Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

12/15/11 Fox News Republican Debate

visionary

By visionary
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Pro life is really that crucial? Yeah, tell me the last time abortion was a huge national issue that came up at the Federal level... it's a zero-sum issue...

---------- Post added December-15th-2011 at 07:49 PM ----------

Social issues for Bachman and Newt... booo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
Cmon Peter. You know better. You are comparing Committee to Passage. It comes out of committee as a bill and passed via earmarks. Don't be naive.

If it was passed as a bill, they would have the full effect of law. From the part I quoted:

"soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted upon as if they were binding"

They don't have the effect of law because they were never voted on as a bill. They aren't contained in the bill, but only in the conference report.

http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=poli_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dearmarks%2520added%2520during%2520the%2520%2522conference%2520report%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCQQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarcommons.sc.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1052%2526context%253Dpoli_facpub%26ei%3Dsb3qTrbIO4T30gGDgpXQCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHSSPxXl1tJUg-qqDqt8BzMo7Qh_w#search=%22earmarks%20added%20during%20conference%20report%22

And they went beyond adding them to the conference report themselves and even added them into explantory notes;

"In terms of conference committees, the House now requires that a listing

of any new earmarks added in conference be included in the conference report

and the joint explanatory statement. The Senate rules on “air drops” appear to be

stricter since they do not allow the addition of new earmarks to the conference

report.27 However, and this is why the new rules are essentially meaningless, they

appear to be silent on including new earmarks as part of the joint explanatory

statement. Technically, the conference report contains the text that will reconcile

the differences between the legislation that passed in the House and Senate while

the explanatory statement describes the conference report. The respective

chambers vote on the conference report, but not the explanatory statement. As the

following case will demonstrate, the difference between the two reports allowed

the Senate to get around its new rules."

The agreement reported by the conference committee on November 6, 2007 included

24 new earmarks worth $59 million but listed them in the joint explanatory statement, not in the conference

report."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted
If it was passed as a bill, they would have the full effect of law. From the part I quoted:

"soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted upon as if they were binding"

They don't have the effect of law because they were never voted on as a bill. They aren't contained in the bill, but only in the conference report.

http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=poli_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dearmarks%2520added%2520during%2520the%2520%2522conference%2520report%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCQQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarcommons.sc.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1052%2526context%253Dpoli_facpub%26ei%3Dsb3qTrbIO4T30gGDgpXQCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHSSPxXl1tJUg-qqDqt8BzMo7Qh_w#search=%22earmarks%20added%20during%20conference%20report%22

And they went beyond adding them to the conference report themselves and even added them into explantory notes;

"In terms of conference committees, the House now requires that a listing

of any new earmarks added in conference be included in the conference report

and the joint explanatory statement. The Senate rules on “air drops” appear to be

stricter since they do not allow the addition of new earmarks to the conference

report.27 However, and this is why the new rules are essentially meaningless, they

appear to be silent on including new earmarks as part of the joint explanatory

statement. Technically, the conference report contains the text that will reconcile

the differences between the legislation that passed in the House and Senate while

the explanatory statement describes the conference report. The respective

chambers vote on the conference report, but not the explanatory statement. As the

following case will demonstrate, the difference between the two reports allowed

the Senate to get around its new rules."

The agreement reported by the conference committee on November 6, 2007 included

24 new earmarks worth $59 million but listed them in the joint explanatory statement, not in the conference

report."

Are you agreeing with me? Earmarks are what get bills passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted
Bachman looked like a fool saying "I am a serious candidate for President"

Huntsman was the most impressive.

Newt won.

Romney did nothing to gain ground.

Ron Paul was less aggressive than usual, the fox news folks were openly hostile towards him IMO.

When aren't they? He opposes their power. Only a blind man can't see it. If you are against the Conservative Power (fox, Rush, etc...) you'd be all for Paul. People want war with Iran. Those people are idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
Are you agreeing with me? Earmarks are what get bills passed.

Well, they get bills passed, but they frequently aren't in the bill. They can be added in the conference committee report, and Congress went as far as not adding them in the report, but adding them in the explatory comments.

It was frequently more of a promise, vote for this bill, and we'll get you that $10 million for your district by adding an earmark in the committee. Certainly, sometimes they get added in to the bill itself, especially as ammendments, but I at least have less issue with that because they pretty much have to be openly brought to the floor and everybody knows what they are voting for.

There are cases where it makes sense for Congress to say we want $X given to these people for this project. But if that's what they are doing, they should be open with it, which isn't the case if they are adding them into a conference committee report or an explantory statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted
The Fox guys like Perry.

I thought Paul, Hunstman, Romney, and Bachman all did a good job.

Not so much that I agree with Bachman, but she had some really interesting moments.

Huntsman/Paul ticket beats Obama. No one else will come close.

---------- Post added December-15th-2011 at 11:05 PM ----------

Well, they get bills passed, but they frequently aren't in the bill. They can be added in the conference committee report, and Congress went as far as not adding them in the report, but adding them in the explatory comments.

It was frequently more of a promise, vote for this bill, and we'll get you that $10 million for your district by adding an earmark in the committee. Certainly, sometimes they get added in to the bill itself, especially as ammendments, but I at least have less issue with that because they pretty much have to be openly brought to the floor and everybody knows what they are voting for.

There are cases where it makes sense for Congress to say we want $X given to these people for this project. But if that's what they are doing, they should be open with it, which isn't the case if they are adding them into a conference committee report or an explantory statement.

The principle of the bill is compromised because of the promise of an earmark. So the congressman votes to get re-elected by getting money for their constituents. Its political science 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted

Is it just me, or are the neo-cons now married to yet another ME war, this time with Iran? I wasnt that concerned over it because I honestly couldnt imagine anyone supporting such a thing. But after that debate, I wonder if we are ever going to stop this madness. Heck, even the so-called peace loving Dems are saber rattling.

deflated

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 08:09 AM ----------

For the record, I thought Paul did awful on his answers on Iran. While he was 100% correct, again his delivery ruined excellent points.

On a more positive note, (and I have no idea if this means anything at all for the nomination, suspect it doesnt honestly) but at least on FB, it appears he gained many new supporters just in one day yesterday.

http://elections.insidefacebook.com/

---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 08:08 AM ----------

For the record, I thought Paul did awful on his answers on Iran. While he was 100% correct, again his delivery ruined excellent points.

On a more positive note, (and I have no idea if this means anything at all for the nomination, suspect it doesnt honestly) but at least on FB, it appears he gained many new supporters just in one day yesterday.

http://elections.insidefacebook.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
My question is Why don't the oil companies pay for it

the pipeline?

they will.......are you under the impression it is a govt project?

Fergusun...no it will not make us independent,but it is a major,stable source though'

it would also reduce oil tanker traffic(which is much more subject to spills)

I'd prefer we develop our own ,while expanding NG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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