Stop the presses

[actinanass]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097


Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay




How y'all feeling about this?

 

[Greed]

That's likely just procedural.

He doesn't hate Obama that much.

 

[QueEx]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097

Nevada: Heller (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay




How y'all feeling about this?

I'm feeling like those two and the rest and remainder of them who failed to stand-up for Americans are COWARDS.

I'm feeling like those who think this is about "sides" or just some kind of political game are mere Cheerleaders sitting on a fence, just rah-rah'ing for a team, though it makes no sense.

I'm feeling like there are as many Democrats as there are Republicans; more concerned with re-election than doing whats right for Americans.

I'm feeling like many, many more will die needless deaths; Guns don't kill, people do - meanwhile, the innocent take their last breaths.

I'm feeling there's no cogent reason for so many more to pay the ultimate price.

I'm feeling like concern for others has given way to love of a device.

AND, I'm shaking my head at the Cheerleader. Grown-assed man who thinks there was a winner.

Just me; but that's what I'm feeling . . .

 

[Lamarr]

Relieved Nevadan!

This is temporary though, Harry Greid will back to his ol tricks when the next 'crisis' presents itself.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I'm feeling like those two and the rest and remainder of them who failed to stand-up for Americans are COWARDS.

I'm feeling like those who think this is about "sides" or just some kind of political game are mere Cheerleaders sitting on a fence, just rah-rah'ing for a team, though it makes no sense.

I'm feeling like there are as many Democrats as there are Republicans; more concerned with re-election than doing whats right for Americans.

I'm feeling like many, many more will die needless deaths; Guns don't kill, people do - meanwhile, the innocent take their last breaths.

I'm feeling there's no cogent reason for so many more to pay the ultimate price.

I'm feeling like concern for others has given way to love of a device.

AND, I'm shaking my head at the Cheerleader. Grown-assed man who thinks there was a winner.

Just me; but that's what I'm feeling . . .

I salute you.

The one thing that's bored with this board is this constant need by some to argue philosophy and rhetoric regardless of actual history and events (unless those events happened in other countries and fits their narrative and even then, it's probably not as they present it). Even when you show someone they're factually wrong (Hitler took the guns, you know), they still hang on to that bullshit, ignoring that if your facts are wrong then the conclusions you drew from it must be wrong too.

 

[Greed]

I salute you.

The one thing that's bored with this board is this constant need by some to argue philosophy and rhetoric regardless of actual history and events (unless those events happened in other countries and fits their narrative and even then, it's probably not as they present it). Even when you show someone they're factually wrong (Hitler took the guns, you know), they still hang on to that bullshit, ignoring that if your facts are wrong then the conclusions you drew from it must be wrong too.

Then you must be bored with yourself, but then again, you usually make these grandiose type of statements as if you're immune to the same criticism.

 

[Greed]

I'm feeling like those two and the rest and remainder of them who failed to stand-up for Americans are COWARDS.

I'm feeling like those who think this is about "sides" or just some kind of political game are mere Cheerleaders sitting on a fence, just rah-rah'ing for a team, though it makes no sense.

I'm feeling like there are as many Democrats as there are Republicans; more concerned with re-election than doing whats right for Americans.

I'm feeling like many, many more will die needless deaths; Guns don't kill, people do - meanwhile, the innocent take their last breaths.

I'm feeling there's no cogent reason for so many more to pay the ultimate price.

I'm feeling like concern for others has given way to love of a device.

AND, I'm shaking my head at the Cheerleader. Grown-assed man who thinks there was a winner.

Just me; but that's what I'm feeling . . .

Here's more "philosophy" that will bore Dave.

Que, if someone doesn't agree with you regarding what is right or wrong, that doesn't make them a "coward."

We should all be glad that the Senate needs to do more work to get a good bill passed. The quality of the bill is directly correlated to the quality of the debate. And who here would say they are impressed with the quality of debate?

You and Diane Feinstein just call people cowards or some kind of NRA whore when they don't think like you do and then completely dismiss conviction as a possible reason.

Or the new liberal shift of undermining the very legitimacy of disagreeing with them by emphasizing that it's less than 50 senators who only represent a small portion of the nation, so that in itself makes them wrong.

You're right that politicians only care about reelection, and those Nay voting senators will have to face the electorates they are accountable to. What does it say about the legitimacy of their positions if 50+ percent of those states reelect them?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Then you must be bored with yourself, but then again, you usually make these grandiose type of statements as if you're immune to the same criticism.

Never that, just make sure it's valid.

Here's more "philosophy" that will bore Dave.

Que, if someone doesn't agree with you regarding what is right or wrong, that doesn't make them a "coward."

We should all be glad that the Senate needs to do more work to get a good bill passed. The quality of the bill is directly correlated to the quality of the debate. And who here would say they are impressed with the quality of debate?

You and Diane Feinstein just call people cowards or some kind of NRA whore when they don't think like you do and then completely dismiss conviction as a possible reason.

Or the new liberal shift of undermining the very legitimacy of disagreeing with them by emphasizing that it's less than 50 senators who only represent a small portion of the nation, so that in itself makes them wrong.

You're right that politicians only care about reelection, and those Nay voting senators will have to face the electorates they are accountable to. What does it say about the legitimacy of their positions if 50+ percent of those states reelect them?

Yep, this bored me.
You're under the impression that those Senators voted against this bill due to personal convictions and not political expediency? C'mon man. While you are obtuse, you're not stupid. They aren't concerned about winning 50% plus 1 in statewide races, they're concerned about being attacked from their far Right flank and beaten in a low turnout primary.
For the last 5 yrs, we've seen Right and Right wing organizations run at full speed away from their former positions as soon as it looks like they might actually be passed. This is no exception.

 

[Greed]

Never that, just make sure it's valid.



Yep, this bored me.
You're under the impression that those Senators voted against this bill due to personal convictions and not political expediency? C'mon man. While you are obtuse, you're not stupid. They aren't concerned about winning 50% plus 1 in statewide races, they're concerned about being attacked from their far Right flank and beaten in a low turnout primary.
For the last 5 yrs, we've seen Right and Right wing organizations run at full speed away from their former positions as soon as it looks like they might actually be passed. This is no exception.

46 Nays. They aren't all with and they aren't all without convictions.

The point of this thread is to point out Reid's Nay. Reid voted that way because of a procedural maneuver to keep the amendment alive for later consideration.

The Republican senators from the deep south like Mississippi and Alabama are likely products of those states' values with deep Good Ol Boy roots. Is it really unbelievable that their constituents values made those constituents against the bill? You view it as more believable that those senators only voted against the bill due to reelection concerns, but they actually thought it was a good bill? I would bet those senators' votes accurately reflect those states' values and their own.

Senators, just like other federal politicians, enjoy a 98%+ reelection rate. They've been challenged from the right, and unless they get caught fucking a boy scout, they will retire senators with 70% vote majorities.

Now I would say the red-state Democrats who voted against the bill didn't do it out of convictions, but it was still likely the will of the voters of their states.

You, just like others, don't see legitimacy in people's disagreements with your views. Unfortunately, your elected officials reflect your values as well which is why they can't debate and negotiate good legislation.

"Everyone who disagrees with my position have no principle."

 

[actinanass]

Seriously, how does this help Reid?

This is what's funny about this.

Why do you think the president was pissed last night? Hell, he can't blame the Tea Party now.

Now I do think that it lost because of Boston. The second phase of this battle will be in the budget battle. I strongly feel that either the President, or some of his allies will sneak some of the elements in this bill into the budget.

So, don't get so down Que, you might get what you want...

BTW, que, if you want to call people a "cheerleader" be a man, and state the person you're talking about.

 

[QueEx]

Here's more "philosophy" that will bore Dave.

Que, if someone doesn't agree with you regarding what is right or wrong, that doesn't make them a "coward."

"one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity" - Meriam Webster.

Failure to reign-in what on its face is a disaster posing a real and present danger to the people of this country because they are afraid of the wrath of the NRA is, IN MY OPINION, a show of disgraceful fear or timidity.

If to you that makes them Brave, you're free to hold that opinion.

 

[thoughtone]

46 Nays. They aren't all with and they aren't all without convictions.

The point of this thread is to point out Reid's Nay. Reid voted that way because of a procedural maneuver to keep the amendment alive for later consideration.

The Republican senators from the deep south like Mississippi and Alabama are likely products of those states' values with deep Good Ol Boy roots. Is it really unbelievable that their constituents values made those constituents against the bill? You view it as more believable that those senators only voted against the bill due to reelection concerns, but they actually thought it was a good bill? I would bet those senators' votes accurately reflect those states' values and their own.

Senators, just like other federal politicians, enjoy a 98%+ reelection rate. They've been challenged from the right, and unless they get caught fucking a boy scout, they will retire senators with 70% vote majorities.

Now I would say the red-state Democrats who voted against the bill didn't do it out of convictions, but it was still likely the will of the voters of their states.

You, just like others, don't see legitimacy in people's disagreements with your views. Unfortunately, your elected officials reflect your values as well which is why they can't debate and negotiate good legislation.

"Everyone who disagrees with my position have no principle."

I agree with your assessment of the "Deep South's" senator's vote reflecting the values of many of their constituents, however the way the entire issue of closing the gun show loopholes as well as limiting the capacity of ammunition clips has been framed by the opponents has been entirely disingenuous, which then calls into question the principles of their positions.

Just because someone opposes an issue, doesn't necessarily mean they have principles.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

46 Nays. They aren't all with and they aren't all without convictions.

The point of this thread is to point out Reid's Nay. Reid voted that way because of a procedural maneuver to keep the amendment alive for later consideration.

The Republican senators from the deep south like Mississippi and Alabama are likely products of those states' values with deep Good Ol Boy roots. Is it really unbelievable that their constituents values made those constituents against the bill? You view it as more believable that those senators only voted against the bill due to reelection concerns, but they actually thought it was a good bill? I would bet those senators' votes accurately reflect those states' values and their own.

Senators, just like other federal politicians, enjoy a 98%+ reelection rate. They've been challenged from the right, and unless they get caught fucking a boy scout, they will retire senators with 70% vote majorities.

Now I would say the red-state Democrats who voted against the bill didn't do it out of convictions, but it was still likely the will of the voters of their states.

You, just like others, don't see legitimacy in people's disagreements with your views. Unfortunately, your elected officials reflect your values as well which is why they can't debate and negotiate good legislation.

"Everyone who disagrees with my position have no principle."

You might think like that but there's no need to project that onto me. I enjoy other perspectives but if they're based on lies and propaganda, then I will disregard your legitimacy.

I agree with your assessment of the "Deep South's" senator's vote reflecting the values of many of their constituents, however the way the entire issue of closing the gun show loopholes as well as limiting the capacity of ammunition clips has been framed by the opponents has been entirely disingenuous, which then calls into question the principles of their positions.

Just because someone opposes an issue, doesn't necessarily mean they have principles.

I'm sure there are Deep South and Western Senators that are very anti-gun safety laws (I agree with Greed on this too but he's dead set on picking a fight and he's going to have to fight that alone) but it's not just our elected representatives job to follow but to lead and do so in an open and honest manner. How is closing gun show loopholes infringing on anyone's rights? How is ensuring universal background checks, which this law didn't even do, restricting your right to own a firearm if you're a law abiding citizen?

 

[Greed]

"one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity" - Meriam Webster.

Failure to reign-in what on its face is a disaster posing a real and present danger to the people of this country because they are afraid of the wrath of the NRA is, IN MY OPINION, a show of disgraceful fear or timidity.

If to you that makes them Brave, you're free to hold that opinion.

That would be cowardice in anyone's opinion if every one of your premises were true.

Not everyone would agree that it's as pressing an issue as you believe it to be. Why not address the validity of your prioritization rather than label people cowards for essentially not agreeing with your sense of urgency?

I view gun violence as an effect of societies ills, and i've stated before that addressing the effect instead of the cause is ineffective and not worth doing in general. To you that's cowardice.

My question is, since Reid was the point of this thread, why pull the entire bill?

Is addressing gun trafficking not worth the effort? Increasing the federal penalty for gun crimes? Addressing the mental illness aspect of it?

If Democrats can't get a high-profile win with a weapons ban or background checks, then don't get anything and blame Republicans?

 

[Greed]

I agree with your assessment of the "Deep South's" senator's vote reflecting the values of many of their constituents, however the way the entire issue of closing the gun show loopholes as well as limiting the capacity of ammunition clips has been framed by the opponents has been entirely disingenuous, which then calls into question the principles of their positions.

Just because someone opposes an issue, doesn't necessarily mean they have principles.

You might think like that but there's no need to project that onto me. I enjoy other perspectives but if they're based on lies and propaganda, then I will disregard your legitimacy.

Is it disingenuous or based on lies if someone promotes the bill would have prevented Newtown or adequately addressed the problem with urban violence?

I'm sure there are Deep South and Western Senators that are very anti-gun safety laws (I agree with Greed on this too but he's dead set on picking a fight and he's going to have to fight that alone) but it's not just our elected representatives job to follow but to lead and do so in an open and honest manner. How is closing gun show loopholes infringing on anyone's rights? How is ensuring universal background checks, which this law didn't even do, restricting your right to own a firearm if you're a law abiding citizen?

This our philosophical difference that bores you. Politicans should follow within the confines of the Constitution. I don't want a leader telling me what's good.

Personally, I don't view universal checks as bad, but as long as you have demonization on both sides, where no one is viewed to have credibility, then every angle will just be viewed as a slippery slope and nothing gets done..

 

[QueEx]

That would be cowardice in anyone's opinion if every one of your premises were true.

Not everyone would agree that it's as pressing an issue as you believe it to be. Why not address the validity of your prioritization rather than label people cowards for essentially not agreeing with your sense of urgency?

But like you've said . . .

. . . then again, you usually make these grandiose type of statements as if you're immune to the same criticism.

 

[Greed]

​

But like you've said . . .

I don't get how the comments are related.

 

[QueEx]

​

 

[actinanass]

So, why did Reid voted against it again?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So, why did Reid voted against it again?

This is what I don't get

Why ask us instead of just using your preferred search engine? In fact, the fact that you started this thread without knowingn anything other than "Harry Reid voted "Nay"" is really crazy to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/18/harry-reid-had-a-good-reason-to-vote-against-the-gun-bill/

 

[actinanass]

This is what I don't get

Why ask us instead of just using your preferred search engine? In fact, the fact that you started this thread without knowingn anything other than "Harry Reid voted "Nay"" is really crazy to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/18/harry-reid-had-a-good-reason-to-vote-against-the-gun-bill/

I know why.

I just wanna piss the great folks on here off.

 

[Greed]

I know why.

I just wanna piss the great folks on here off.

That's called trolling.

 

[actinanass]

That's called trolling.

I thought this was a discussion board.

If I wanted to troll, I would be spamming this board like others do.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I know why.

I just wanna piss the great folks on here off.

Grow up, son. It's not like Reid's vote was the deciding vote. I still havent figured out what you find so satifying about this. Who the hell is against background checks?

That's called trolling.

Yeah, it is.

 

[thoughtone]

I know why.

I just wanna piss the great folks on here off.

Well if that's the way you gain satisfaction after this,

than have your jollies!

I thought this was a discussion board.

If I wanted to troll, I would be spamming this board like others do.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

Today is May 14, 2012.

Today I officially say "I won't be surprise if Obama lose in a landslide".

Now, I'm not officially saying it's going to happen due to Romney, but I won't be surprised.

I'm glad you put the last part in. If this was any other true conservative, this would of been lights out for B.O., but I had a funny suspicion about this campaign. Why do you think I wasn't talking a lot of shit like I usually do?

 

[thoughtone]

I thought this was a discussion board.

If I wanted to troll, I would be spamming this board like others do.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

I thought this was a discussion board.

If I wanted to troll, I would be spamming this board like others do.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

 

[Greed]

I thought this was a discussion board.

If I wanted to troll, I would be spamming this board like others do.

I rarely post because I really do not see the point anymore.

Trolling isn't the default answer.

If you're not getting anything from posting then don't post.

That's what I've done when I get bored with the board. I don't troll or make declarations about how boring it is. Just don't post.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It seemed reasonable to suggest that many of those that voted against this measure did so in reflection of their constituents but doesn't explain Max Baucus, who announced his retirement this week.

Or Jeff Flake, who promised an Aurora, Colo. victim's mother he believed in expanding background checks and who's state is overwhelmingly in favor of them.
That's just two. The one's voting against it out of conscience is getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Greed]

It seemed reasonable to suggest that many of those that voted against this measure did so in reflection of their constituents but doesn't explain Max Baucus, who announced his retirement this week.

Or Jeff Flake, who promised an Aurora, Colo. victim's mother he believed in expanding background checks and who's state is overwhelmingly in favor of them.
That's just two. The one's voting against it out of conscience is getting smaller and smaller.

Why would a Montana senator be an outlier? His state went for Romney while electing another Democrat to the Senate with a relatively thin margin.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Why would a Montana senator be an outlier? His state went for Romney while electing another Democrat to the Senate with a relatively thin margin.

Because local polling shows expanded background checks to be overwhelmingly popular.

Because he was retiring and had nothing to lose by voting with his caucus.

To show some solidarity to his fellow Democratic Senator who was voting for it (Montana's not that much of a "red" state with two Democratic senators).

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Add Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire to the list. Expanding background checks clocks in a 75% approval in her state and she voted against it. So here is a Senator who's constituents are telling her "This is how we feel" and she votes contrary to that.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Adding Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich of Alaska to the list. If all of the Senators who represent states where expanded background checks were strongly supported, this would have passed easily.
Greed, aren't these pols doing exactly what you said you don't want?

I don't want a leader telling me what's good.

 

[Greed]

Adding Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich of Alaska to the list. If all of the Senators who represent states where expanded background checks were strongly supported, this would have passed easily.
Greed, aren't these pols doing exactly what you said you don't want?

I was going to say earlier, but thought it was unnecessary to mention, that it's not like it was a straightforward vote for an amendment on background checks. I'm not for a federal gun registration, you are. If this bill would help that concept along then it's not surprising that it failed.

Both sides had a partisan version of the background checks amendment. This bipartisan one failed but it didn't have to be the end of the gun bill or a background check amendment.

I asked earlier in this thread why Reid stopped the entire bill if it was important to get something done.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I was going to say earlier, but thought it was unnecessary to mention, that it's not like it was a straightforward vote for an amendment on background checks. I'm not for a federal gun registration, you are. If this bill would help that concept along then it's not surprising that it failed.

Both sides had a partisan version of the background checks amendment. This bipartisan one failed but it didn't have to be the end of the gun bill or a background check amendment.

I asked earlier in this thread why Reid stopped the entire bill if it was important to get something done.

I can't speak for Reid, don't know the man, but I'm not big on getting something done just to get something done. It's been the strategy of the GOP to chisel away at every item of the Democratic agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. I like the idea of going for a big bill instead of a lot of smaller ones, especially when public opinion is strongly in your favor.

 

[Greed]

I can't speak for Reid, don't know the man, but I'm not big on getting something done just to get something done. It's been the strategy of the GOP to chisel away at every item of the Democratic agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. I like the idea of going for a big bill instead of a lot of smaller ones, especially when public opinion is strongly in your favor.

Ok, but with that strategy nothing gets done. Just voluntarily pull the whole thing and blame Republicans.

Like I said, there were more than one version of the amendment. Republicans chipping away isn't a unique plan. The minority party dilutes the majority's intiatives. It's not even noteworthy.