House bill counters eminent domain rulingFollow

It's possible. How about you find that out for us instead of just hoping that there is a good reason...?



Wasn't my math that was off. I read that as "36 out of 157" for some reason.

Um... It's still 18 times more then the number of Republicans who voted the same way.

I also was just showing you the "upper bounds" if you will of potential Religious Right influence. On any given issue, most of that 22% wont agree with the "agenda" being put forth (only a small percent actually want to put mandated prayer in school for instance). 22% represents the "worst case" rate of Religious Right influence within the party.

What percentage of House Republicans do you think would vote for a law mandating prayer in public schools Joph (if such a thing even got that far)? That's the point. This isn't the result of some survey. It's not some polling figures. It's actual legistlative action being taken by your own party, which passed through numerous layers of government and is only being blocked because of extreme outrage about the action itself among the public. And even after that outrage, 18.6% (there, happy?) of Democrat representatives *still* thought it was a good idea...


Think about that Joph. This isn't some vague issue with some number of some population maybe supporting something at some point. This is real. This is your party actively trying to take away your private property rights. And still you refuse to believe it? Sheesh! What do they have to do before you'll realize that they're putting the power of the government ahead of your own freedoms?



No. It's an issue which was met with universal revulsion by the public, and *still* 18% of Democrats in the House went down on record as agreeing with it. If that many are willing to do so in a case like this, how many more will do so when there isn't public attention to the issue Joph? That's the point. This is the "lower bounds" of the this agenda in the Democratic party. Doesn't that concern you at all?



You'd have to bring up specifics Joph. I have a set of beliefs which the Republican party generally follows (and which the Democratic party almost universally opposes). That's not to say that every Republican member, or every Republican initiative will be something or someone I agree with (faith based or not).

But as a general rule, yes. I can see the logic of most actions taken by the Republican party and agree with most of them. It's just that the things that I disagree with are generally *very* obvious. Meanwhile, your party is quietly passing legistlation that you don't agree with and aren't even aware of until it's suddenly law. What other things might they be doing that you don't know about and wont discover until it becomes law Joph? And doesn't that worry you even a bit?

Huh? How's that spin? I was showing that the entire percentage of people who identify themselves as the "religious right" is not significantly higher then the percentage of actual elected Democrat politicians who are in favor of taking private citizen's homes from them if there can be shown to be any economic benefit to the state for doing so.

There was an implicit issue of bounds from the beginning Joph. It's not spin. Clearly, if 22% of all Americans associate themselves with the very broad term "religious right", we can expect that not 100% of them will all agree on every single agenda item, right? Therefore, that's an upper bounds of the possible number of people (and by extension percentage of some legistlative body) that might support any specific agenda item.

See how that's different? The 18% figure is *worse* because it's not some hypothetical group who may or may not support a particular action. It's 18% who *did* support a particular action. I'm pretty sure that if 18% of Republicans in the House voted to mandate prayer in public schools, you'd be all over it.

The point was to show the relative degree of "danger" here. How many times have I been questioned about being Republican because of the Religious Right? How many times do Liberals pull out the boogie-man of the Religious Right whenever an election comes up "Don't vote republican, or they'll turn public eduction into sunday school!!!!". We hear this every single time Joph. Constantly.

Where's the concern for the expansion of government power that results from the agenda of the Democratic party Joph? How many years now have I said exactly the same thing every time this subject comes up? I say that the danger in the Republican party is really obvious and easy to block. The danger in the Democratic party is much more difficult though.

No one ever says: "We want to increase the power of the federal government and take away some of your freedoms in the process". They just say "We want to feed the hungry". And that's why it's dangerous Joph. Because while your thinking about all those mouths you're feeding, you're pushing the country one step closer to a police state.

What's really amazing to me is that even when faced with a police-state like law (seizing private property for the "greater good"), you don't like it, and you argue against it, but it never once seems to occur to you that it's because of people like you that this occured in the first place. If you keep giving the government more power, they'll eventually use it in ways you don't like. So don't do it in the first place. Seems pretty obvious to me...


Sigh. And you think *I'm* spinning stuff?



First off. It was not a "ban on embryonic stem cell research". That would involve making it illegal to do such research. It was a program for stem cell research, but did not fund embryonic stem cell research. Given that there were no government funded programs for this type of research at all prior to this, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Interesting how "not funding something" is transmorgafied in Liberal-speach to "a ban on something". But you're not spinning at all...



You're going to have to be a lot more specific here. I don't even remember this.




Funny bit of rhetoric there Joph. Um... What can you do but "circle the wagons", when the other side does nothing but continuous media-spin style attacks? It's about manipulating public perception Joph. That's it. I could produce a laundry list of Liberal arguments, every one of which has no legal or rational basis, but exists because it plays really well on TV.

Um... The "ban on torture" is an addendum item dropped into the bill. If it was an issue able to get support and votes on its own, it wouldn't have been dropped into the bill. It would have been introduced on its own.

And yeah. Republicans "speak of passing a ban on torture" because it's about language. How many of them would actuall vote for this in its current language if it were in its own bill? Speaking is about the media and public perception. Every one of them will say he's "opposed to torture", and that'll be interpreted as support for the addendum. It's not the same thing though.




Yeah. And it worked. Hear anything in the news about Meirs? Nope? Nearly perfect timing on that one.




Because it *is* just one of those things. Why is it "wrong" for the Republicans to be aware of the affect ations they take have on public perception? It's silly for them not to. That's how they're being attacked right now. You've got a Democrat party that does not have power in either house of Congress, nor hold's the White House. Their primary methodology is "message". That's done via media manipulation. Every single thing that happens has a dozen paid shills for various Liberal lobbying groups standing in front of reporters telling them what this means (from their perspective of course!). Obviously, the other guys have to respond to that. Yeah. I would have preferred for Bush not to have used a SC nominee just as media cover, but I can understand *why* he'd do it. When the other guys make sure that they've got their "message" out there on the airwaves 24/7, you have to do something to deal with that.



I honestly don't know. I don't know enough about his past work experience, nor about the specific requirements of the job in question.

I will point out though, that the people who hounded him don't know that either. They just assume that since he was a friend of Bush, he must have been unqualified for his job.

I'll ask you a question in return: Name one specific mistake Brown made that resulted in increased death/suffering during the Katrina disaster.





Except in this case, we have a law passed by Democrats that is a literal conspiracy theory come alive Joph. You've got the government attempting to empower itself to be able to take anyone's property away for the flimsiest of reasons. At what point do you become concerned about this? Sheesh!

I'd hang my dirty laundry out to dry, but it needs to soak a bit more in the spin cycle.

Interesting that Joph couldn't name a single mistake Brown made that caused in any way the suffering and loss of life during Katrina.

He rails on me for not knowing how horrible his resume was, or any of the other rhetoric surrounding the man. But all that really matters was his job performance. Funny how everyone focuses on how he may or may not have been qualified for the position, and argues about cronyism, but never actually show how he did anything wrong.


Poor logic. You should know that Joph. So I'll ask again: What mistake did Brown make that caused suffering and loss of life during the katrina disaster? If he was so horrible, this shouldn't be a hard question to answer. If it *is* a hard question to answer, maybe you should reassess your condemnation of the man.

Wow, our government actually managed to make a good decision?

I'm really quite shocked.

*Shrug*

If you say so. As it stands, even the GOP has blasted Brown for his job during Katrina. I suppose they were just wrapped up in the "rhetoric" and had to attack Brown because the Liberal Conspiracy made it "political" and the poor GOP had no other choice.

Wow, you guys get played for a fool by the conspiracy so darn easily

Eh? Which explains why Brown was asking Governor Blanco to ask for a federal declaration of a state of emergency in her state 3 days before the hurricane hit, and it took her 24 hours after that to do it?

Which is why Brown pleaded with Mayor Nagin to mandate evacuations from the parts of New Orleans most likely to flood, but Nagin choose not to?



Yes. And all the food, water, and emergency supplies they needed were sitting on trucks, right where FEMA had delivered them. Waiting for someone to tell them where to go.

The problem was there was no organization at the local level. Why do you supppose that 3 days after the hurricane hit, FEMA still did not know that people had been evacuated to the convention center (and discovered that fact when CNN told them!)? Hmmm? Who's responsiblity do you think it is to direct those resources?

The relief supplies were shipped and available. The problem is that there was no one in authority in NO who could tell them where to send it. There was no evacuation plan. There was no one tracking where people were. There was no one tracking what resources were available and how they were being used. It was utter chaos. That is *not* the fault of FEMA.



Yes.. Because that's exactly what they were asked to do.


You are aware that when Governor Blanco asked for a declaration of a federal state of emergency, she specified *exactly* what sort of aid she was requesting? You are also aware that there are a couple of federal laws that specifically prohibit federal agencies from operating outside those boundaries, right?

FEMA was authorized only to provide relief supplies, and money for rebuilding and reconstruction. They were not authorized to evacuate anyone. They were not even authorized to hand out relief supplies (only deliver them to local authorities). I'm not sure on search and rescue. I'd have to double check and get back to you on that part.

The point is that she wrote up a document that specified what the federal agencies were allowed to do within her state. That's how our system of government works. You cannot blame FEMA for doing exactly what she asked them to do. If that was the wrong thing, then you must blame her, since she's the one who made the decision.

And btw. Both Bush and Brown *begged* her for 4 days after Katrina hit to allow for a federalization of the evacuation and relief efforts. She still refused. Even on the Friday following the hurricane, when those dead were allready plastered on every news station and everyone knew just how "bad" this was, and it was obvious that the local people were not handling the situation, she still refused to allow them to take over.


But you blame FEMA? Why? Their hands were tied from day one. Brown didn't do anyhing wrong because Brown didn't have any say in how things were handled. His "job" consisted of making sure there were sufficient teams to handle the needs of the nation in an emergency (which there were) and mostly to do the political side of things. Show up at fundraisers. Get equipment. Make sure those reporting to him had everything they needed to get their jobs done. By all accounts he did all of that just fine. It's not like he goes off with an EM team personally and manages things locally. He's about 4-5 layers of management above that level.



Funny. Everyone always says that, and then ends it right there.

I'll bite. What should he have done that he didn't do?