Stupid Republican idea of the day

[elucidator]

@Voyager

… trailer trash…

Smile when you say that, podnuh.

[Boyo_Jim]

She’s not trailer trash, shes governor’s mansion trash.

Or she used to be.

[Fear_Itself]

@Boyo_Jim

She’s not trailer trash, shes governor’s mansion trash.

Same thing, in Alaska. Double-wide.

[Punoqllads]

Now the Republicans are throwing tantrums by blocking committee hearings after 2pm. I’ve done some perusing here where it says,

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o’clock postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee)

If that’s the case, then, it doesn’t require unanimous consent, only two people’s consent. Am I missing something?

[lee]

@slumtrimpet

We could hope.
And if her supporters actually squished her that would be even better.

This sounds like you want her to be actually harmed. After the heinous death threats to members of congress and their families and the severing of a gas line today I think this is at best in very poor taste.

[kaylasdad99]

@Punoqllads

Now the Republicans are throwing tantrums by blocking committee hearings after 2pm. I’ve done some perusing here where it says,

a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of the Senate commenced and in no case after two o’clock postmeridian unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority leader and the minority leader (or in the event of the absence of either of such leaders, from his designee)

If that’s the case, then, it doesn’t require unanimous consent, only two people’s consent. Am I missing something?

You might be missing the fact that one of the two people whose consent is required is a member of the Republican party (who is presumably on board with the tactic).

[slumtrimpet]

@lee

This sounds like you want her to be actually harmed. After the heinous death threats to members of congress and their families and the severing of a gas line today I think this is at best in very poor taste.

Oh please. :rolleyes:
Did you read the link referencing Andrew Jackson’s inauguration that I was referring to?

[Chefguy]

@Fear_Itself

Same thing, in Alaska. Double-wide.

NO! By gar, I won’t have it! Alaskans were never that frivolous: the governor’s mansion in Juneau (or “Goober Hut” as I calls it), is only a single, but does have a lean-to for conducting official business.

[E-Sabbath]

In re: the big Searchlight, NM hoorah to oust Harry Reid, the crowd count appears to be 8,000.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003280003
The organizers say 20,000.

Woodstock?

Woodstock

Minimally 200,000 who had tickets, up to 400,000.

[Merijeek]

@E-Sabbath

In re: the big Searchlight, NM hoorah to oust Harry Reid, the crowd count appears to be 8,000.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003280003
The organizers say 20,000.

Woodstock?
Woodstock - Wikipedia
Minimally 200,000 who had tickets, up to 400,000.

So, what, Fox is reporting it at about 50,000 then?

-Joe

[descamisado]

Republicans refuse to sign civility oath.

Since there are those here at the Dope who claim it’s Democrats and liberals who advocate, or at least stand still for, what they perceive to be a current lack of civility in public life, I thought I’d highlight this as Stupid Republican Idea of the Day. Even though the oath has language that condemns threats and attacks on congressional members in both parties, they still won’t sign it. I guess the bolded part below is why:

The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would “together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry” and ask “all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior.”

I’ll admit, if this is an attempt by the Democrats to create something that puts the Republicans in the position of being refuseniks for civility, or makes them a party to something that can come back to haunt them if they do, then I’m proud of them for acting strategically for once.

I hope this means we’re well on our way to counteracting all the Repubican lies, mischaracterizations and hate-mongering, and remedies all the months of Democrats not having any stones in time for November election.

[Boyo_Jim]

He may as well ask Michael Steel to condem the Republican base.

[descamisado]

Steele’s very existence as party chair does that.

[Boyo_Jim]

Oh no, his existence shows the Pubs have have a Steppinfetchit to put in fron of the cameras – a feisty one.

[E-Sabbath]

Ahem. Dude. He is not a Steppinfetchit. He’s a Poochie.

[OttoDaFe]

@Boyo_Jim

Oh no, his existence shows the Pubs have have a Steppinfetchit to put in fron of the cameras – a feisty one.

Now I’m confused (again/still).

When I was growing up (admittedly in the SoW and not the Deep South), “feisty” was another term for “uppity” — as in “doesn’t know his/her place” — as in not a “good Negro” who would go automatically to the back of the bus, look down & step aside for a white, etc. When did that become an admirable trait? Could it possibly be when the Republicans wanted an African-American as spokesbeing for the party?

My head hurts. . . .

[descamisado]

To me, if a black man, who isn’t even one of the top people in contention is selected to lead an organization – at a time which just happens to coincide with another black man from the other party being elected president – and has shown the lack of leadership skills that Steele has shown and is still in that position (including having been asked at one point by top party leadership to move into a “face only” role), I’d say his being/continuing in that position condemns the base, on a cynical and tokenistic basis alone.

[Boyo_Jim]

@OttoDaFe

Now I’m confused (again/still).

When I was growing up (admittedly in the SoW and not the Deep South), “feisty” was another term for “uppity” — as in “doesn’t know his/her place” — as in not a “good Negro” who would go automatically to the back of the bus, look down & step aside for a white, etc. When did that become an admirable trait? Could it possibly be when the Republicans wanted an African-American as spokesbeing for the party?

My head hurts. . . .

You’re mostly correct – another word I might choose for Steele is scrappy. And neither is a term normally associated with the idea of a “good Negro”. But Steel is playing the role of an independent balck man who got into his position by merit and belief in the tenets of Republicanism. Hell, he may even believe it himself, especially if he can blind himself to the incredible racism of the party.

So he plays the scrappy, feisty RNC chair, and other Republicans can point at him when they are accused of racism…Eventually they will need a fall guy, maybe after the midterm elections, and they will dispose of him.

[ShadowFacts]

This thread seems like the appropriate place for this fun one: Attempting To Strip Gays Of Hate Crimes Protections, Oklahoma Removes Protections For Race/Religion Instead

@ThinkProgress

But in trying to strip gays and lesbians of protection, the Oklahoma State Senate inadvertently cited the wrong section of the U.S. code. The bill stripped rights under Title 18 U.S. Code Section 245, but protections for sexual orientation and gender identity is actually under Section 249.

<snip>

Section 245 of the Code refers to race and religious protections. Therefore, Oklahoma actually passed a statute allowing state law enforcement officials to keep information about crimes motivated by race or religion out of the hands of federal authorities.

They can’t even discriminate right… :smack:

[Fuzzy_Dunlop]

@Boyo_Jim

Oh no, his existence shows the Pubs have have a Steppinfetchit to put in fron of the cameras – a feisty one.

oh please. The guy runs a tight ship. He’s kept RNC spending at lesbian bondage strip clubs to under $2000.00. I mean it was $1,946.25, but that’s significantly less than $2000. How much do you think the last guy let the RNC spend on bondage-themed lesbian nude dancing?

'Bondage club' expense irks insiders

In light of Steel, it seems unfair to doubt the Republicans’ commitment to diversity merely because they’ve had no black congressmen in the House or Senate since 2003 and only 3 ever since 1935.