On Mar 14, 1:58*am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. *Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. *Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! *These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. *As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. *Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN

Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........

Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
- indicates its pretty robust.

And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
disunity and gives succor to your enemies.

A view from afar..

Andrew VK3BFA (who remembered, this time, not to cross post)

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

On Mar 14, 1:58*am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. *Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. *Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! *These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. *As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. *Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN

Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........

Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
- indicates its pretty robust.

And that's on the verge of breakdown due to the lack of leadership we
have in the judicial and executive branches at the moment. It's why
we're so vocal, and why another revolution seems imminent.


And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
disunity and gives succor to your enemies.

The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain.
-- John Adams

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped


The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--

the legal freedom to speak one's mind is a far cry from the social freedom
to be downright rude and offensive. A discussion is one thing, puerile
name-calling and hair pulling is another. This kind of 3rd grade screaming
proves that we are not going to progress much as a nation until we learn to
grow up. those who can only express their opinions via insult and innuendo
prove their lack of both intellectual honesty and capacity, and their lack
of understanding of what it takes to become and remain a great nation. This
is why we should all be sad.

On Mar 15, 2:02*am, "Bill Noble" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped



The freedom to speak our minds is one of our freedoms, Andy. *Is it so
hard to understand that those of us who did not vote for the man would
be critical of him, especially given his current track record?

That's a false succor, sucker.

--

the legal freedom to speak one's mind is a far cry from the social freedom
to be downright rude and offensive. *A discussion is one thing, puerile
name-calling and hair pulling is another. *This kind of 3rd grade screaming
proves that we are not going to progress much as a nation until we learn to
grow up. *those who can only express their opinions via insult and innuendo
prove their lack of both intellectual honesty and capacity, and their lack
of understanding of what it takes to become and remain a great nation. *This
is why we should all be sad.

Thank you Bill - your succinct and well phrased comments are always
worth reading, and pondering.
Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped


Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Mar 20, 4:53*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"

wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped

Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." *Grey Ghost

What day of the week is it Gunner - or is that a leftie plot too.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA
wrote:

On Mar 20, 4:53*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:02:45 -0700, "Bill Noble"

wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:20:32 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Andrew VK3BFA
scrawled the following:

bunch of mindless junk snipped

Only when a Leftist defines it.

Shrug

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." *Grey Ghost

What day of the week is it Gunner - or is that a leftie plot too.

Andrew VK3BFA.


While Im flattered, Ive never heard of a day of the week called Gunner.

Perhaps its from an old German calendar?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:
Why shouldn't he, what they are trying to do with the health care bill is
unconstitutional. Can't get enough votes, skip votes and abuse budget
reconciliation for the health care bill, still can't get enough votes so
skip voting altogether with the Slaughter solution. Could it be any more
obvious, the government funded abortion health care bill is being forced
upon us with the Slaughter house solution! These people don't have a clue
when it's right in front of their face. As one said, the only thing
bi-partisan about Obama's health care plan is the opposition to it. Looks
like Rush is right again!

RogerN
/
/Oh well, breaking my own rules re OT. But, sometimes........
/
/Roger, you are just being plain silly, and I am surprised that a
/citizen of a democracy should have so little understanding of their
/own system of governance. Your founding fathers were wise enough to
/plan a system whereby no one could have complete, utter and arbitrary
/control of the government process. They foresaw that, one day,
/politics could fragment into two, wildly different parties. The Loony
/Left and the Extreme Right.They foresaw that half the country couldn't
/be bothered to vote. So they ensured that the "winner" would not be
/able to make decisions on behalf of the majority of the population.
/Your constitution has served you well and admirably for over 200 years
/- indicates its pretty robust.
/
/And why do you criticise, very publicly, your President, Head of
/State, Commander in Chief - you may not care for the mans politics,
/but as a citizen you should be able to respect the mandates of your
/own constitution. Such ill mannered criticism serves only as a sign of
/disunity and gives succor to your enemies.
/
/A view from afar..
/
/Andrew VK3BFA (who remembered, this time, not to cross post)
/

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-30821.htm

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women
as one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would
want access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally
needed it or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and
they decide whether to have one or not. Most women do not have
abortions. Less of them are done every year. Guys like Stupak are
holding the health care reforms hostage just because he's anti abortion.
Everybody is anti abortion. It's just a matter of what you will allow
and what you won't. Some people will have none of it and some will allow
it on demand. There is a middle ground and you don't let the one issue
of abortion hold up fixing a health care problem that is going to
bankrupt the country. Pass the health care reforms and then worry about
abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment
in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare
bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women as
one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would want
access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally needed it
or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and they decide
whether to have one or not. Most women do not have abortions. Less of them
are done every year. Guys like Stupak are holding the health care reforms
hostage just because he's anti abortion. Everybody is anti abortion. It's
just a matter of what you will allow and what you won't. Some people will
have none of it and some will allow it on demand. There is a middle ground
and you don't let the one issue of abortion hold up fixing a health care
problem that is going to bankrupt the country. Pass the health care
reforms and then worry about abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

Actually I would like to separate the baby from the bathwater, or at least
separate abortion from the health care bill. Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions. Why doesn't Obama just allow language to
prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion? They claim the don't want to
overthrow Hyde but they reject wording to guarantee it, something smells
fishy here! Why is planned parenthood saying Nelson and Stupak language are
unacceptable in the health care bill? Since when did they start running the
country? (A. when Obama got elected). Since the majority doesn't want the
taxpayer funded abortions, why doesn't Obama and clan remove it?

I agree with you, it is a separate issue, I just wish Obama and clan would
separate it. Why won't he budge on this one issue?

RogerN

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to permit
something which you oppose in a bill.

Bill Noble wrote:

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to
permit something which you oppose in a bill.

Rasmussen Poll: Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters favor a ban on
abortion coverage in any health insurance plan that receives federal
subsidies.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...in_health_plan

CNN Poll: A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday
morning indicates that 61 percent of the public opposes using public
money for abortions
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/abortion.poll/

Smaller poll: The Susan B. Anthony List surveyed 300 voters in each of
11 House districts held by Democrats identified as "pro-life." A
majority of these voters -- which include self-identifying Democrats,
Republicans and independents -- said that they would be less likely to
re-elect their representative if the member votes for "healthcare
legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion."
http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.c...l-abortion.php

here's a compilation chart of such polls, in PDF form.
Looks like a median of about 60% opposed.

http://www.nrlc.org/ahc/AHCPollsSummary.pdf

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

snip

Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions.
snip

RogerN

is it not presumptuous to speak for others whose position you have not
personally verified? It would be honest to say that "you" oppose this.
You, nor I are not authorized to speak for others. If you limit your
remarks to yourself only, is it better to have no health care, or to
permit something which you oppose in a bill.

It's the result of polls that the majority of those polled did not want
their tax dollars used to fund others abortions.

RogerN

On 3/15/2010 2:47 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment
in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare
bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...-unacceptable/
http://yubanet.com/usa/Planned-Paren...-Amendment.php
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03..._.html?showall
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.o...reform/683.htm
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...ment-31117.htm


For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go to
http://www.alcj.org , click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN



You're a throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of guy. Planned
parenthood is a good thing. Does it provide abortion services to women as
one of its services, yeah. So what? If you were a woman you would want
access to that kind of a service whether or not you personally needed it
or not. It goes with the territory. Women have the babies and they decide
whether to have one or not. Most women do not have abortions. Less of them
are done every year. Guys like Stupak are holding the health care reforms
hostage just because he's anti abortion. Everybody is anti abortion. It's
just a matter of what you will allow and what you won't. Some people will
have none of it and some will allow it on demand. There is a middle ground
and you don't let the one issue of abortion hold up fixing a health care
problem that is going to bankrupt the country. Pass the health care
reforms and then worry about abortions. It's a separate issue.

Hawke

Actually I would like to separate the baby from the bathwater, or at least
separate abortion from the health care bill. Most people don't want their
tax dollars paying for abortions. Why doesn't Obama just allow language to
prevent taxpayer money from funding abortion? They claim the don't want to
overthrow Hyde but they reject wording to guarantee it, something smells
fishy here! Why is planned parenthood saying Nelson and Stupak language are
unacceptable in the health care bill? Since when did they start running the
country? (A. when Obama got elected). Since the majority doesn't want the
taxpayer funded abortions, why doesn't Obama and clan remove it?

I agree with you, it is a separate issue, I just wish Obama and clan would
separate it. Why won't he budge on this one issue?

RogerN



The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted. So they are not
willing to do anything to rock the boat right now, so to speak. Once the
basic bill is passed then they can address the other peripheral issues.
But as far as I know no federal money is used to fund abortions right
now. That is the way they want to keep it. The problem is some of these
congressmen know how important to the president and the country passing
these reforms are and they are using their power to force their way on
other issues. It's flat out wrong but they have the power right now so
they are cashing in on it. They ought to just vote to pass the bill and
then get on with fighting over the side issues separately. But they have
the power so they are jerking people around. Things will change once the
bill passes. They'll lose their leverage and people will have to get
back to working on each issue as an individual problem. None of us like
the idea of abortion but it's the law that women have the right to
decide. If that is to be changed some time in the future then that
should be addressed all by itself. It's too big an issue to piggyback on
the health care bill.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

The reason why they aren't changing anything right now is because the
passage of the bill is on a tightrope. If anything goes wrong it won't
pass and all the work that went into it is wasted.

A lot of the stuff doesn't kick in for years. What is the hurry? Maybe it is that
election coming up that has the Obamunists worried that their turn at rule is coming to a
well deserved close in November. There is an opinion poll that matters.

Wes

On Mar 15, 4:55*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. *That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. *So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...s-releases/pla...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill..

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...s-releases/pla...

For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go tohttp://www.alcj.org, click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN

You are a hopeless case Roger - you take the time, and trouble, to
find (and presumably read) all those links to support your view.

Have you read your constitution
Do you understand your system of governance.
Do you believe in democracy.

This sort of REALLY BASIC stuff is taught in grade school here - thats
how I remember it, as we were taught about other systems. Including
yours. Do you teach it in the USA? - might help if your not.

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Planned Parenthoods (Obama is their sock puppet) health care bill doesn't
have support from Democrats or Republicans. That is why a Republican won
Kennedy's spot even in a very liberal Democrat state. So, since the health
care bill doesn't have the support to get it done according to the
constitution, Obama's gang is trying to bypass the constitutional process
and pass this bill without a vote.

Proof Obama is a socket puppet for Planned Parenthoods health care bill:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6012.html
Obama Gives Planned Parenthood Abortion President Frequent White House
Access

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abo...s-releases/pla...

"Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in
HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the
health care reform bill..."

Planned Parenthood determines what is acceptable in their healthcare bill.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/...s-releases/pla...

For proof that Obama's gang is bypassing the constitution, go
tohttp://www.alcj.org, click on radio and yuo can hear the actual comments
of
Obama and his hijack the USA team.

RogerN
/
/You are a hopeless case Roger - you take the time, and trouble, to
/find (and presumably read) all those links to support your view.
/
/Have you read your constitution
/Do you understand your system of governance.
/Do you believe in democracy.
/
/This sort of REALLY BASIC stuff is taught in grade school here - thats
/how I remember it, as we were taught about other systems. Including
/yours. Do you teach it in the USA? - might help if your not.
/

Yeah, we had constitution classes and test in 8th grade and high school.

This is from a legal firm that argues constitutional cases before the
Supreme Court. If they were lying they should be held accountable for it,
but they have recorded statements to prove what they are claiming is true.

From the American Center of Law and Justice:

House Scheme: Approving Health Care Without a Vote?

It seems that with each day comes a new legislative scheme in an effort to
ram a dangerous, pro-abortion health care plan through Congress. Now, House
Speaker Pelosi appears to be turning to what can only be described as an
unconstitutional scheme to get health care through.

It's become increasingly clear that the Speaker cannot find enough votes to
pass the Senate health care bill, and now with the pressure intensifying to
meet President Obama's self-imposed deadline of next week, Speaker Pelosi
appears to be turning to a new legislative gimmick. This one is dubbed the
"Slaughter Solution" - a tactic put forward by House Rules Chairman Louise
Slaughter (D-NY).

While the details of this proposal are complex and can be confusing, the
bottom line is really very simple:

Speaker Pelosi is trying to get the pro-abortion Senate bill signed into law
without having the House of Representatives ever vote on the actual bill.

This would be accomplished by having the House vote to pass a Rule that
would "deem" the Senate bill "as passed." The Speaker's hope is that this
would allow the bill to become law without House members having to actually
cast a vote for it. That's right - approving a massive health care bill
representing one-fifth of our economy - without actually voting on the
measure.

Of course, in order to comply with the Constitution, she will have to
simultaneously argue that a vote on the Rule is indeed a vote on the bill,
because Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that all bills be
voted on by both the House and the Senate.

So, the question facing Speaker Pelosi - which is it? Would a vote on the
"Slaughter Solution" be a vote on the Senate bill? Or would it not be? The
Constitution does not allow her to have it both ways.

On Mar 17, 4:25 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 15, 4:55 pm, "RogerN" wrote:

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:58 am, "RogerN" wrote:

Well then, it should be fairly simple. If you can get enough people to
support your views, they can, at the next election, vote for a
candidate who represents their views. thats the democracy part. If
they cant be bothered, then they have made a choice too.
So Roger - start organising, see if you have enough support at the
ballot box to implement your no doubt sincerely held views. Its your
right as a citizen in a democracy. Otherwise, its just crap.
Andrew VK3BFA.

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Well then, it should be fairly simple. If you can get enough people to
support your views, they can, at the next election, vote for a
candidate who represents their views. thats the democracy part. If
they cant be bothered, then they have made a choice too.
So Roger - start organising, see if you have enough support at the
ballot box to implement your no doubt sincerely held views. Its your
right as a citizen in a democracy. Otherwise, its just crap.
Andrew VK3BFA.


Our system has a 2 year feed back loop. It is the House of Representatives. They are
elected every two years, can not be appointed, a vacancy requires a special election out
of time of the general election schedule.

This is the populist part of the legislature. The Senate, that is elected every 6 years,
is the part that can take a longer view on things.

Six years is a long time in politics.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on
Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:04:17 -0700 (PDT), Andrew VK3BFA,
wrote:

Have you read your constitution
Do you understand your system of governance.

It's a Constitutional Republic.

Do you believe in democracy.

Absolutely not, nor did any of the founding fathers.

--

sigh...

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative, was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on? g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic? It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.

--
Ed Huntress

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative, was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on?g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic? It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy? It seems that they have got the idea that
democracy means only one thing, a direct democracy. I guess they never
learned that under the overarching term "democracy" there are
considerably more than only one kind. They must have gone to
"government" schools.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"The full experiment of a government, democratical, but representative,
was
and is still reserved for us. The introduction of this new principle of
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY has rendered useless almost everything written
before on the structure of government; and, in a great measure, relieves
our
regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient,
have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. --
Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816

"I consider the war as made for just causes [War of 1812 -- ed.] , and
its
dispensation as providential, inasmuch as it has exercised our patriotism
and submission to order, has planted and invigorated among us arts of
urgent
necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican
institutions, and the excellence of a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY compared
with the misrule of kings, has rallied the opinions of mankind to the
natural rights of expatriation... -- Jefferson, letter to Mr. Wendover.
Washington ed. vi, 444.
(M. 1815)"

Shall I go on?g

It really boils down to one question: What do you mean by a republic?
It's
really a good question, and the answer cuts through all of this nonsense
quoting.



Don't you think the problem these guys have is they don't understand the
meaning of the word democracy?

I think that the first problem is that they don't know what the *Founders*
meant by the word democracy.

It seems that they have got the idea that democracy means only one thing,
a direct democracy. I guess they never learned that under the overarching
term "democracy" there are considerably more than only one kind. They must
have gone to "government" schools.

Hawke

The bigger problem is that they all have different ideas about what the word
republic means, now, and what they think it meant to the Founders. Hamilton,
Madison, and Jefferson all gave their definitions -- all of them different.
g

Jefferson acknowledged the problem in one of his letters. Yes, I have it on
tap if required. And numerous historians, including the primary historian of
Madison and his writings, make clear that what Madison meant by a "republic"
then is what we now call a "representative democracy"; a phrase that
Jefferson was among the first to use, in that letter I quoted above from
1815.

--
Ed Huntress