PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 13, 2019, 04:27:54 PM
-
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/house-vote-spending-bill-read/
The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a government appropriations bill Thursday evening and, with a day until the vote, lawmakers still have not received the text of the legislation.
“No one has seen the final wording of a long and complicated bill we will be expected to vote on tomorrow evening,” Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s no way to run a legislature.”
Republican Study Chairman Mike Johnson also confirmed that “as of lunch on Wednesday, members of the RSC, and to our knowledge, even members of the conference committee, had not seen the text.”
“It has been reported that [House Majority Leader Steny] Hoyer has said if the bill is dropped today we will consider it tomorrow. This is reminiscent of the, ‘you must pass it to find out what is in it,’ Obamacare debacle,” Johnson said to TheDCNF. “This bill is expected to be well over 1,000 pages, and we will potentially have less than 24 hours to digest it. This is absurd.”
-
Pelosi in action again.
This is downright criminal, and it's downright egregious of ANY house member that votes for it.
No telling what little (giant) tidbits Pelosi and her criminals have put in between the pages.
-
But, but . . .
They have to vote on it to see what's in it! ::) ::)
-
But, but . . .
They have to vote on it to see what's in it! ::) ::)
Pelosi. And the fuckin' republicans will just vote on it, no clue to what is buried in there. And the few real conservatives that do question it will be derided by leadership "If you don't vote for this, the government will SHUT DOWN!"
This fuckin's shit has to stop, and members of congress need to grow a set and stand up to this blatant THEFT.
DEMAND the time to read the bill, and OBJECT to the pork.
-
Pelosi. And the fuckin' republicans will just vote on it, no clue to what is buried in there. And the few real conservatives that do question it will be derided by leadership "If you don't vote for this, the government will SHUT DOWN!"
This fuckin's shit has to stop, and members of congress need to grow a set and stand up to this blatant THEFT.
DEMAND the time to read the bill, and OBJECT to the pork.
At least Trump said he is looking for land mines in the bill before he signs it.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/13/house-vote-spending-bill-read/
I hope every 435 of them get an incurable case of herpes. Fuckers.
They being said, Paul Ryan and the Republicans ran in 2010 on transparency and giving members x hours to read a bill before voting on it. He never kept that promise either.
Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?
-
At least Trump said he is looking for land mines in the bill before he signs it.
I'm sure he will have staff working to comb through it.
But fuckin' Pelosi is deliberately tryin to sneak this bill through (her trademark) by using the friday deadline to get a quick signature.
-
Where is Tom Clancy when you need him?
Ain't that the damn truth!
-
Pelosi. And the fuckin' republicans will just vote on it, no clue to what is buried in there. And the few real conservatives that do question it will be derided by leadership "If you don't vote for this, the government will SHUT DOWN!"
I LOVED it when the government was shut down/
What is the problem with that?
-
an incurable case of herpes.
Is there a curable form?
-
Not easy to draft a huge spending bill with a tight deadline. Try it sometime.
-
Not easy to draft a huge spending bill with a tight deadline. Try it sometime.
So does that justify voting on a bill without reading it?
-
Ther is no deadline.
Just a bunch of fucking communists that pretend to be democrat X-rays trying to steal everything insight.
-
Not easy to draft a huge spending bill with a tight deadline. Try it sometime.
You're defending this? You think they should pass a 1000 page bill without reading it?
-
It doesn’t have to be that big, nor passed without reading, nor subject to an unrealistic deadline.
Congress is illustrating Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
-
It doesn’t have to be that big, nor passed without reading, nor subject to an unrealistic deadline.
Congress is illustrating Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Ooooh! It’s not often that I learn something completely new to me, but I had not heard of this before. It is PERFECT! Thanks Becky.
-
Breaking, looks like POTUS is going to sign, but simultaneously declare an NE.
https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2019/02/14/breaking-it-sounds-like-trump-will-sign-the-bill-and-declare-a-national-emergency/
Conservative Treehouse is keeping good watch and commentary.
I’m just worried he’ll be signing approval for things that compromise security, like counties and states getting to say yea or nay to a wall.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzZLoUgUYAAOVoC.jpg:large)
-
Not easy to draft a huge spending bill with a tight deadline. Try it sometime.
Naive. This stuff is written LONG before the debate even begins.
-
If they didn't come up with something by today the government shuts down again. You guys might like that, but most Americans don't. Laws are like sausages, you really don't want to see how they're made. The important thing is the guys involved compromise,which they did. I know that won't be good enough for Captain Chaos, who is no doubt going to declare an emergency in his quest for the Imperial Presidency. He'll probably get away with it too, since his toadies in Congress haven't the whit to understand separation powers.
-
Most laws are restrictions. We don't need MORE LAWS. Gridlock is good. I don't want Congress operating.
-
If they didn't come up with something by today the government shuts down again. You guys might like that, but most Americans don't. Laws are like sausages, you really don't want to see how they're made. The important thing is the guys involved compromise,which they did. I know that won't be good enough for Captain Chaos, who is no doubt going to declare an emergency in his quest for the Imperial Presidency. He'll probably get away with it too, since his toadies in Congress haven't the whit to understand separation powers.
Why would we like a shutdown? You are wrong of course. Well, except for Anthony apparently.
To the contrary, I definitely want to see what is in the law. Why would I want a series of Trojan horses entering into the laws of the nation?
Compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.
Anyone who goes up against the forces arrayed against our POTUS will encounter chaos. Chaos usually precedes productive change.
POTUS has toadies in Congress? Again to the contrary. He has RINO globalists and true conservatives. Toadies are what the left has.
POTUS promises to do his best to keep the citizens of his country safe. It is in fact his sacred duty. If Dem lawmakers don’t want POTUS to keep the country safe as is his Constitutional duty, they should just keep making fools of themselves resisting it.
Your points are ridiculous.
-
If they didn't come up with something by today the government shuts down again. You guys might like that, but most Americans don't. Laws are like sausages, you really don't want to see how they're made. The important thing is the guys involved compromise,which they did. I know that won't be good enough for Captain Chaos, who is no doubt going to declare an emergency in his quest for the Imperial Presidency. He'll probably get away with it too, since his toadies in Congress haven't the whit to understand separation powers.
This funding bill was written months ago. The only real changes are to the sections negotiated, but the actual agency funding comes as no surprise.
What truly sucks is Pelosi trying to slip a 1,000 page bill in front of everyone with her signature "let's vote, then we get to see what's in it". Congress should never, ever vote on a bill like that. Both D's and R's should reject this outright theft and tactic.
The emergency is lawful and fully within the President's powers under laws voted on, and approved by Congress. While the alt left progressives are just fine with drugs being brought in a record levels, and the human trafficking going on at the border, as well as children being left to die in the desert, it's time to secure the border. It's too bad the democrats are being run by a bunch of communist who only want power, at any and all cost.
-
Is there a curable form?
https://youtu.be/ueqq5eJQlSQ
-
If they didn't come up with something by today the government shuts down again. You guys might like that, but most Americans don't. Laws are like sausages, you really don't want to see how they're made. The important thing is the guys involved compromise,which they did. I know that won't be good enough for Captain Chaos, who is no doubt going to declare an emergency in his quest for the Imperial Presidency. He'll probably get away with it too, since his toadies in Congress haven't the whit to understand separation powers.
Just like 99.9% of all communists ( i know, you think you are a democrat) you are in FULL TIME projection. All projection. All the time.
-
Umm, I thought Captain Chaos was Obummer.
-
Umm, I thought Captain Chaos was Obummer.
No, he is the Mocha Messiah.
-
The Negro Nero?
-
The emergency is lawful and fully within the President's powers under laws voted on, and approved by Congress.
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
-
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
You do realize that the President declaring a national emergency goes all the way back to Washington, and we are under over 30 right now?
-Dan
-
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
But it was OK for Obama to circumvent the courts, and Constitution with his "Pen, and Phone"? The MEDIA supported that. Now a legitimate threat to National Security shouldn't be considered an Emergency? We have 40 Million ILLEGAL ALIENS in the U.S. Many are criminals other than just coming here illegally. Many if not most steal IDENTITIES using someone else's Social Security number to get benefits, driver's licenses, jobs, vote, etc.
Wait until a loved one is killed by one of these illegals, or your Credit is RUINED because someone use you SS# illegally and defaulted on a loan, or got evicted, etc.
-
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
You're acting like this is new and shocking.
-
And here is why the Dems want Trump to declare a National Emergency
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-warns-republicans-trumps-national-emergency-sets-precedent-for-future-democratic-administrations
Pelosi says a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency
-
And here is why the Dems want Trump to declare a National Emergency
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-warns-republicans-trumps-national-emergency-sets-precedent-for-future-democratic-administrations
Pelosi says a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency
The Dems will do whatever they want to do regardless of what trump does. This establishes no precedent because the precedent has been set decades ago.
-
But it was OK for Obama to circumvent the courts, and Constitution with his "Pen, and Phone"? The MEDIA supported that. Now a legitimate threat to National Security shouldn't be considered an Emergency? We have 40 Million ILLEGAL ALIENS in the U.S. Many are criminals other than just coming here illegally. Many if not most steal IDENTITIES using someone else's Social Security number to get benefits, driver's licenses, jobs, vote, etc.
Wait until a loved one is killed by one of these illegals, or your Credit is RUINED because someone use you SS# illegally and defaulted on a loan, or got evicted, etc.
At what point did the Obominator declare a national emergency? That must have got by me.
-
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
Do you mean like this: (I don't seem to recall much objection to any of these)
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
-
I'm astounded at how many of those "national emergencies" had nothing to do with THIS nation. At least Trump is addressing a clear and present danger to our nation.
-
I'm astounded at how many of those "national emergencies" had nothing to do with THIS nation. At least Trump is addressing a clear and present danger to our nation.
Amazingly, or maybe not so amazingly, all the Dem 2020 candidates are not mentioning adherence to the Constitution AT ALL. It’s all love, free stuff, just get along, stop the evil Right.
Telling.
-
Do you mean like this: (I don't seem to recall much objection to any of these)
April 12, 2010: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia was in respect to threats posed by Somali pirates.
February 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya froze the assets of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
March 16, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine was in response to the Russian invasion of Crimea.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
March 8, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela was in response to human rights violations.
April 1, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities was in response to Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
I think you're confusing National Emergencies with Executive orders.
-
Amazingly, or maybe not so amazingly, all the Dem 2020 candidates are not mentioning adherence to the Constitution AT ALL. It’s all love, free stuff, just get along, stop the evil Right.
Telling.
Yes it is telling. The Democrats are the Party of Totalitarian Oppression, through bigger, and bigger government, and more confiscation of wealth. That is why the push man made climate change, and more gun control laws including gun bans and confiscation. Two of their biggest policy desires.
-
I think you're confusing National Emergencies with Executive orders.
Nope. Those are actual national emergencies declared by Obama:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
-
Obama declared 13 National Emergencies, Eleven are still active.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/obama-declared-13-national-emergencies-11-are-still-active/
-
I think you're confusing National Emergencies with Executive orders.
I think you are grasping at straws without even reading that which offends you.
-
I think you're confusing National Emergencies with Executive orders.
No he’s not.
Here’s a list:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
-
No he’s not.
Here’s a list:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
Edit: I see this was already posted.
-
I'll let the SCOTUS weigh in on that one. As reactionary as it is now, I can't believe they'd allow something that so alters the separation of powers.
Congress passed the law, it's there's and they own it. It was passed by both the senate and the house and signed into law by a president, exactly per the constitution.
Kinda odd nobody cares about the 59 other national emergencies that were declared (and several are still on the books)
-
So I got the wrong of it, the Obaminator did indeed declare national emergencies. I learn something, thank you. I think every POTUS has since the law was passed.
What I can’t find is where the Obaminator raised funds absent the consent of Congress or despite the lack of it. And that’s where the separation of powers comes into play.
-
So I got the wrong of it, the Obaminator did indeed declare national emergencies. I learn something, thank you. I think every POTUS has since the law was passed.
What I can’t find is where the Obaminator raised funds absent the consent of Congress or despite the lack of it. And that’s where the separation of powers comes into play.
The whole point of a President declaring an national emergency is so that funds can be allocated and spent without Congress. What good would it do to declare an emergency, if he still had to go to Congress for funding?
You have admitted you were wrong about the National Emergency aspect. Congratulations for that. But don't embarrass yourself further by trying to cling to some hope that you can prove Trump is doing something that other Presidents (including the Mocha Mulatto) didn't also do. People are just pissed because it is Trump doing it and not for any real or logical reason.
-
So I got the wrong of it, the Obaminator did indeed declare national emergencies. I learn something, thank you. I think every POTUS has since the law was passed.
What I can’t find is where the Obaminator raised funds absent the consent of Congress or despite the lack of it. And that’s where the separation of powers comes into play.
You mean like loading a cargo plane with several billion dollars in other currencies and flying it into another country in the middle of the night?
Or how about appropriating money to buy and run guns into Mexico? I’m sure he didn’t bother for congressional approval on that.
-
My point is that all those operations were carried out with monies appropriated by Congress as part of the mission of the agencies involved. I recall the Obaminator working with a very hostile Congress. I suspect had the Obaminator actually appropriated funds lots of Congresscritters would have cried foul to the courts.
Trumplethinskin is appropriating monies despite Congressional disapproval. They didn’t give him what he wanted so he’ll appropriate the rest. That is a far, far cry from anything Obama did.
And if you really feel that Obama did as badly you should be excoriating the GOP. They controlled both houses and could have easily gone to the courts. What really amazes me is Obama authorized the mirder of Americans absent due process and nothing was ever done about it. I put that squarely in the hands of the GOP. It’s a fucking war crime and no one paid. The rest of Obama’s “scandals” are little more than bullshot. But the murder of two Americans is a truly horrible precedent.
-
I don’t recall congress being involved with the late night secret plane load of cash to Iran. Are you saying Congress appropriated and approved BHO making the cash transfer?
I’m also not aware that Congress appropriated and approved “Fast and Furious”.
-
My point is that all those operations were carried out with monies appropriated by Congress as part of the mission of the agencies involved. I recall the Obaminator working with a very hostile Congress. I suspect had the Obaminator actually appropriated funds lots of Congresscritters would have cried foul to the courts.
Trumplethinskin is appropriating monies despite Congressional disapproval. They didn’t give him what he wanted so he’ll appropriate the rest. That is a far, far cry from anything Obama did.
Yes, but what you describe is not the standard of law. Regardless of what Congress wants, doesn’t want, approved of or disapproves of, it is the law that authorizes money to be spent or not. Congress might express dissatisfaction with spending money on disaster relief, but unless they revoke the spending authority, it remains one of the powers of the president to declare a disaster and invoke the spending authority associated with that. That power remains even if the entire House and 49 Senators want to revoke it.
The same holds true for national emergencies. Congress might disapprove of the action, but unless they get together and override the president, then he has the authority to declare an emergency and to invoke any of the limited powers granted to him by Congress.