It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You are not gonna believe this House Vote.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:22 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

It looks like Eric C. the minority whip posted it on YOUTUBE..

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by fraterormus

Man, I feel so silly now! That video definitely was posted back in 2007:

I guess that happens to the best of us! Thanks for diggin' into that fraterormus!

Just a little correction to something that you said, in 2007, the Republicans wouldn't have been the majority. They were ousted from that position in the 2006 mid-term elections.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:33 PM
WOW. And Im not talking about the World of Warcraft here. I mean what is really going on here. Amazing. Anybody that thinks there is a difference between these two parties is not from this planet.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:40 PM
Well this video is so cut up and we have no idea what was being discussed or voted on. I know there is a lot of insanity in Washington but without the full video I can't see how you can form an opinion. Murtha is a whackjob I know but I need to see whole video to know what was going on.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:57 PM
Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007

The controversy began on August 2, when Republicans were ultimately defeated over a procedural "motion to recommit with instructions" vote on the FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill (H.R.3161).[4] The motion would have sent the spending bill back to the House Appropriations Committee, requiring the legislation to include provisions barring food stamps for illegal immigrants, before returning to the House floor.[5]

GOP members contested the vote when the presiding chair, Rep. Michael McNulty (D-N.Y.), called the vote in favor of the Democrats prematurely. During the voting, three different vote tallies came up, due to members changing their votes, two having defeated the measure, and one having passed. When McNulty initially gaveled the vote to a close, stating that the motion failed 214-214, the public voting board showed a vote of 215-213, a GOP victory. Democrats then reopened the vote, persuading several colleagues to switch their votes, resulting in a final tally of 212-216, successfully blocking the measure.[6]

After calling for the 215-213 vote to stand, House Republicans eventually marched out of the chamber around 11:00 PM August 2, shouting "NAY! NAY! NAY!"[7] (video here)

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) attempted to work out an agreement over the proper way to deal with the contested vote, both agreeing to some sort of investigative action. Boehner, however, was apparently persuaded by more conservative members of his party and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to seek confrontation through various parliamentary procedures.[8]

The following morning, August 3, Republicans attempted to protest the previous night's vote with the daily routine of verifying the previous day's congressional record, but Murtha, as presiding officer, overruled a GOP request for a recorded vote on the approval procedure. Murtha apparently ignored that Republicans at the time had a majority of members then in the House chamber, which enables them to force a record vote. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) called on Murtha to explain his ruling, and Murtha responded by saying, "It is up to the chair. Let me tell you this, the vote will show that the approval would be approved by the House, as it has been."[9]

Later on the 3rd, the House unanimously passed a Republican-sponsored privileged resolution (H.Res.611) creating a bipartisan Select Committee, with subpoena power, to investigate the August 2 contested vote. Three members would be appointed by the Speaker of the House, and three by the Minority Leader.[10]

The controversy continued, however, when the House voting board, which displays the status and subject of an ongoing vote, blacked out during a vote, leading to continued suspicions and accusations, and delaying the work of the house by almost an hour.[11][12] Republicans then tried to pass a second privileged resolution (H.Res.612) which would have rebuked Murtha for not showing the proper degree of respect as Speaker pro tempore to Rep. Sesenbrenner and misusing his power as chair. However, Majority Leader Hoyer sought a motion to table that second resolution. Minority Leader Boehner expressed outrage that the motion to table was brought to a vote without an hour of debate, which should have begun when Hoyer stated "Enough is enough" in response to the GOP resolutions. (video here) Democrats were able to table the resolution, claiming that Hoyer's remarks were not official since the presiding Speaker, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) had not recognized the Majority Leader. Republican members then shouted "Coverup! Coverup!" as a response to Hoyer's remarks being stricken from the record. The next day, on August 4, Democrats again tabled a resolution (H.Res.623) offered by Republicans that would have expanded the newly created Select Committee's inquiry to include the August 3 omission of Hoyer's comment.[13]

Eventually the House was able to pass a number of pieces of significant legislation before adjourning for the August recess, however not without much delay resulting from the vote contention and confrontation.[14]

On August 16, 2007, during the August congressional recess, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) met with officials from the House Clerk's office to discuss the House voting board blackout on August 3. Democratic sources claimed that the failure occurred due to a disconnection of the board’s power plug. The newly created select committee to investigate the August 2 voting irregularities was scheduled to release an interim report of its findings to the House, after the recess, by September 30.[15]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:05 PM
Well it appears, “that’s all she wrote.”

Our government is beginning to display barefaced abusiveness, and is no longer resorting to state-of-the-art digital smoke and mirrors to conceal its fraud.

If you’ve ever been in a fight, you’ll realize this dirtbag politician is trying to start one. He has been ordered to spit in the face of the American people.

Our government wants its "own" people to rise up in violence, ultimately against one another. They are pushing for this fight, for this civil war.

The only way the American people will win it, is not to fight it.

Think out of the box for solutions.

BOYCOTT income taxes!


[edit on 5-9-2009 by seasoul]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by octotom
Clearly, the nos won. But, Murtha said that in his opinion, the ayes had won.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by octotom]

Actually how was that clear? he needed 1/5th of a vote to pass whatever it was they passed...the Nos were louder, but there is absolutely no way for the viewer of the tell lie vision segment to know actual numbers.

and as we know, when your in a minority, you tend to yell louder...

the no's were louder no doubt, but louder does not = more.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:09 PM
incidently, you need to also question the source...look at who's youtube channel it is...
yep, edited, clipped, and agenda purpose.

remember, shoot the zombies in the head, else they just keep posting out of context editeded youtube videos.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:23 PM
Very, very nice.

I have to admit that I am pretty conservative, and don't think too much of most liberal politicians.

Having said that, this thread is how it should be done on ATS. Video was posted, a couple of "me too" comments, and then it was thoroughly dismantled by an acute observer. In under 20 pages to boot.

Thanks Fraterormus and Ferris. Well done.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:26 PM
I wonder if anyone has ever thought about making a citizen's arrest on any of these people...

What are yall's thoughts on that?

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:36 PM

They counted a vote by all those in favor say "aye", all those against say "nay"? How dare they abide by Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure that has run our Congress for the past 222 years!

reply to post by fraterormus

Did you not watch the video?!
Did you have your thinking cap on?
Do you really expect to tell us that when he made his quick hand gesture sweep over the left side of the isle he actually COUNTED the members standing, or did he just ramrod this through?!

When the man on the floor asked him to show his evidence for his count, he flatly rejected!
Hell, if a cop tells me that I have been ticketed for exceeding the legal speed limit he is required to show me proof that this is so.
Apparently, Jack Murtha is above this.

Wow, he just showed his colors!
I can't believe it. I respected the man. When he drummed up the "get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately" talk during the Bush tenure, I was like: "look at this dude! A congressman speaking truth to power OTHER THAN Ron Paul."
No, as is obvious, he has silenced that rhetoric now that he is the chairman of the house and is doing basically the exact opposite of what I thought he would do in legislative matters.
This much is evident by the video being posted.

It doesn't matter the specifics of the count.
He denied any sort of due process in the House. Plain as day. Right there on video.

Stop apologizing for such ridiculous behavior.
That is no way to conduct business and you know it!

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by sr_robert1

Where do you live now?

Not sure thats a good idea, as it would be taken in this day and age, as a threat against an elected official.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:41 PM
Look not at the members present in the House!!!
Look at the members absent evident by the empty seats!!!

Without Murtha giving evidence to the count we have no way of knowing if there were an adequate number of people in the house to achieve ANY SORT OF MAJORITY!!!!!!!!

Jesus F#ing Christ on a Crutch! I am sick and tired of the liberals on this site waving a Jedi Hand and stepping in line with the status quo on these matters and expecting everything to be hunky dory.

This is NOT OKAY! There is no "due process" here. The speaker on the floor was flat-out rejected on every call to count the vote!!!!!

[edit on 4-9-2009 by JayinAR]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:43 PM
Sure, that may be an old video, but the song remains the same.

Can't wait to see what happens at the next Murtha town hall meeting and I sure hope the locals show up with cams.

2010 is around the corner and that SOB needs to get the hell out of dodge, along with all the other clowns.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:49 PM
I see that many folks here do not watch C-SPAN. when I have cable I try to watch it. MOst awesome channel.

Boring as hell 23 out of 24 hours then for one golden hour you can hear things like rumsfiled cussing out Skull and bones yale students for questioning him about 911 or lobbyist deals going down on the house floor.

The history of C-span is also just as one golden hour interesting. AHHHH But that is the problem with my nation.

Many of my fellow US citizens are bored to quickly and lack interest in politics. So when a subject like this comes up they are surprised at the parliamentary rules.




You only now take offense... Fine. Maybe this is the first time you have been made aware of it. I accept that.

But now that you Know would you please remain offended.

Will you please hold on to your anger.!

Please never forget that things like what has been described above are common occurrences in the house.

Stay angry enough to want to do something about it!

When you give them permission to speak for you you lose your voice to speak for yourself.

With out the people having legislative power of their own you will all remain slaves of the state.

Do something about it or let the yoke rest lightly upon your shoulders.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by titorite]


[edit on 4-9-2009 by titorite]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by titorite]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:58 PM
reply to post by titorite

I'll take it at your word that this sort of thing goes down regularly in the House.
I haven't seen it, however, and I DO watch CSPAN occasionally.

Yeah, I am one of those that does actually enjoy it from time to time.
They have interesting arguments, but I've never seen a flat-out rejection to the call of someone on the floor in a vote-count!

Me thinks you are beating your chest a little.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by Anti-Evil

I haven't finished reading the thread but, this didn't happen this year but in 2007!!!!


Old news, same game.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by JayinAR

Ummmm.... do you really think that this is a liberal - conservative thing? There are very few real conservatives left anymore. The party has changed. And, in many ways, the democrats have moved more to the right.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:45 AM
From The Four Stages of Revolution at Sevenload.

" The fundamental conflict thoughout hstory is not liberal vs conservative, black vs white, rich vs poor, religion vs secularism, hate vs tolerance, moderates vs extremists, or good countries vs evil countries.

It is Liberty vs Power.

All of human history - any tme, any place - is the story of power elites who use government coercion to dominate the People for their own selfish interests and delusions of grandeur.

The State is an institution with a monopoly on the use of force. Because power corrupts, it is the inherent tendency of all governments to become more tyrannical over time.

(including democracies) " From

Read Hostile Takeover by David Sirota.

We are not a country "For the people and by the people"

Read my location. I did not chose this lightly.

We are a country that has been run for way too long For the corporations and by the corporations.

BuzzFlash: Thom Hartmann educated me about a court ruling in California in the late 1800s that bestowed what could be called "personhood" on corporations, setting a precedent for court rulings in the future. Was that the beginning of corporations emerging as a force unto themselves in the governmental process?

David Sirota: The short answer is yes. We went from a legal definition of the corporation as something that was subservient to society to something that has equal rights with human beings. We basically empowered big money interests with even more power than their money already gave them. These corporations live longer than humans - they can live for eternity. A corporation already has a lot of power, because it basically is a concentration of wealth, but it also has other extraordinary powers, like basically living forever, and never really being subject to being put in jail like a human. Thom Hartmann is absolutely right on the history of this.

But I will say this. There used to be a line between government and the business sector. They used to be two separate entities. The government was there to protect citizens from the excesses of corporate capitalism through economic policy. It was there to protect the integrity of a properly functioning free market system that corporations and human beings operated under. Now government and big business are one and the same.

The name of my book is Hostile Takeover. The premise is that the big money interests have performed a hostile takeover of our government to the point where business and government are literally one entity. The regulator is part of the regulated. The regulated controls the regulator. Once we understand that that’s what’s really going on behind all of the happy sounding rhetoric, we can better understand why we get the public policies we get, and, more broadly, why we are now living in a society where the middle class and the working class in this country are being crushed.

BuzzFlash: Many Republicans might be scared by David Sirota and basically say that you’re anti-capitalism, you’re a socialist or a communist, because you say that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to have this influence on the government. Is there a difference between a level playing field of the free-market economy and a basically oligarchic corporate control of the government?

David Sirota: I’m sure I’ll be called any number of things. But this book is about small "d" democracy. I consider myself a small "d" democrat before I consider myself a big "D" Democrat, or a progressive, or anything else. The fact is that a democratic society requires there to be a government that enforces laws objectively in order to protect its citizens. That, basically, is what the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are all about – we, the people.

The folks who endorse the current system, by which big money interests are able to essentially control and write public policy and manipulate our political debate in this country, are the people who are anti-democratic. Those people do not really believe in the ideals that this country was founded on. They think our society should be a "survival of the fittest" race to the bottom. I categorically reject that vision. Citizens are fighting to take back their own government, and this fight is really fundamentally all about democracy. People who are on the other side don’t believe in democracy.

BuzzFlash: We’ve returned to a robber-baron age with ever larger corporations. Halliburton and the oil companies basically are not for a free-market economy. They’re for monopoly control over their sectors.

David Sirota: That really cuts to what I assert in the book. One of the most important things the public needs to understand is that the terms of our entire political debate are artificially rigged. Just take the veneration expressed in our media and by our politicians of the "free market." We’re led to believe that we live in a truly free market, and our government is always working to protect free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What our government works to do is to rig the market – to weight and to distort the free market by permitting monopoly power by, for instance, telecom companies; by permitting monopoly power by large oil companies; by passing all sorts of protectionist policies in our "free trade" policies that preserve unfair patent and copyright protections to create high drug prices in the Third World. So we don’t have a free market. That’s one of many very good examples of how big money interests deliberately skew our political debate with terms like this, and thereby make us think our government is doing exactly the opposite of what it is doing.

BuzzFlash: Let’s take one example relating to the Internet. We just saw a vote in a House committee against what is called Internet neutrality. In essence, even most of the Democrats on that committee went along with the telecom industry, allowing them to set up a two-tier Internet. The Internet is a great example of democracy in action, and it has had a huge impact because of its low barrier to entry. Already the industries that provide the pipes for it are starting to put up the barriers. They’ve got the money, which they give to the legislators who vote, and the legislators are voting to put up the barriers.

David Sirota: Meanwhile what’s absolutely lost, even beyond that, is the fact that the Internet was started in part, if not in full, with taxpayer investments.

BuzzFlash: The University of Illinois was kind of an incubator of the first wave of the Internet.

David Sirota: That’s right, and I assume the project there got federal funding. I know that the military had a lot of funding for creating the Internet back in the seventies, the point being that this is another example of something that has been papered over in our political debate – the idea that taxpayers, in many cases, are the original investors with high risk in major pieces of our economy.

Yet when those investments turn out to be profitable, taxpayers are immediately cut out of the deal. It gets privatized. And now Congress is going along with corporate America’s efforts to cut the public out of the democratic benefits of the Internet. It’s a perfect example of how there no longer is a difference between corporate America and the American government. That is to the detriment of society.

BuzzFlash: Does Jack Abramoff symbolize the hijacking of America by corporate greed?

David Sirota: Jack Abramoff shows just how permissive and out in the open the hostile takeover has become. Everyone pretends to be just totally outraged and surprised that something like this would be going on in Washington. Jack Abramoff is only the most public example of the kind of bribery that goes on in Washington every day. He really is a symbol of exactly how out of control our system has become, and exactly how undemocratic it’s become, and exactly how pervasive the hostile takeover of our government really is.

What has happened to America?

"big money interests have performed a hostile takeover of our government to the point where business and government are literally one entity". David Sirota.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by ofhumandescent]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:48 AM
He's WAY too old to be a speaker. He was acting so senile. We need to get rid of all these old people in the senate/house. But I don't know where he is now since that is an old video...

[edit on 9/5/09 by MoothyKnight]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in