billvon 2,434 #1 January 23, 2007 WASHINGTON - Senate leaders worked to resuscitate an ethics and lobbying measure Thursday, with the new Democratic majority trying to stave off defeat on its first major bill and Republicans wanting to avoid being blamed for obstructing an overhaul. . . . . Action on the bill hit a wall Wednesday. Republicans were angry they could not get a vote on a proposal giving the president, with congressional approval, more power to kill single spending items in larger bills. So GOP senators voted against a resolution needed to move the bill to final passage. "What this maneuver shows is that the Republican leadership hasn't learned the lessons of the 2006 election," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. The ethics and lobbying legislation would bar lawmakers from accepting gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists; make it more difficult for former lawmakers to lobby their old colleagues; deny pensions to lawmakers convicted of serious crimes; require more reporting by lobbyists on their activities; and require public disclosure of those home-state projects. (This fake "poll" stuff is fun! Political commentary masquerading as a simple question.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #2 January 23, 2007 While don't agree with blocking this legislation, I do agree the line item type veto should be in place. More party plays if you ask me. Maybe the way some want to handle Iraq should be tested in DC first? Matt Its a JOKE! Well maybe not completely, but not serious, to much.An Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 January 23, 2007 Well, the republicans are definitely using it as a tool. I don't know if they actually support pensions for criminals. The line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #4 January 23, 2007 QuoteThe line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure. Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. However, if our only standard is whether it's effective or not and ignore the constitutionality, we could come up will all sorts of astounding reforms. Oh wait. That's exactly what's happening. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #5 January 23, 2007 >I don't know if they actually support pensions for criminals. I very much doubt they do. I was just parodying another post about "democrats hate free speech" or something like that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #6 January 23, 2007 QuoteThis fake "poll" stuff is fun! It would be even more fun if you used smileys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #7 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure. Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. However, if our only standard is whether it's effective or not and ignore the constitutionality, we could come up will all sorts of astounding reforms. Oh wait. That's exactly what's happening. If it's "unfortunate", then why not work a debate and use the process to vote a constitutional amendment up or down? That debate and process would be far and away more valuable than 99% of the other junk Congress spends its time on.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #8 January 23, 2007 >It would be even more fun if you used smileys. I will not indulge your sick perverted smiley fetish! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #9 January 23, 2007 QuoteI will not indulge your sick perverted smiley fetish! We'll see about that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #10 January 23, 2007 It is all about the tongue. That is sick and perverted. (and has gotten a few politicians in trouble too!) MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #11 January 23, 2007 > I very much doubt they do. I was just parodying another post about "democrats hate free speech" or something like that. "democrats hate free speech", no just John McCain and that Finegold dude, however you spell his last name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #12 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure. Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. Why would it be unconstitutional? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 January 23, 2007 I'm not all that surprised they voted against it, if it was this one!!!!! From the bill, which discusses stripping pensions from Congresscritters convicted of various crimes (emphasis mine): Quote (2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense described in section 8332(o)(2)(B) for which the following apply: `(A) The offense is committed by the individual (referred to in paragraph (1)) while a Member. `(B) The conduct on which the offense is based is directly related to the individual's service as a Member. `(C) The offense is committed during the One Hundred Eleventh Congress or later. Giving Jefferson, Mollahan and Reid time to duck and cover, perhaps?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #14 January 23, 2007 QuoteGiving Jefferson, Mollahan and Reid time to duck and cover, perhaps? While giving those that are already in prison, collecting a pension a cover as well. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #15 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure. Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. Why would it be unconstitutional? Because last time they tried, the Supremes ruled it unconstitutional.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #16 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteI will not indulge your sick perverted smiley fetish! We'll see about that... Oh, get a smilley covered room you two!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #17 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe line-item-veto could do more to control spending than any ethics measure. Unfortunately it's also unconstitutional. However, if our only standard is whether it's effective or not and ignore the constitutionality, we could come up will all sorts of astounding reforms. Oh wait. That's exactly what's happening. Sources please? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #18 January 23, 2007 I think Kallend already addressed this. Do a wikipedia search for "line item veto". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #19 January 23, 2007 >Giving Jefferson, Mollahan and Reid time to duck and cover, perhaps? Hmm. Are they facing a court case for their misdeeds? Is DeLay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 January 23, 2007 Quote>I don't know if they actually support pensions for criminals. I very much doubt they do. I was just parodying another post about "democrats hate free speech" or something like that. There's a difference between the two, which renders your parody invalid. In the "free speech" thread, the democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment specifically addressing new ways to punish free speech. If your case here, the republicans voted against the entire bill, which consisted of numerous provisions, as well as an outside motivation. Therefore, for you to single out just one provision out of many, and claim that as your thread title for why they voted that way, is invalid, disingenuous, and cheap. But hey, it's just part of the general trend here for all discussions to devolve into childish balogna. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 January 23, 2007 Quote>Giving Jefferson, Mollahan and Reid time to duck and cover, perhaps? Hmm. Are they facing a court case for their misdeeds? Is DeLay? All but one of the cases against Delay have been dismissed. Only one remains, and has yet to be heard in court. Does the fact that some politically-motivated District Attorney anywhere in the country is willing to level charges against you, make you automatically guilty? And if not, then why do you bring this up as an example? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #22 January 23, 2007 >All but one of the cases against Delay have been dismissed. Translation: Of the people we are discussing, only DeLay has been indicted. >Does the fact that some politically-motivated District Attorney anywhere >in the country is willing to level charges against you, make you >automatically guilty? Nope. But if you charged with a crime, and will be going to court, you are more likely to be affected by a potential cut in pensions for criminals. Indictment means that there is sufficient evidence of your guilt to be taken to court. It doesn't mean you are guilty, but it does mean that a jury thinks you might be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 January 23, 2007 QuoteIndictment means that there is sufficient evidence of your guilt to be taken to court. It doesn't mean you are guilty, but it does mean that a jury thinks you might be. No, it means that district attorney, and in the case of Delay a politically motivated one, hopes that he can be found guilty. The grand jury hears only one side of the story; the DA's, and is therefore not a good predictor of what a trial jury might do later. All of this means absolutely nothing about what any eventual trial jury may think, presuming it even gets that far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #24 January 23, 2007 You said: >No . . . and then proceeded to say pretty much what I said. It means a grand jury thinks you might be guilty, and there is enough evidence to go to trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #25 January 23, 2007 QuoteQuote>I don't know if they actually support pensions for criminals. I very much doubt they do. I was just parodying another post about "democrats hate free speech" or something like that. There's a difference between the two, which renders your parody invalid. I disagree - it was a GREAT parody.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)