User Panel
[#1]
Oh, and there's this:
Arrest Warrant Signed for Texas Dem Who Fled State The GOP speaker of the house in Texas has signed a civil warrant to arrest state Rep. Philip Cortez, a Democrat who returned to Washington, D.C., on Sunday in an effort to block a Republican election reform bill from being approved by state lawmakers, The Texas Tribune is reporting. However, the news outlet noted it is unlikely that Speaker Dade Phelan’s signed warrant will have any impact since Texas law enforcement lacks any jurisdiction outside of the state... ...Cortez had returned to Austin, Texas, saying he wanted to try to negotiate changes in the controversial bill, according to The Dallas Morning News. And the Tribune said he had returned to Austin in an effort to engage in "good faith dialog." But on Sunday, Cortez, saying talks "have not produced progress," flew back to D.C. Phelan said on Monday that Cortez "has irrevocably broken my trust and the trust of this chamber" after the lawmaker "represented to me and his fellow members that he wanted to work on policy and find solutions to bring his colleagues back to Texas." "As a condition of being granted permission to temporarily leave the House floor, Rep. Cortez promised his House colleagues that he would return," the speaker said. "Instead, he fled the state." Full story at link. OK, that's a start. Now do it for the rest of them. |
|
[#2]
Quoted: You've spent the entire thread defending them and defending the use of this tactic. We can all read, here. Don't try and weasel out of it. You've staked this hill, now you get to defend it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I'm not defending them because there is no defending them. You've spent the entire thread defending them and defending the use of this tactic. We can all read, here. Don't try and weasel out of it. You've staked this hill, now you get to defend it. That's a fucking lie. Not once in this thread have I defended the Democrat decision to walkout, expressed agreement with the walkout or expressed any support whatsoever for the Democrats in Texas or elsewhere. You've called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt for no fucking reason. So cut that shit out. I agree, its a clear violation of TX House rules. Of course it is, you can't disagree on that. At least you admit one part of the obvious. It's not an admission. But it's not illegal, immoral or illegitimate no mater how tight your pants get when they pull this stuff. It isn't illegal, but it is most definitely immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. But as with most Democrats, you try and create an equivalence where if it's not illegal, then it's automatically moral and legitimate, too. You sound like ATF......arm braces are legal, but immoral workarounds of the NFA. To me, legal=freedom to do everything and anything not illegal. These assholes are still collecting their normal pay, and they are still collecting the daily per diem while actively skipping out on their jobs. Do you seriously find nothing immoral about collecting pay at the taxpayers' expense while not only failing to show up to work to do the job you're being paid for, but doing so in clear violation of the rules? Really? Nothing at all immoral about that? Good grief. What they are getting paid is a pittance compared to the waste of $$$$ that is government. If wasting taxpayer $$$ was important to Texas government then pass a law saying "no quorum, no paycheck". I literally gave you the definitions of the word "legitimate", one of which was acting in accordance with established rules and procedures. There's no question that this is illegitimate under that definition. A quorum is required to convene and conduct business. I literally copied and pasted from the Texas House rules above.....where does it call lack of quorum "illegitimate"? It's a rules violation with no punishment. The House deals with it in the only way they can.......by waiting them out. While you are huffing and puffing REEEEEEE!!!!! ILLEGITIMATE!!!!! House Republicans will do nothing to punish them because they can't. This is true, and something that they should address when they do finally get back into session. Of course, as soon as they try to, the Dems will take another vacation... Hostage-taking works when there are no repercussions and we've got Lefty cunts in the corporate media and social media making excuses for it. The repercussions will be TX House Republicans backing down or making martyrs of the House Dems. You seem to believe a "clear violation of House rules" is akin to a crime....its not. It's parliamentarian rules. At no point in this thread have I said that it was a crime or indicated that it be treated as such. Now you're just making shit up. True, you didn't use the word crime. My apologies. First you call me a Democrat, now you refer to me as a "closet Leftist cunt"? Dude you know you want to call me a Nazi, so do it, don't be a coward. If you spend the entire thread defending Democrats and making excuses for this tactic, and if you act like a Democrat, then I'm going to assume that you're a Democrat and call you one. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. Horseshit. I've not defended Democrats, made a single excuse for a Democrat and sure as fuck don't act like a Democrat. Whether you're a closeted Leftist cunt is not for me to decide, as I don't know you. That's between you and God. Dude, I'm not going to be baited into a COC violation by calling you names, but c'mon. You know you want to call me a Nazi but lack the balls. Sigh. Again, I wrote its a common tactic for both parties, not specifically Texas, but has occurred in other states and I even gave you an example from the US House where Republicans broke quorum. Does it happen often? No. But its not illegal. Don't like it? Change the law, ask the Texas House to change its required quorum. Lack of quorum occurs even in small town government as well. It causes the city council meeting to be rescheduled because Bob was off chasing a cow and Bubba missed his flight back from his daughters wedding. It's not a "common tactic" for both sides. I linked to a Ballotpedia article outlining the notable times that it's been used, and with one or two exceptions it's a FAR more common tactic used by Democrats. And it has NEVER been used by Texas Republicans, so it's absurd for you to try and insinuate that it's something that both parties do here. . For fucks sake man. Whether its the Texas House, the US House or the city council meeting in Bumfuckegypt, TX........all those meetings are conducted under rules of order. For governments it requires a quorum, either a simple quorum or in some cases a super majority. Whether intentional or unintentional, not having enough members present means no meeting. The Texas House rules since day one have required a supermajority. Having a quorum applies to House committees as well, if a majority of members don't show for a committee or subcommittee meeting its rescheduled. Does your Ballot make note of those instances? No. Your Ballotpedia article? FFS, its not a list of every city, county, state or federal instance of meetings that were cancelled or rescheduled because they lacked a quorum......it the NOTABLE ONES. That's a clearly disingenuous argument, and your refusal to acknowledge this obvious fact is one more reason to suspect that you're a Democrat, frankly. "Both parties do it" is a common refrain when they get caught doing something naughty You know who uses Ballotpedia? Democrats. And I gave you a specific instance of a Republican in US Congress being taken into custody to be delivered to the House floor. No sir, not once have I written that they are equal. But they both have the ability to delay action on legislation...and whether legitimate or illegitimate, both are completely legal means. I mentioned the US Senate filibuster requirements because they can be changed by the Senate from the current super majority to a simple majority. Thems the rules. You've literally spent this entire thread equating the two. You talk about them both in the same sentence repeatedly as if they're equivalent actions conducted for the same purpose - you literally did exactly that in this post. Does a lack of quorum or walkout delay House business? Yes or No? Does a filibuster delay Senate business? Yes or No? Whether YOU think it illegitimate, immoral or unethical is immaterial. The end result is the same. You think asking those questions is "equating". They aren't equal because the House has no filibuster. And again, you take the position that as long as something is legal, it's fair game, regardless of its ethical or moral framework. THAT is a hallmark Democrat mindset. It's the party of trial lawyers for a reason. I didn't take a fucking "position" or a "Democratic mindset", I stated House rules. |
|
[#3]
Quoted: That's a fucking lie. Not once in this thread have I defended the Democrat decision to walkout, expressed agreement with the walkout or expressed any support whatsoever for the Democrats in Texas or elsewhere. You've called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt for no fucking reason. So cut that shit out. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: That's a fucking lie. Not once in this thread have I defended the Democrat decision to walkout, expressed agreement with the walkout or expressed any support whatsoever for the Democrats in Texas or elsewhere. You've called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt for no fucking reason. So cut that shit out. Bullshit. You've been arguing the entire thread that it's a legitimate tactic. You've claimed there's nothing immoral about it. You've been making excuses for it in pretty much every way imaginable. I've called you a Democrat because you're acting like one. Stop acting like one and I'll stop thinking that you're one. You sound like ATF......arm braces are legal, but immoral workarounds of the NFA. To me, legal=freedom to do everything and anything not illegal. Good grief. What they are getting paid is a pittance compared to the waste of $$$$ that is government. If wasting taxpayer $$$ was important to Texas government then pass a law saying "no quorum, no paycheck". So, you DON'T have a problem with them getting paid while skipping work, skipping town, and violating House rules? You actually don't see anything immoral about it? Taxpayer money is unimportant, especially the "pittance" of $43,000 per day that they're wasting? Yeah, $43,000 per day is just pocket change in 2021, you're right. There's nothing useful that could be done with money like that. Jesus Christ... And you're still trying to tell me you're not a Democrat? I'm not sure that you understand what ethics or immorality actually are. Are you sure you're not a trial lawyer? A quorum is required to convene and conduct business. I literally copied and pasted from the Texas House rules above.....where does it call lack of quorum "illegitimate"? I... know what a quorum is. Lol... So, you believe that unless the House rules explicitly say that something is "illegitimate", then it must be legitimate? You realize that's not how it works, right? As I linked in the above post, Phelan issued an arrest warrant for one of the Democrats yesterday. Did he do this because he thought that what the Democrat did was legitimate, or illegitimate? You're making yourself look like a fool here. The repercussions will be TX House Republicans backing down or making martyrs of the House Dems. I don't think the Republicans back down here. Time is on their side. Abbot can and will simply continue calling special sessions - it's good politics for him if he does. And the measures on the agenda are popular in Texas; stonewalling them will take a toll at the polls, even if the assholes fundraise off of it for the time being. And the first hard deadline is the new FY. Funding for the legislature dries up then. I suspect they'll be back before then. Horseshit. I've not defended Democrats, made a single excuse for a Democrat and sure as fuck don't act like a Democrat. You've gone through an awful lot of trouble in this thread defending quorum busting. Every post that you've made has in some way made an excuse for it or attempted to lend their actions moral and legal legitimacy, and you've repeatedly conflated the use of the filibuster and quorum busting. Your denial of that now doesn't undo all of the posts and arguments you've made prior. You've tried the "both sides do it" argument, the "it's not a big deal" argument, the "it's just like the filibuster" argument, and now the "well if it's not illegal than it's not immoral and is totally legit" argument. What's next? Can't wait to hear it. Dude, I'm not going to be baited into a COC violation by calling you names, but c'mon. You know you want to call me a Nazi but lack the balls. LAMAO, says the dude trying to bait me into calling him a Nazi... For fucks sake man. Whether its the Texas House, the US House or the city council meeting in Bumfuckegypt, TX........all those meetings are conducted under rules of order. For governments it requires a quorum, either a simple quorum or in some cases a super majority. Whether intentional or unintentional, not having enough members present means no meeting. The Texas House rules since day one have required a supermajority. Having a quorum applies to House committees as well, if a majority of members don't show for a committee or subcommittee meeting its rescheduled. Does your Ballot make note of those instances? No. Your Ballotpedia article? FFS, its not a list of every city, county, state or federal instance of meetings that were cancelled or rescheduled because they lacked a quorum......it the NOTABLE ONES. So we're back to the "it's not a big deal" argument? Or is this a new ""it's just a scheduling issue" argument? You're comparing *purposefully* shutting down the entire Texas legislature for potentially months on end in order to prevent votes that they'll lose, with 11 fairly significant agenda items at stake, and next up freaking redistricting on the menu... to a city council meeting needing to be rescheduled? Dude. Stop it. This is getting fucking stupid. I posted the Ballotpedia article to directly refute your contention that it was a common tactic that both sides used. It's not. I also pointed out that there's not a single example of Republicans doing it in the Texas legislature. EVER. Your argument on that is complete garbage. Does a lack of quorum or walkout delay House business? Yes or No? Does a filibuster delay Senate business? Yes or No? Whether YOU think it illegitimate, immoral or unethical is immaterial. The end result is the same. And there it is. You spend most of the post denying that you conflate the two, and of course you just can't resist actually doing it within the post. You've done it every single post in this thread, so why stop now? The result is the same either way. Ends justify the means. And you're really trying to tell me you're not a Democrat? I really don't think that you understand what ethics and morality actually are. You think asking those questions is "equating". They aren't equal because the House has no filibuster. The House has no filibuster for a fucking reason. I explained that in I think my first or second post here. They're not supposed to have the ability to do this, that's why it's against the fucking rules. The filibuster procedure resides in the Senate and not the House for a reason. That's also a big part of why it's not a legitimate procedure. That's why Phelan issued an arrest warrant for one of the cocksuckers yesterday. YOU are trying to equate the two, and now the argument is essentially "well the House doesn't have a filibuster, so they have to do this to accomplish the same thing". That is literally the argument that the Democrats are making. And here you are making it, too. I didn't take a fucking "position" or a "Democratic mindset", I stated House rules. You've taken that position repeatedly, over and over, in every single post you've made in this thread. You've done it multiple times in this very post. You pretty clearly have no problem with what the Democrats have done, you pretty clearly don't give a shit about the rules and why they're there, and you pretty clearly think that the ends justify the means. If that's not a "Democrat mindset", then I don't know what is. |
|
[#4]
On most radio shows and some TV shows (a lot on OAN, quite a bit on Fox and Newsmax) been hammering the Democrats really hard. This morning heard a few minutes of that retard Dale Dudley, he fly back to DC to cock gobble a large group of cowardly Democrats.
|
|
[#5]
Quoted: On most radio shows and some TV shows (a lot on OAN, quite a bit on Fox and Newsmax) been hammering the Democrats really hard. This morning heard a few minutes of that retard Dale Dudley, he fly back to DC to cock gobble a large group of cowardly Democrats. View Quote Dale flew back to Texas to make a deal for Dem. Guess it didn't work out. A bunch of despicable cowards !!! |
|
[#6]
Quoted: Dale flew back to Texas to make a deal for Dem. Guess it didn't work out. A bunch of despicable cowards !!! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: On most radio shows and some TV shows (a lot on OAN, quite a bit on Fox and Newsmax) been hammering the Democrats really hard. This morning heard a few minutes of that retard Dale Dudley, he fly back to DC to cock gobble a large group of cowardly Democrats. Dale flew back to Texas to make a deal for Dem. Guess it didn't work out. A bunch of despicable cowards !!! Dale Dudley is a morning retarded radio host, that hate Republicans. He had the DUMBocrats on his radio show. Bob the Fake Mexican is coming to 'march through' Central Texas to try to stop the Texas Voter Integrity bill, and push the Federal DUMBocrat election stealing law. |
|
[#7]
Quoted: Bullshit. You've been arguing the entire thread that it's a legitimate tactic. You've claimed there's nothing immoral about it. You've been making excuses for it in pretty much every way imaginable. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That's a fucking lie. Not once in this thread have I defended the Democrat decision to walkout, expressed agreement with the walkout or expressed any support whatsoever for the Democrats in Texas or elsewhere. You've called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt for no fucking reason. So cut that shit out. Bullshit. You've been arguing the entire thread that it's a legitimate tactic. You've claimed there's nothing immoral about it. You've been making excuses for it in pretty much every way imaginable. You are all wound up over legitimate/illegitimate when those terms are irrelevant. I've called you a Democrat because you're acting like one. Stop acting like one and I'll stop thinking that you're one. Horseshit. You called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt because you lost the argument. You screeching "illegitimate, immoral" sounds like Hillary Clinton in 2016. You sound like ATF......arm braces are legal, but immoral workarounds of the NFA. To me, legal=freedom to do everything and anything not illegal. Good grief. What they are getting paid is a pittance compared to the waste of $$$$ that is government. If wasting taxpayer $$$ was important to Texas government then pass a law saying "no quorum, no paycheck". So, you DON'T have a problem with them getting paid while skipping work, skipping town, and violating House rules? Of course I do. I want them in Austin (and said as much in my second post in this thread) and want the Legislature to get it done. Again, I've not argued any different. You actually don't see anything immoral about it? Taxpayer money is unimportant, especially the "pittance" of $43,000 per day that they're wasting? Yeah, $43,000 per day is just pocket change in 2021, you're right. There's nothing useful that could be done with money like that. Jesus Christ... And you're still trying to tell me you're not a Democrat? You should complain to the first Texas House, 'cause they're the ones who wrote the rules. You don't like the rule, we get it. But its a rule and is what it is. Yes, in the overall state budget its a pittance compared to the other ways our state legislature and state government wastes taxpayer dollars. And I believe Abbott said he would veto state legislature funding. I'm not sure that you understand what ethics or immorality actually are. Are you sure you're not a trial lawyer? You would be wrong, again. I wish I was, they make more $$$. A quorum is required to convene and conduct business. I literally copied and pasted from the Texas House rules above.....where does it call lack of quorum "illegitimate"? I... know what a quorum is. Lol... So, you believe that unless the House rules explicitly say that something is "illegitimate", then it must be legitimate? You realize that's not how it works, right? What I believe is immaterial. The House rules are the rules. You are the only person in this thread screeching "Illegitimate"!!!! Again, The Texas Hose rules define what quorum is required. If the Dems had stayed home day one and never gone to Austin to begin with, the situation would be identical. As I linked in the above post, Phelan issued an arrest warrant for one of the Democrats yesterday. Did he do this because he thought that what the Democrat did was legitimate, or illegitimate? You're making yourself look foolish. The arrest warrant is to compel the absent legislator to appear in the House chamber. It's not a criminal charge, it just means law enforcement can take the person into custody and deliver them to the House floor. That's it. It's sole reason is to meet the quorum requirements. Dade Phelan issued the warrant so the House could make quorum. Legitimate or illegitimate are inconsequential. I've yet to read any Republican using those terms. Likely because you're the only one that does. You're making yourself look like a fool here. No, the fool is the guy who thinks the arrest warrants are because the walkout is illegitimate. Horseshit. I've not defended Democrats, made a single excuse for a Democrat and sure as fuck don't act like a Democrat. You've gone through an awful lot of trouble in this thread defending quorum busting. Horseshit. Show us ONE fucking post where I said quorum busting was a great idea. Fucking do it. I'll wait. "Defending" would include me agreeing with the reasons and I don't. You are incapable of understanding the difference between explanation and agreement. I posted the House rules......doesn't mean I agree with them. Pointing out that the Dems violated no law....doesn't mean I agree with their decision. Every post that you've made has in some way made an excuse for it or attempted to lend their actions moral and legal legitimacy, Horseshit. I've made no excuses for them. I posted the House rules and you're the only one whining about "moral and legal legitimacy" what the heck that's supposed to mean. and you've repeatedly conflated the use of the filibuster and quorum busting. No sir. To conflate means to combine into one.........I've most definitely written that they are separate actions, by separate bodies of government. Your denial of that now doesn't undo all of the posts and arguments you've made prior. You've tried the "both sides do it" argument, the "it's not a big deal" argument, the "it's just like the filibuster" argument, and now the "well if it's not illegal than it's not immoral and is totally legit" argument. So you disagree? Who the fuck cares. Dude, I'm not going to be baited into a COC violation by calling you names, but c'mon. You know you want to call me a Nazi but lack the balls. LAMAO, says the dude trying to bait me into calling him a Nazi... Frankly, calling me a Nazi might be an upgrade over Democrat closet Liberal cunt. For fucks sake man. Whether its the Texas House, the US House or the city council meeting in Bumfuckegypt, TX........all those meetings are conducted under rules of order. For governments it requires a quorum, either a simple quorum or in some cases a super majority. Whether intentional or unintentional, not having enough members present means no meeting. The Texas House rules since day one have required a supermajority. Having a quorum applies to House committees as well, if a majority of members don't show for a committee or subcommittee meeting its rescheduled. Does your Ballot make note of those instances? No. Your Ballotpedia article? FFS, its not a list of every city, county, state or federal instance of meetings that were cancelled or rescheduled because they lacked a quorum......it the NOTABLE ONES. So we're back to the "it's not a big deal" argument? Or is this a new ""it's just a scheduling issue" argument? I didn't write "its not a big deal" or "its just a scheduling issue". You're comparing *purposefully* shutting down the entire Texas legislature for potentially months on end in order to prevent votes that they'll lose, with 11 fairly significant agenda items at stake, and next up freaking redistricting on the menu... to a city council meeting needing to be rescheduled? No sir, and you know I'm not comparing the two at all. Dude. Stop it. This is getting fucking stupid. It was stupid the minute you posted "I really wish that people would stop comparing this to the filibuster. They aren't remotely the same." No one compared the two or wrote that they were the same thing. I posted the Ballotpedia article to directly refute your contention that it was a common tactic that both sides used. It's not. I also pointed out that there's not a single example of Republicans doing it in the Texas legislature. EVER. Your argument on that is complete garbage. Straw Man argument. Does a lack of quorum or walkout delay House business? Yes or No? Does a filibuster delay Senate business? Yes or No? Whether YOU think it illegitimate, immoral or unethical is immaterial. The end result is the same. And there it is. You spend most of the post denying that you conflate the two, and of course you just can't resist actually doing it within the post. You've done it every single post in this thread, so why stop now? The result is the same either way. I didn't "conflate" as the two are wholly separate methods of delaying legislation. "The result is the same either way. " ...........OMG.....did you just admit I'm correct? Did you just conflate? Are you a closet liberal cunt Democrat? Ends justify the means. And you're really trying to tell me you're not a Democrat? Dude, its THE SAME FUCKING HOUSE RULES FOR EVERYONE!!!! The "End" is when the House reconvenes and a vote is taken. That's the FUCKING POINT! I really don't think that you understand what ethics and morality actually are. Well, I don't think you can read and comprehend worth a shit, so there's that. You think asking those questions is "equating". They aren't equal because the House has no filibuster. The House has no filibuster for a fucking reason. I explained that in I think my first or second post here. They're not supposed to have the ability to do this, that's why it's against the fucking rules. The filibuster procedure resides in the Senate and not the House for a reason. No shit Sherlock. That's also a big part of why it's not a legitimate procedure. That's why Phelan issued an arrest warrant for one of the cocksuckers yesterday. Posted By fisterkev:"As others have mentioned, the "arrest" in this case isn't what most people think it is; it's simply detaining them and bringing them to the capitol. When they have a quorum, they'll lock the doors, and no one leaves without Phelan's permission." So which is it fisterkev? Is it an arrest warrant because "it's not a legitimate procedure"? or Is the arrest warrant for "simply detaining them and bringing them to the capitol" for a quorum? YOU are trying to equate the two, and now the argument is essentially "well the House doesn't have a filibuster, so they have to do this to accomplish the same thing". That is literally the argument that the Democrats are making. And here you are making it, too. It's the same explanation that everyone but you is making. Including the Republican House members. IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT fella. It's House rules and is what it is. We know the walkout violates House rules, hence the arrest warrants. Not one person in this thread believes the walkout is a good thing. But those with better than a third graders reading skills know why the House has such a rule..... Quoted: The 2/3 rule is there to protect all sides so everyone gets a say before a vote. It’s also there to show they the government is trying to be transparent. Unfortunately the Dems have decided that throwing a tantrum like a child is more important then having respect for the position they were elected to do..... He nailed it. I didn't take a fucking "position" or a "Democratic mindset", I stated House rules. You've taken that position repeatedly, over and over, in every single post you've made in this thread. You've done it multiple times in this very post. You pretty clearly have no problem with what the Democrats have done, you pretty clearly don't give a shit about the rules and why they're there, and you pretty clearly think that the ends justify the means. If that's not a "Democrat mindset", then I don't know what is. You pretty clearly have reading comprehension problems. Look at my second post on page one: Quoted: Quoted: Cabin them until their friends come back. They can sleep on the floor in the Capitol with a rotating guard until that happens. I like that idea. Yeah, thats a Democrat mindset. Yet you, who is so wound up about muh illegitimacy, didn't agree with Blitzcraig173 and his "cabin them" idea? Are you a Democrat? All you've done is whine about illegitimacy and conflating but haven't show anything other than name calling. You sound like Nancy Pelosi and the Russia investigation. Posted By 762AR25: "You know they can't be arrested in DC right?" ............In your eyes a Democrat for pointing out the law. Posted By DonofKalifornia; "They have not committed a crime, all they can do is bring them to the Capital, if one person made a difference, then Raymond would have been brought to the Capital." OMG "they have not committed a crime"? ..................Obviously defending the Democrats! |
|
[#8]
Quoted: You are all wound up over legitimate/illegitimate when those terms are irrelevant. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: You are all wound up over legitimate/illegitimate when those terms are irrelevant. You think that they're irrelevant. I don't. You're the one arguing it's a legitimate tactic when it's a clear violation of House rules. Horseshit. You called me a Democrat and a closet Liberal cunt because you lost the argument. You screeching "illegitimate, immoral" sounds like Hillary Clinton in 2016. Lost the argument? My argument is that it's an illegitimate tactic. By the definition of the word, it is. You trying to skirt the issue doesn't change anything. You've continually lent their argument for using the tactic legitimacy throughout this thread, even going so far as to try and argue the definition of the term, and conflating legitimacy with legality. I consider anyone who does that to be a Democrat or no better than a Democrat, I make no distinction between the two. As for you being a Lefty cunt, that's between you and God. Of course I do. I want them in Austin (and said as much in my second post in this thread) and want the Legislature to get it done. Again, I've not argued any different. Then stop making excuses for their behavior. Do you not understand that when RINOs make excuses for bad Democrat behavior, we just end up getting more of it? When the Dems break the rules and do unethical, immoral, and illegitimate shit, then we need to call them out on it. You should complain to the first Texas House, 'cause they're the ones who wrote the rules. You don't like the rule, we get it. But its a rule and is what it is. I understand that. I would like to see them change the rule, I think they need a majority quorum. That's what the US House uses, and it makes sense in a majority rules body. Maybe after this episode they'll finally get around to doing it. Yes, in the overall state budget its a pittance compared to the other ways our state legislature and state government wastes taxpayer dollars. And I believe Abbott said he would veto state legislature funding. It's not a fucking pittance. I understand that it's a small relative portion of the budget, but it's still a lot of money that could/should go somewhere else. Again, you're rationalizing their bad behavior and making excuses for it. The "it's not that big a deal" argument, again. Call them out for their bad behavior. What I believe is immaterial. The House rules are the rules. You are the only person in this thread screeching "Illegitimate"!!!! Again, The Texas Hose rules define what quorum is required. If the Dems had stayed home day one and never gone to Austin to begin with, the situation would be identical. The words that we use matter. You're lending the tactic legitimacy by claiming that it's legitimate. How do you not understand this? Do you not understand that we're having this argument pretty much solely because you and people like you are lending them the legitimacy in their actions that they require to get away with it? Call. Them. Out. Stop making excuses for it. You're making yourself look foolish. The arrest warrant is to compel the absent legislator to appear in the House chamber. It's not a criminal charge, it just means law enforcement can take the person into custody and deliver them to the House floor. That's it. It's sole reason is to meet the quorum requirements. Yes, I understand that. I've said exactly that myself in this thread. Again, for at least the second time, at no point have I said anything about it being illegal. Dade Phelan issued the warrant so the House could make quorum. Legitimate or illegitimate are inconsequential. I've yet to read any Republican using those terms. Likely because you're the only one that does... No, the fool is the guy who thinks the arrest warrants are because the walkout is illegitimate. Phelan issued the warrant for PR purposes. If he was really serious he'd issue warrants for every single one of them, all at the same time. DPS would grab them the second that they got off the plane to take them to the capitol, and they'd stay there until the rest of their friends came back. That's not gonna happen, especially at this point. Everyone understands that the current session is lost, they're definitely going to let this one expire. And then Abbot calls another one, and that one pushes against the FY / budget expiration. We'll see what happens then, and I suspect they'll be back before the money runs out. Horseshit. Show us ONE fucking post where I said quorum busting was a great idea. Fucking do it. I'll wait. "Defending" would include me agreeing with the reasons and I don't. You are incapable of understanding the difference between explanation and agreement. I posted the House rules......doesn't mean I agree with them. Pointing out that the Dems violated no law....doesn't mean I agree with their decision. "Defending" includes lending the tactic legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. Your argument is that since it's not illegal anything goes, if it's not illegal then it's legitimate and totally cool to do, it's just like the filibuster, and the fact that they're still getting paid is no biggie. ALL of that lends the tactic a legitimacy that it shouldn't have. An actual conservative wouldn't be OK with it and would call them out on it. You don't do that. This entire argument started when you equated quorum busting to the filibuster. I called you out on that, because it's not. At no point was I wrong about that in any of my arguments - your counter is that they have the same result, so they're essentially the same thing. Ends justify the means. Are we pretending now that's not where we're at? Horseshit. I've made no excuses for them. I posted the House rules and you're the only one whining about "moral and legal legitimacy" what the heck that's supposed to mean. See above. As I said, you literally don't seem to understand what morality and ethics are. You certainly don't understand how they're relevant in this situation. An actual conservative would. No sir. To conflate means to combine into one.........I've most definitely written that they are separate actions, by separate bodies of government. Oh for fuck's sake. Do I have to use the goddamned word in a sentence again for you to understand what it means? You need a freaking dictionary to carry around in your pocket, dude. Conflate Pay attention to this one, since this is the appropriate context here: mistake one thing for another You are arguing that quorum busting is essentially the same thing as the filibuster. I called you out on that early on - one is a legitimate parliamentary procedure used in the Senate, the other is a violation of House rules. We're making progress. At least you acknowledge now they're different actions. If we could get you to acknowledge that the ends don't justify the means, we'd be making real headway here. Frankly, calling me a Nazi might be an upgrade over Democrat closet Liberal cunt. Your feelings are not a concern of mine. I call it like I see it. I didn't write "its not a big deal" or "its just a scheduling issue". You compared it to a scheduling issue with a city council. "It's not a big deal" is simply the argument you're making. No sir, and you know I'm not comparing the two at all. Yes you are. That's why we're arguing. At least now you're getting around to the fact that they're separate tactics. As soon as we get you to admit that one is legit and the other isn't, we're done. It was stupid the minute you posted "I really wish that people would stop comparing this to the filibuster. They aren't remotely the same." No one compared the two or wrote that they were the same thing. When you posted "Note that the filibuster rule is all thats keeping the Dems from running the table in DC", you conflated the use of quorum busting and the filibuster. I'm not the only one who called you on that, either. Go back and re-read it. You throw that out there, and then try and pretend that you're not comparing the two? Come on, dude. That's precisely what you did, and if you'd just back up on that then this stupid argument would be over. Straw Man argument. It's not. I'm still waiting for you to tell me about the time the Republicans in the legislature used quorum busting, since it's a "common tactic that both sides use". I didn't "conflate" as the two are wholly separate methods of delaying legislation. "The result is the same either way. " ...........OMG.....did you just admit I'm correct? Did you just conflate? Are you a closet liberal cunt Democrat? One is legit. The other isn't. That will still be true no matter how many times or how many ways you try and deny it. And it does matter. Dude, its THE SAME FUCKING HOUSE RULES FOR EVERYONE!!!! The "End" is when the House reconvenes and a vote is taken. That's the FUCKING POINT! Stop conflating the filibuster and quorum busting, and I'll stop accusing you of being an "end justify the means" Democrat. The legitimacy of the means matters. No shit Sherlock. Again, we're making progress. Getting you to admit the obvious at this point is something I consider to be a win. So which is it fisterkev? Is it an arrest warrant because "it's not a legitimate procedure"? or Is the arrest warrant for "simply detaining them and bringing them to the capitol" for a quorum? Both, of course. Obviously, they need to cabin them to get a quorum, so that's part of it. But would Phelan even be able to issue the warrant if the activity wasn't illegitimate in the first place? No, he wouldn't. It's illegitimate because it's a violation of the House rules. Phelan is only able to issue the warrant because of this. This isn't complicated. It's the same explanation that everyone but you is making. Including the Republican House members. IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT fella. It's House rules and is what it is. We know the walkout violates House rules, hence the arrest warrants. Not one person in this thread believes the walkout is a good thing. But those with better than a third graders reading skills know why the House has such a rule..... OK, if you don't believe that it's a good thing, then why not call them out for an illegitimate action? You're letting your pride get in the way of doing something that should be easy and obvious. Rather than admit that you shouldn't be conflating the filibuster and quorum busting, you've let this silly argument drag on for days. That's pretty dumb. And as far as I can tell, no one else is jumping in on our argument either way, because I suspect they look at this and see two dumbasses arguing about stupid semantic shit. He nailed it. Not really. The quorum is there to ensure that sufficient numbers of reps are present to have a valid vote. There's no good reason whatsoever for it to be a 2/3 requirement in a majority rules body - it's majority quorum in the US House and most other majority Houses in the union. And as should be obvious now, it's ripe for misuse by unethical assholes who are willing to abuse the system. I understand that at this point, those are the rules we're stuck with for now. But if it's not obvious by now that it needs to be changed, then I don't know what to say. It isn't supposed to be used to stop legislation - that's what the filibuster is for. You pretty clearly have reading comprehension problems. ...I like that idea. Yeah, thats a Democrat mindset. Yet you, who is so wound up about muh illegitimacy, didn't agree with Blitzcraig173 and his "cabin them" idea? Are you a Democrat? All you've done is whine about illegitimacy and conflating but haven't show anything other than name calling. You sound like Nancy Pelosi and the Russia investigation. OK, good. So I have to ask, if you don't approve and want them cabined, then why keep giving them a pass by saying it's a legit tactic, when it's clearly not? Again, I think it's just your fucking pride at this point. You simply aren't capable of admitting you're wrong or making a dumb argument. This is all actually pretty simple: 1) Because quorum busting is a violation of House rules, it isn't a legit tactic, even if not a violation of statute. 2) Because it's not a legit tactic, quorum busting and the filibuster - a legit parliamentary procedure in the Senate - should not be equated of conflated. 3) We shouldn't be lending the Democrats use of the tactic any legitimacy by failing to call them out on it. I don't see what's so fucking hard about this. All three of those things should be easy to agree on for any objective individual with a conservative bent. |
|
[#9]
Quoted: ....Again, I think it's just your fucking pride at this point. You simply aren't capable of admitting you're wrong or making a dumb argument. View Quote Pot calling the kettle black. Attached File This is all actually pretty simple: 1) Because quorum busting is a violation of House rules, it isn't a legit tactic, even if not a violation of statute. View Quote Again, who the fuck cares about "legit tactic".....House rules are House rules. You can be unhinged all day long about whether its a "legit tactic" or isn't. But clearly the House had a reason to adopt a supermajority quorum rule that has never had a punishment or penalty. 2) Because it's not a legit tactic, quorum busting and the filibuster - a legit parliamentary procedure in the Senate - should not be equated of conflated. View Quote Your opinion. My opinion is both are means of delaying legislation by the party not in power. I don't give a rats ass that you think one is "legit" or "illegitimate"......because that doesn't mean jack squat. 3) We shouldn't be lending the Democrats use of the tactic any legitimacy by failing to call them out on it. View Quote I don't think theres a person in this thread that approves of the Democrats walkout. If you weren't spinning in circles complaining about legit/illegitimate blather you would know that. The fact that a Republican dominated Legislature and Governor has seen fit to leave the supermajority quorum in place ought to tell you something. The shoe could be on the other foot. I don't see what's so fucking hard about this. All three of those things should be easy to agree on for any objective individual with a conservative bent. View Quote It's not hard once you stop thinking about appearances and focus on what the rule is. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.