Thursday, January 8, 2015
Payback Time
Boehner, the Ohio Republican re-elected House speaker on Tuesday, moved quickly to boot two members who opposed him in the speaker election from the influentialHouse Rules Committee. One, Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida, was one of three GOP candidates who announced they were running against Boehner for the speaker post, reports the Washington Examiner. Richard Nugent, another Floridian, also saw his committee spot disappear. The moves could be just the start of payback for the speaker’s betrayers, as Politico puts it: they may see subcommittee chairmanships and other perks fall away in the coming months. Some 25 House Republicans did not support Boehner in Tuesday’s vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Politics ain't bean bag. There's a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteIt would be fitting for the GOP members that are being punished to walk away from the party and strictly vote what their constituents want instead of the party line.
ReplyDeleteThat would be their punishment to Boehner.
Of course the delusion of the Republican Party is that they see Libertarian minded individuals and the Tea Party as the cause of their problems as a political organization when, in fact, more and more people are coming to understand that something’s you can’t and don’t compromise on. They understand that compromise of these core principles are what has led to much of our nation’s problems today. In many ways, the radical left are staring to do the same to the Democratic Party. Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be nor does government have the right to seize the hard work of its citizens for things it was never entitled to do…
ReplyDeleteBut of course, all shades of the left embrace the socially stifling practice of political correctness. I am surprised we haven’t seen a Charlie Hebdo thread started on the stupidity of freedom of speech.
"Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be "
DeleteNo they do not but republican principles say that ...yes we can by labeling what marriage is.
Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be "
No they do not But republican principles say yes we can rob a female of her right to choose
Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be "
As long as you ain't fuckin" with the businessman.
Interesting that we are united in support of Charlie but if someone at a university here in the U.S. had drawn those cartoons, that person would most certainly have been fired. The same is probably true of many news papers. I have even read some of our fellow bloggers posts criticizing political cartoonists who just happen to make fun of one of their political favorites. Why just this morning the Mallard Fillmore cartoon make fun of Republicans!
DeleteI have been following this with some interest. Because I have a UK IP address streaming US news is hard but I have canvased most of the major newspapers and some lesser ones as well as blogs on both the left and the right. One thing that is clear is that most of the articles focus on the ‘terrorism’ aspect of the story and not the stated reason for the attack. The issue turns into a governmental subject of more regulations, more surveillance and less personal freedom while ignoring the issue of free speech almost entirely.
DeleteThis is markedly so on articles created on the left. They of course find themselves in between a rock and a hard place on this issue. They use the force of government to stifle conversations that they wish not to have… conversations that, in the long run, would improve relations between different social groups in America. Universities are in an even worse position to speak on the importance of free speech… they are renounce for shutting down the very subject that they should be encouraging.
This attack was given approval by a lot of people. First is a very small percent of the population who will resort to extreme violence to force their point of view; in this instance Muslim radicals. Widely denounced by the broader Muslim community as not being associated with Islam in public we can read and hear undercurrents that cheers these guys for ‘sticking up for Islam’. A much larger group surrounds this supportive yet nonviolent group. It is the ones I worry about the most, the ones who shake their heads at the killings but turn around and say… “Well, they asked for it”. Sounds like some comments one sometimes hears about a scantily dressed woman and rape. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
In an article put out by AP (AssociatedPress) they said that they would not run the inflammatory cartoons as some others had chosen to do because “AP tries hard not to be a conveyor belt for images and actions aimed at mocking or provoking people on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation. ... While we run many photos that are politically or socially provocative, there are areas verging on hate speech and actions where we feel it is right to be cautious."
This is the same ASSociated Press who not only published but sold editorial rights to the use of Piss Christ ‘work of art’. … you know, that photograph of the crucifix dipped the photographers urine and cheered by the same liberals as ‘freedom of speech’.
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten who came under fire from Muslims in 2005 said: "We have lived with the fear of a terrorist attack for nine years, and yes, that is the explanation why we do not reprint the cartoons, whether it be our own or Charlie Hebdo's…,"We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation."
Jyllands also felt the wrath of the last group… The ones that say “that they deserved it… They asked for it”. The ones I worry about the most. They have a distorted vision of both a free society and the freedom to express ones thoughts and feelings on any given subject. As they progress in this quest to shut down any conversation that offends their sensibilities, they cut the legs out from under the very meaning of the word freedom. One day someone, perhaps a Muslim caliphate will have the power and reach to start dictating the conversation about gays… and abortion… and just about everything else one take for granted in a free society.
Kingston talked about the responsibilities that go with rights… now is the time to truly stand up and say “ I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
Well Rick, something that we can agree on! Except for a couple of minor issues this is THE reason that I do not count myself as a Republican. I do not believe that the government has the right to dictate abortion (other than to define more clearly the definition of life), create laws that prohibit consenting adults doing what they want in private and as you point out, picking and choosing which consenting adults are allowed legal recognition by the state. While morally I have some affinity with the reasons for some of these laws, they have no more place in forcing the social fabric of the US and citizen associations within it, than do segregation laws.
DeleteOn the same token I am not a Democrat for much the same reasons. The creation of hate laws and political correctness that define what can and cannot be said or heard by any member of society, mountains of Robin Hood laws that steal from one and give to another and pushing laws which attempt to codify the behaviours Republicans work to banish. I find all these just as repugnant to a free people as I do the forced segregation and its antithesis, which by any logical measure is just as unconstitutional, forced integration.
And let’s not forget the pompom wavers of both parties who have supported ever wider encroachment and intrusion into the affairs of private business by the twisting and expanding of the ‘elastic’ clause in combination with the ‘necessary and proper clause. These same pompom wavers agitate over the amount of money and revolving door relationships that have increased with every new law and regulation done in the name of “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” General understanding of that statement sounds more like a traffic cop than an OSHA inspector. And by limiting the scope of federal involvement with business you shrink the corrupting influences of an overused necessary and proper clause.
The first part of fixing a problem is admitting that it exists…
"Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be "
ReplyDeleteNo they do not but democrat principles say yes we can force you to pay for healthcare and maternity benefits even if you a single male or pay a special tax as a penalty.
Government doesn’t have the right to tell people who they can be "
No they do not but democrat principles demand you be politically correct.
Guess only Democratically controlled government has the right to tell people who they can be, what they can do.