(02-08-2017, 01:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Had a conversation with the shop employees today and they were complaining about school taxes. Taxes that we were suppose to see relief from when the casinos got approved. And I reminded them that they keep voting in the same people time after time when they keep lying to them. But they won't vote for anything other than an "R" because the "democrats are going to raise our taxes."
Very frustrating.
I think you understand why though. Politics is very frustrating for most, and for a wide variety of reasons, given the nature of the beast. So most seem to mainly respond to the rhetoric that addresses the issues that they choose for their conscious awareness. Those that do dig deeper still are limited by their own education on specifics, such as Constitutional law. Which is where I fall, as I am not well versed on ALL of the intricacies involved. I do choose to believe in certain things based on what kind of world I want to live in, and for one that means limiting gun ownership to non-military type guns. And that gun ownership should be controlled by registration etc as I stated previously. Present day culture dictates that citizen safety is at risk without having guidelines for all to follow. If that's a Constitutional issue, then I'm all for an amendment. Disagreement is expected, but it won't change what I'd like to have in MY life.
My sincere apologies to the OP for continuing the off-topic posting. I think Warren was justified in trying to bring to light good reason to consider why Sessions should not be AG. Enforcing certain rules of Congress in this case seemed to be a matter of convenience to me.
Some say you can place your ear next to his, and hear the ocean ....
(02-08-2017, 01:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: Disagree. I think your going to see a lot of people who voted for trump with buyers remorse, they are just trying to help make it more obvious. His record low approval ratings are a good sign for the democrats.
I think you're indulging in wishful thinking. Time will tell.
Quote:Democratic senators Wednesday continued their repudiation of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as President Trump's nominee as attorney general, using a marathon session to offer sharp rebukes of a former Senate colleague of more than two decades.
The debate, a prelude to a vote in which Sessions is expected to confirmed as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, built on an extraordinary confrontation Tuesday night in which Republican leaders cited arcane Senate debate rules to silence Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Warren was in the midst of reading from a 1986 letter from Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., who opposed then-U.S. attorney Sessions' nomination for a federal judgeship.
“Anyone who has used the power of his office as United States attorney to intimidate and chill the free exercise of the ballot by citizens should not be elevated to our courts,'' Warren said, reading from the letter in which King condemned Sessions' role in a controversial voting fraud prosecution of three black civil rights activists in Alabama.
The three activists were acquitted in the 1985 case known as the "Marion 3."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., interjected, saying that Warren violated Senate rules for “impugning the motives” of Sessions, and the Senate later voted to support McConnell's contention.
"I am surprised that the words of Coretta Scott King are not suitable for debate in the United States Senate," Warren said, before the ruling.
The incident only served to energize a debate that continued into Wednesday afternoon when Democrats paraded to the Senate podium to offer their support for Warren and question Sessions' fitness to lead the Justice Department.
Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., slammed the ruling as an effort to "silence Coretta Scott King from the grave."
"Mrs. King's characterization of then U.S. Attorney Sessions was accurate in 1986 and it is accurate now," Richmond said in a statement.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., took up Warren's cause and continued reading from King's scathing letter. Udall's remarks were not challenged by Republicans, nor were the statements of Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, who called the Senate shutdown of Warren's criticism a "gag rule.''
I wonder what the difference was between today and yesterday?
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Quote:Supposedly, Warren was shut down out of concern for decorum and decency. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argued that Warren violated an obscure Senate rule by speaking ill of a fellow senator.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) went even further in pleading for politeness — by urging his colleagues to think of Sessions’s wife.
@StevenTDennis
Orrin Hatch said he finds it "offensive" for senators to be criticizing a fellow senator (Jeff Sessions) on the floor. "Think of his wife" 9:58 PM - 7 Feb 2017
“Jeff Sessions is a really fine person,” [url=http://www.mediaite.com/online/sen-orrin-hatch-slams-elizabeth-warren-for-constant-diatribe-against-sessions/]Hatch said. “Think of his wife. She’s a really fine person. Jeff has been here 20 years. He’s interchanged with almost all of us. Sometimes you agree with him and sometimes you don’t, but he’s always been a gentleman.”
There are many problems with Hatch’s comments — like the suggestion that pointing out racism is somehow impolite, or that you can’t possibly hold racist views if you are a “gentleman.” As my colleague German Lopez has explained, Sessions really does have a problematic record on racial justice and civil rights issues.
But the most stunning part may have been when Hatch seemingly argued to silence a woman senator, who was quoting a woman civil rights leader, in order to avoid hurting another woman’s feelings by criticizing her husband’s political behavior.
It’s common for politicians to make emotional appeals to think of how certain events will affect our “wives and daughters.” It’s also a classic example of benevolent sexism: the idea that women must be protected and cherished, but not necessarily treated like equals.
Thinking of women primarily as wives and daughters means thinking of them in terms of their relationship to men, which often means forgetting that women are also full human beings in their own right.
I do believe he got the vapors over such language from a member of the fairer sex!
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
It's a fun rule to invoke when the person who is suppose to be scrutinized by the Senate is a Senator, so you cannot scrutinize them, even if the letter you're reading was allowed to be read 30 years ago.
(02-09-2017, 11:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a fun rule to invoke when the person who is suppose to be scrutinized by the Senate is a Senator, so you cannot scrutinize them, even if the letter you're reading was allowed to be read 30 years ago.
Or the next day by 3 dudes.
I have a feeling she would have been able to read it is as well if she hadn't already been warned for earlier comments. Warren was pulling a Mark Anthony and got called on it. It does make one wonder, Sessions has been in the senate for two decades and I've never heard a fellow senator call him racist before he was nominated for AG. I wonder why that is?
(02-09-2017, 11:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a fun rule to invoke when the person who is suppose to be scrutinized by the Senate is a Senator, so you cannot scrutinize them, even if the letter you're reading was allowed to be read 30 years ago.
Or the next day by 3 dudes.
thats what she gets for leaving the kitchen and thinking she could hang with the men folk
(02-08-2017, 11:35 AM)Benton Wrote: Same problem with most of Congress... she's wasting her time.
She can make all the speeches she wants, both sides vote pretty much along party lines. We just had the second most qualified cabinet member appointed (Devos) so far, and she was pushed through the process even after a laughably bad showing of why she shouldn't be near education. She doesn't understand the fundamentals of it... yet she's going forward because of party lines. No manner of speech was going to sway them from rubber stamping her.
If Warren really wants to change things, use her resources to go where misinformation starts. Instead of running to donors and the media saying McConnell is unfair and the situation is bad, come to Kentucky. Go to Litchfield and Frankfort and Mayfield, tell his supporters what the guy they keep sending back is doing. The only way to influence other Congress members — outside of dealing, which is common — is to influence their base. People in Kentucky send McConnell back. In a few years, almost none of them will care that he was rude (if that's what you want to call it) to some congresswoman from somewhere they've never been. All they'll care about is the same thing he always says — that he's bringing back coal, guns, God and lower taxes. Warren and other Democrats aren't changing anything if they're going to let him pull the wool over his voters year after year.
I wouldn't call the Warren incident nothing more than politics or a waste of resources. For three reasons.
1. There was a clear double standard at work. E.g. Cotton once called Schumer a "liar" and McConnell did not invoke rule 19. That was made plain to voters. Some women might be re-thinking their support for the GOP.
2. Reading Coretta King's assessment of Sessions is not an example of political posturing or grandstanding as usual. That assessment was pertinent to the matter at hand, namely Sessions fitness to be AG for all the people. People do care when politicians are "rude" with respect to issues they care about--hence the continuing effect of C. King's letter decades later. To a certain constituency, Sessions actions still matter.
3. Because a vote goes along party lines--especially in a case like the Sessions vote--does not mean the conflict is "politics, nothing more." Or I am not sure of the sense given "politics" here. For one side, at least, the vote really was about valuation and protection of civil rights, not just sticking it to Trump. I am sure most in the African-American community saw it that way.
Also, Democrats were not voting against Devos because that was the party line. They were voting against her because she was unqualified. Republicans (except two) WERE voting along party lines. Republicans would be happy if we view this as just a part-line vote--as if qualifications were never really the issue, just party.
I agree with your point about going where the misinformation starts--but this is not an either/or option, but rather both/and. Warren and the Democrats should take stands in the Senate, and if they are publicized, so much the better. That should help Kentuckians fuel their own grassroots challenge to McConnell.
I know this may have been discussed already, but as someone who already watched the whole 50 minutes video, this was pretty unprecedented and improper. Firstly, the rule if continued to be allowed to be used in this manner, could prevent any senator from criticizing another potential cabinet pick in the confirmation process that is also a senator. Secondly, he invoked the rule for something she said 30 minutes prior when she began speaking about Session's vote against the women's protection legislation.
McConnell needs to choose his words more wisely. "She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted" is now being slapped on images of famous women and perfectly sums up the resistance they faced pioneering different fields for women. Weeks before Women's History Month, too.
Warren wasn't locked in for her reelection bid, and this just helped her out.
(02-08-2017, 01:59 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: What do you call the guy washing his dick in the airport sink?
A sex offender.
The fear for what Sessions will do to with voting laws is understandable, but insinuating he has it out for blacks is crossing the line. There are legal and policy arguments for his positions that have nothing to do with race.
Warren broke the rules, got called out, and capitalized on faux female victimhood. End of.
(02-12-2017, 08:42 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: The fear for what Sessions will do to with voting laws is understandable, but insinuating he has it out for blacks is crossing the line. There are legal and policy arguments for his positions that have nothing to do with race.
Warren broke the rules, got called out, and capitalized on faux female victimhood. End of.
Then the exact same letter got read the next day...by a man.
Weird.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(02-12-2017, 08:42 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: The fear for what Sessions will do to with voting laws is understandable, but insinuating he has it out for blacks is crossing the line. There are legal and policy arguments for his positions that have nothing to do with race.
Warren broke the rules, got called out, and capitalized on faux female victimhood. End of.
Lol you didn't watch the video did you? Because it sounds like you're talking out of your ass.
![[Image: 6QSgU8D.gif?1]](https://i.imgur.com/6QSgU8D.gif?1)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: nZBNsnmp_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/593390787372699649/nZBNsnmp_normal.jpg)
Steven Dennis 
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2017-02-08-at-11.57.29-AM.png]](http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-08-at-11.57.29-AM.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
