on and so forth. I've wanted to join the Marines or the Navy but I don't know if I can make it past basic either. It's something I'm torn about. I'm also a pacifist, which is why I study war (totally for another thread).

10-24-2006, 05:05 PM	#56 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Willravel, a service requirement wouldn't be restricted to physically intensive positions. I suspect community service-type things like Americorps or Teach for America, or all sorts of other opportunities (as well as tons of non-combat military roles) would count.

10-24-2006, 05:06 PM	#57 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well the fact that I'm a pacifist is secondary to the fact that I am technically disabled. The only musicians that can bypass basic are the President's Own, and I'm not a good enough trombonist to make it. Besides journalists, I'm almost certian that everyone you named above has to go through basic.

10-24-2006, 05:59 PM	#58 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Sure will, but I think the thrust of the bikk would mean that there would have to be new criteria or regulations regarding service. In theory of course. because for the so-called returning service members or older people suggested by others on the thread, I don't know if they could pass basic either. I mean think about it: if the bill were to include the majority and all facets of the population then they would have to alter the physical requirements in accordance to what type of role they would play, especially if it were non-combative. I also wonder what the implications would be for the current outsourcing of military stuff if such a bill were to pass. Essentially, in a sense, the entire country would be militarised.

10-25-2006, 04:21 AM	#59 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I don't see the military growing by that much if this bill was passed. There would be plenty of jobs that help others in your local community. Maybe a group of people could help immigrants learn english, some others could do basic home repair on elderly people's houses, others could feed the homeless or clean up parks.