Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

sigh, here they go again.


Kilmer17

Recommended Posts

Those wacky crybaby take my ball and go home Democrats in Texas run away again.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Democratic state lawmakers fled Texas on Monday for the second time in three months to thwart a Republican drive to redraw the state's congressional districts.

Eleven of the 12 Democrats in the state Senate left for Albuquerque, New Mexico, as a first special session called by the governor to address redistricting drew to a close and he called a second special session, scheduled to begin Wednesday. The second session could last as long as 30 days.

In May, during the regular spring session, the Republicans tried to push redistricting toward a vote in the GOP-controlled state House. But 51 Democrats in that chamber fled across the state line to Oklahoma to block a quorum, killing the bill.

Republicans are pressing for more seats in the state's 32-member delegation in the U.S. House; the Democrats currently hold a 17-15 advantage. Republicans say that ratio does not reflect the state's increasingly Republican voting patterns.

Most Democrats want to keep the existing congressional map drawn by a three-judge federal panel in 2001, calling redistricting a power grab pushed by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican.

The Senate and House adjourned their special session Monday afternoon. Shortly afterward, Republican Gov. Rick Perry called a new one.

Two-thirds of the Senate's 31 members must be present to conduct business. The absence of the 11 Democrats can hold up passage of any bill.

During the first special session, Senate Democrats were able to block a redistricting bill that could have given Republicans an additional seven seats. Eleven Democrats and one Republican stood firm against the bill.

Senate rules require that two-thirds of the chamber support a bill before it can be taken up for debate. Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said he would do away with that rule during the second session so that only a majority would be needed to debate a bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumor has it that since this is a special session it has no set in stone end date. Therefore the Gov can keep it going forever. However, the Texas law requires that state legislatures reside in Texas for a certain percentage each year.

It's a big game of chicken, but one the GOP will win in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pathetic......Republicans suck and Democrats suck....our government is going to he**, I mean we are having a general recall vote for a governor in California...we have cops being called on politicians...I even saw people protesting today about impeaching Chaney..calling him Hitler...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the people of Texas are watching, viewing how their legislators conduct business. What's this teach our kids, when things get tough and don't go your way... do whatever necessary to avoid the situation at all cost. These legislators should be removed from office!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I actually think your comment was an attempt at the actual attempt to compare behaviors, but

  • Last time I checked, "the unions" weren't a taxpayer-funded, armed, branch of the Government.
  • I assume you'll be able to cite some cases in which those wascally wiberals have sent "the unions" out to forcably sieze people, to compell them to, say, vote the way one political party thinks they should.
  • I know that, if "the unions" wanted to, say, refuse to allow gay members, then all you freedom-loving conservatives would be quick to point out that "the unions" (unlike Homeland Security) are a private (as opposed to Government) organization, and therefore is allowed to use their financial power over their members to coerce their political obedience.
    (I'll avoid asking these same, limited-federal-government conservatives to explain why it is that:
    1. When a state wants to make it illegal for any gay to have sex, ever, then clearly that's a metter for the state to decide, and it would be an abuse of federal power to try to bring the US Consitiution into it. But,
    2. When a state wants to, say, grant equal rights to those same gays (by allowing them to marry), then clearly this is a case to be decided at the federal level.
      [/list=1]
    3. I'll just ask these folks who believe in "limited government" to explain how they justify using a federal office that's been granted blank-check authority (by these same "limited government" people), to arrest american citizens, without accusing them of violating any law, to force them to comply with a political objective.
      (You might also explain how you can claim that all the folks who object to the creation of a Committee for State Security are either terrorists or paranoid, in light of the fact that, in this particular case, it took less than a year to get from the creation of the organization till the party in power decided it would be a good idea to use it against a political opponent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When an union member has his money diverted to a political group against his will then is shushed when he complains something is wrong.

Teacher Unions using their power at the expense of kids for their agenda.

Funny how these "American Citizens" tend to have been immigrants from terrorist backing nations like the 6 recently arrested that confessed that they would fight our troops on MSNBC and Fox news.

So lets not make it sound like Suzy homemaker Average Joe or hip hop Hank is going to be arrested for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When an union member has his money diverted to a political group against his will then is shushed when he complains something is wrong.

Whereas, OTOH, when a corporation makes a political contribution, then the stockholders' support for that position is unanimous, right?

How many R's would support a law, requiring unions, before making a political contribution, receive unanimous consent from all union members (or give them back their share of the contribution), if corporations were required to do the same thing with every stockholder?

Teacher Unions using their power at the expense of kids for their agenda.

I assume you have something in particular in mind, but it'd help if I knew what, specifically, you're talking about.

Funny how these "American Citizens" tend to have been immigrants from terrorist backing nations . . .

I'm sorry, I forgot that the Constitution didn't apply to recent citizens.

So lets not make it sound like Suzy homemaker Average Joe or hip hop Hank is going to be arrested for no reason.

Oh, no. It'll be for "national security" reasons, just like the leglislators in the example.

They'll be "disapeared" because somebody (but we don't have to say who) decided (based on things we don't see) that there was a reason (which doesn't have to be specified) that was good enough (to meet an unspecified standard of proof).

And when (if) they're released, without any charges even being filed, then somebody (who says he's better than liberals like me, because he believes in limiting the powers of government) will point at the fact that the Government generously decided to let him go, eventually, and say "See! The system does work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...