Got a cite for this?
Here is an amusing blurbrant. WA rep Jim McDermott claims that Paul Ryan was just about to debut his glorious ACA-killer bill when the sit-in shat upon his parade. McDermott says that Ryan went to his office to sob.
I’m pretty sure that if the Senate agrees to go on recess for 6 weeks, then the Speaker can unilaterally declare a 6 week recess.
But far fewer mass shootings. They have a much higher incidence of gang violence, much less incidence of targeting innocents.
The point I find interesting is that they’re just demanding a vote. They’re not demanding that the vote go their way, just that the matter be decided democratically. And even that much is too much for the Republicans to give in to.
I support the Democrats over the Republicans mainly because Democrats care even a little about the less fortunate, the victims of discrimination and the environment. But this:
“You threw a bomb under the door of his rolling out this health care bill. So if you’re wondering where he is, he’s up in his office crying,” said McDermott. “I mean, he had this thing all set, he had it all ready to go and we did this to him. You think you think there won’t be payback? You don’t know the Irish.”
is some stupid shit to say. Especially on the House floor during a protest.
Since when does the Secret Service get a veto over our second amendment rights?
A trained, professional armed security, yes? Subject to standards and regulations. Rather like a “well-regulated militia”. So, yes, they are “people with guns”, but people of a very specific and exclusive type. You were pretty much OK till you tried to stretch the point, then it snapped. No prob, I was here to help.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/274473-secret-service-no-guns-in-convention
From the article:
About this “taking away rights” thingy. All of our rights are totally sacred and any limitation on them calls for sober and sombre consideration. But if enough reasoning citizens of good will and prudence decide that a limitation on a right would serve the common good, then such a limitation is just and valid.
If some guys bumps your car at the Piggly Wiggly, you can’t go home and print up pamphlets about him being a child molester. You right of free speech remains sacred, but is limited, like you cannot yell “Theater!” in a crowded fire. Why should we believe that a right is negated when it is limited? We have had laws against libel and such for generations, yet we still discuss “free speech” rights as something that persists, something to protect. Who protects something that no longer exists?
I’m all for repealing the 2nd amendment, but until that happens we need to respect the constitution and the jurisprudence behind it. Taking away a right just because you’re on some secret list the government has sounds like something out of the McCarthy era. I’m disappointed in my fellow posters here who are so eager to bypass the constitution to pass a bill that is mostly for show anyway.
Agreed. Is “being on a secret list kept by the government” really something you can buy into that satisfies those criteria? Please tell me you haven’t gone reactionary in your old age, amigo!
Not my point. I am not delving into the specifics of the legislation. Just addressing the hysterical dismay of “rights being taken away”. They banned Tommy guns long time ago, was the Constitution torn asunder?
Are they singing Kumbaya yet?
Is anyone doing that in this thread?
The Republicans might sing it, if the lyrics weren’t so hard to memorize.
And yet, people argue that the Republicans are obstructionist. :dubious:
My point stands though, if they can accept they can’t carry into the RNC than why can’t they accept they can’t carry in churches, schools, and hospitals?
Joe American’s life should be as valuable as a candidates surely!
Less an argument than an observation. Sky, blue, sun, East, that sort of thing.
What prevents the Speaker from holding pro forma sessions every few days for the next six weeks?