Typical Petty Republican Move

The House That Roared
In Ways and Means Brawl, Names, Police and Sergeant at Arms Are Called

...The morning began routinely enough. The 41-member Ways and Means Committee convened in 1100 Longworth to consider a bipartisan bill that would revise the nation's pension and retirement-saving system.

Democrats objected when the panel's acerbic chairman, Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), brought up a 90-page substitute measure that had been released shortly before midnight the night before. Democrats said they needed more time to read it. Thomas disagreed.

In response, Democrats objected to a normally perfunctory motion to dispense with the reading of the dense legislation. A clerk obligingly began reading it line by line, pausing only when Thomas interrupted to announce: "In the House, the minority can delay. They cannot deny."

As the reading resumed, the Democrats departed to a library just off the main hearing room, leaving only Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to skip the reading. After a few minutes, Thomas asked again for the unanimous consent, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark told reporters he had objected, but Thomas had replied, "You're too late."

Even before Thomas gaveled the reading to an end, he had dispatched the Capitol Police to remove the Democrats from the ornate library. Two officers arrived and, realizing they wanted no part of arresting House members for milling in a library, called a watch commander.

The commander gently assured the Democrats -- by now playing to the news cameras and loudly demanding to know whether they were under arrest -- that no one would be handcuffed or evicted. In fact, the three officers decided, this was a matter for the House Sergeant at Arms, not the police.

A Sergeant at Arms official soon settled the matter: No security officers would take action in "a committee matter," he announced. The Democrats, realizing they had played the scene for all it was worth, departed for the House chamber, where their contretemps resumed.

The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), said the dispute was more about process than policy. "That's what this controversy is all about," he said. "They unilaterally pass bills" with little or no Democratic input.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution protesting the GOP's behavior, triggering an afternoon-long debate in which each side accused the other of debasing Congress. Democrats charged that Republicans were running "a police state," with Pelosi saying her colleagues had suffered "an indignity no member should be expected to endure."

Republicans recounted indignities of their own: When Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) had told Stark to "shut up" during the committee meeting, Stark denounced him as "a little wimp. Come on, come over here and make me, I dare you. . . . You little fruitcake. You little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."

Democrats said the GOP simply wanted to change the subject, since Thomas had summoned the police before Stark lit into McInnis. Thomas neither answered reporters' questions nor appeared on the House floor yesterday, letting Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) counter Democratic charges.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) tried, but failed, to broker a compromise. The House voted 170 to 143 to reject Pelosi's motion.

Ironically, many Democrats support the bill that sparked yesterday's furor. The measure would accelerate scheduled increases in various retirement contribution limits enacted in 2001. Individuals would be able to contribute $15,000 a year to a 401(k) plan and $5,000 to an IRA, beginning next year. People 50 and older could contribute more.

The bill passed the committee with no Democratic votes.

"I've been here nine years, and this is one of the saddest days we've had in the House," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.). "What has happened to the Democrats is shameful; it's embarrassing to our party. I'm sad for our party, and I'm sad for the House."

www.washingtonpost.com...

This is what Repugnants do and that's why they make me sick. I wish that guy DID knock the sh!t out of McInnis. Maybe, then the rest of the repugnants would recognize that some "chin checkin" would be going down for their defiance of the democratic process.

This isn't even related to scandalism...

*Tassadar runs off crying*

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by Tassadar]

What? Its not a scandal for House members to be almost fighting in Congress? Ok, I see you don't know DC.

Yeah lately, those Democracks sure are feeling like a minority in the House.....the Senate.....anywhere else I forgot Colonel?!?

When your feeling surpressed and not being heard, having little say, etc.......those emotions/anger has to come out in one form or another.......

Hopefully, for Democracks, 2004 will bring better chances......

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Colonel

This is what Repugnants do and that's why they make me sick. I wish that guy DID knock the sh!t out of McInnis. Maybe, then the rest of the repugnants would recognize that some "chin checkin" would be going down for their defiance of the democratic process.

such a believer in god condoning violence. wow not only is this the condoning of violence but the condoning of bullying. as we all know violence is the tool bullies use to get others to conform. yes sir punching people sure is democratic!

good job! you made a complete horses behind and hypocrite of yourself. two for the price of one. you made my day. thank you.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by Colonel

This is what Repugnants do and that's why they make me sick. I wish that guy DID knock the sh!t out of McInnis. Maybe, then the rest of the repugnants would recognize that some "chin checkin" would be going down for their defiance of the democratic process.

such a believe in god condoning violence.

wow not only is this the condoning of violence but the condoning of bullying. as we all know violence is the tool bullies use to get others to conform. yes sir punching people sure is democratic!

good job! you made a complete ass and hypocrite of yourself. two for the price of one. you made my day. thank you.

Oh, please. When civility and the spirit of fairness fails as it has with the Democrats trying to come to an understanding with the belligerent thuggish repugnants, then do what you must.

And Jesus was not all "peace-loving" as the LIES would have you believe:

Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


So, don't assume to question me.

of how our political processes are now warped beyond all recognition....

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

Originally posted by Colonel

This is what Repugnants do and that's why they make me sick. I wish that guy DID knock the sh!t out of McInnis. Maybe, then the rest of the repugnants would recognize that some "chin checkin" would be going down for their defiance of the democratic process.

such a believe in god condoning violence.

wow not only is this the condoning of violence but the condoning of bullying. as we all know violence is the tool bullies use to get others to conform. yes sir punching people sure is democratic!

good job! you made a complete ass and hypocrite of yourself. two for the price of one. you made my day. thank you.

Oh, please. When civility and the spirit of fairness fails as it has with the Democrats trying to come to an understanding with the belligerent thuggish repugnants, then do what you must.

And Jesus was not all "peace-loving" as the LIES would have you believe:

Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.


So, don't assume to question me.

lol still no reason to resort to violence. it is like the child who runs to his room and breaks his toys when things dont go his way.

go ahead colonel run to your room and break your toys!

i just find it disturbing that you think violence is ok when things dont go the way you want them to. other people do this, they're called felons. ever heard of them? you know, they rob liqour stores, beat and rape women, kill people. i'm sure you've heard of these people. they have that same mentality.

when you start beating people because of their political beliefs THATS when you become a bully.

part of the democratic process is disagreeing. plain and simple. there is no perfect system. you know this but you think things should go the way you think they should. just like everyone else. and what do we do about this? we vote for those we want to speak for us. sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesnt. if it doesnt you keep voting for those who you want to speak for you. you dont resort to violence and childish behavior. that pretty much goes against democracy. you take the good with the bad and you deal with it like an adult.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

lol still no reason to resort to violence. it is like the child who runs to his room and breaks his toys when things dont go his way.

go ahead colonel run to your room and break your toys!

i just find it disturbing that you think violence is ok when things dont go the way you want them to. other people do this, they're called felons. ever heard of them? you know, they rob liqour stores, beat and rape women, kill people. i'm sure you've heard of these people. they have that same mentality.

when you start beating people because of their political beliefs THATS when you become a bully.

part of the democratic process is disagreeing. plain and simple. there is no perfect system. you know this but you think things should go the way you think they should. just like everyone else. and what do we do about this? we vote for those we want to speak for us. sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesnt. if it doesnt you keep voting for those who you want to speak for you. you dont resort to violence and childish behavior. that pretty much goes against democracy. you take the good with the bad and you deal with it like an adult.

Its NOT b/c of their polical beliefs (which I abhor) its b/c these thugs WILLFULLY defy the written rules of democratic process (like a felon) and b/c of their majority position are able to get away with it: as in MIGHT makes RIGHT. That is not what this country is founded upon. And, if you don't stand up for your rights, yu deserve to lose them and you fail to grasp that simple concept.

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey

lol still no reason to resort to violence. it is like the child who runs to his room and breaks his toys when things dont go his way.

go ahead colonel run to your room and break your toys!

i just find it disturbing that you think violence is ok when things dont go the way you want them to. other people do this, they're called felons. ever heard of them? you know, they rob liqour stores, beat and rape women, kill people. i'm sure you've heard of these people. they have that same mentality.

when you start beating people because of their political beliefs THATS when you become a bully.

part of the democratic process is disagreeing. plain and simple. there is no perfect system. you know this but you think things should go the way you think they should. just like everyone else. and what do we do about this? we vote for those we want to speak for us. sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesnt. if it doesnt you keep voting for those who you want to speak for you. you dont resort to violence and childish behavior. that pretty much goes against democracy. you take the good with the bad and you deal with it like an adult.

Its NOT b/c of their polical beliefs (which I abhor) its b/c these thugs WILLFULLY defy the written rules of democratic process (like a felon) and b/c of their majority position are able to get away with it: as in MIGHT makes RIGHT. That is not what this country is founded upon. And, if you don't stand up for your rights, yu deserve to lose them and you fail to grasp that simple concept.

both parties have done this before. why is it you only complain when "repugnants" do this? i seriously question whether you would raise an eye brow much less raise a call to violence if and when democrats do this.

as much as you want to think badly of republicans both sides have done the same crap over and over and neither IMO are worthy of my vote BUT in order to be part of the process we should all vote. the choices may be crappy but you pick the one that fits your own ideals best and hope for the best.

both stonewall, philibuster and basically give each other a hard time. what you fail to realize is, instead of fighting each other (literally and figuratively) they SHOULD be working with each other, why? to benefit us, we elect them to represent us. i dont vote for people who are going to tow the party line i want people who are going to work for the people, not themselves or their party. i think you've been partially suckered into believing that this fighting and disagreeing is ok and acceptable. it is not.

as long as politicians fight amongst each other we the common citizen lose out.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]

Lie: both parties have done before.

Repugnants have fillibustered countless times without the Dems resorting to defiance of the Democratic process, or calling the police. Just look at the nominations to the judgship by Clinton

Lie: as much as you want to think badly of republicans both sides have done the same crap over and over...

The repugnants have become belligerent and thuggish over the past 10 years of Clinton. As such, the spirit of partisanship has been lost. There is no reasoning with the repugnants b/c it is a new and bullying party unlike in the past where they could disagree without being disagreeable.

The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), said the dispute was more about process than policy. "That's what this controversy is all about," he said. "They unilaterally pass bills" with little or no Democratic input.
=========================================

I don't particularly care for Rangel, but he is correrct this time. Here we are in the 21st century utilizing 19th century rules of procedure. No wonder every one is frustrated and wants to fight, to much personality and emotion thwarted by archaic rules and motions.
Gavels, we don't need no stink'in gavels!

Originally posted by Colonel

Lie: both parties have done before.

Repugnants have fillibustered countless times without the Dems resorting to defiance of the Democratic process, or calling the police. Just look at the nominations to the judgship by Clinton

Lie: as much as you want to think badly of republicans both sides have done the same crap over and over...

The repugnants have become belligerent and thuggish over the past 10 years of Clinton. As such, the spirit of partisanship has been lost. There is no reasoning with the repugnants b/c it is a new and bullying party unlike in the past where they could disagree without being disagreeable.

you dont really believe that democrats bend over backwards every time to work republicans do you?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i really hate to say but you've been suckered.

poilticians look out for themselves first, their party second, the country third and you and i come in dead last on their list of priorities.

but you are free to think whatever you want. i think its amusing though.

looks like the dem threatened him. resort to violence? a dem? noooooo....