Speaker Boehner: Judge Congress by how many laws it repeals, not passes

[iguanaman]

You didn't read my post carefully. I said you have to count on business to do most of the inspecting anyway. Do you really believe that we can afford to pay for enough inspection to do 100% inspection?? You want to pay $20/lb for your hamburger? I don't.

On the spelling I was just giving you a hard tyme.

LOL now we can't afford to have safe food. What's next? Poisoned water too?

 

[Moot]

That's already well known

Then you should know thats the reason why we have government inspectors.

......the leftwing assumption is always that those people are money grubbers who want to poison children and kill puppies. And of course women, children and minorities are always the most affected.

Have you ever had food poisoning?

 

[Moot]

LOL now we can't afford to have safe food. What's next? Poisoned water too?

Yup. If they don't believe in science, then how can they believe in germs?

Heres a company that offers tainted meat AND poisoned water....and dang if it ain't in Texas...top dog state of deeeeregulation.


Dallas meat-packing plant says pig blood draining into creek on sewer line an 'accident' | Fox News

 

[CanadaJohn]

Actually Democratic votes outnumbered Republicans in House races so no that was a gerrymandered "poll"at best. If the voters got their way the House would be Democratic too. Republicans are a permanent minority party now. They must rely on voter suppression, gerrymandering and corruption to get elected.

:clap:

 

[davidtaylorjr]

:shock: I just came across this article from NBCNews.com and could not believe what I had just read.



Isn't is Congress' job to create laws? I think I read that somewhere. Ummmm...the Constitution perhaps? :roll:

Clearly, he's referring to yet another attempt to repeal ObamaCare, but when you've tried it and failed nearly 40 times (38 on last count), it tells me you're doing an even worse job at repealing laws by your standard, Mr. Boehner, than Congress' present record of only passing 15 laws to day during this congressional session.

Like Gov. Jindal once said of the Republican Party, "Stop being stupid!".

Actually no, their job is not to create laws. That is one thing they do in carrying out their job, but that is not their job. Otherwise you would have a law quota in how many you have to create and Government would grow exponentially. Not their job.

 

[Moot]

So, to help you avoid being a hypocrite, we'll say you also agree that the American people reelected the Boehner Republicans to control the House so that's the ultimate poll on that matter. Case closed.

More like the tea party's puppet Boehner. The house tea party republicans wouldn't be there if the GOP hadn't gerry mandered local districts in rural states. I'll bet Boehner is sorry they did that. I bet he cries a lot, too.

The American people didn't elect Boehner to be house leader....the house republicans did.

 

[CanadaJohn]

More like the tea party's puppet Boehner. The house tea party republicans wouldn't be there if the GOP hadn't gerry mandered local districts in rural states. I'll bet Boehner is sorry they did that. I bet he cries a lot, too.

The American people didn't elect Boehner to be house leader....the house republicans did.

I'll bet there might be one person around here who might fall for that, but it isn't me.

 

[Paschendale]

Conservative Republicans favor smaller government - fewer laws means less government intrusion into your daily lives - sounds good to me.

Except those aren't the laws they repeal. They repeal the laws that keep big business from being subject to regulation. And then they pass laws limiting individual liberty to conform with their religious ideas.

There is no party of small government. There is the really pro business party that also espouses religious bigotry, and the kinda pro business party that doesn't also espouse religious bigotry. Both give huge chunks of taxpayer money to profitable corporations, but one tries to hold them accountable once in a while when they horribly screw up. Neither party is trying to shrink government or its budget. Stop giving the right wing credit for an ideal it doesn't actually follow.

 

[Objective Voice]

The primary duty of Congress is to represent the will of the people. When it passed the Obamacare scam, in blatant defiance of the will of the people, it was guilty of malfeasance. You're condemning them, now, for attempting to undo the destructive results of this malfeasance.

The people seemed to want a single-payer health care system, but Congress wouldn't ratify such a system. So, with majority rule, Congress passed what's now known as "ObamaCare" which the President signed into law.

You may not like the law, but it is the law! You may not like the fact that the healthcare reform bill passed Congress along a majority partisan vote, but Congress did act as a legislative body. To put things in perspective, many people don't like it when a case brought before the Supreme Court is found to be constitutional or unconstitutional along party lines, but no one would dare claim that the Supreme Court didn't perform their "primary duty" or represent the interest of the people from a legalistic, constitutional perspective. So, you're above argument holds no merit.

As far as my condemnation of House Republicans in their ongoing attempts to undermine a law that has been constitutionally upheld, you're right. I am condemning them. I do so not because I fully support ObamaCare (although I do maintain that it was the best compromise at healthcare reform the nation was going to get from a heavily divided Congress), but rather because repealing the law has been tried nearly 40 times now and House Republicans have failed each time. It's time wasted that could have been committed to other worthwhile efforts to help resolve many of this country's problems. Moreover, it's time wasted attempting to conceive of ways to defund or otherwise render the law ineffective but then turn around and proclaim to the public that the law doesn't work. Well, of course it's not working very well. When you purposely withhold funding, not approve Presidential appointments or not implement key components of the law, it's real easy to look your constituents in the eye and say, "Look! I told you the law wouldn't work."

 

[Objective Voice]

Well, is it the House's fault that the Democrat Senate refuses to take up the majority of bills the House sends it's way? Perhaps the problem is the giant turd stuck in the plumbing of government otherwise known as Majority Leader Reid.

Nice deflection. Unfortunately, we're not talking about Sen. Reid or the Senate. We're talking about Spkr Boehnor's comments on how to judge Congress' effectiveness, and by default his own as Speaker, by the number of laws they repeal. If we are to go by his track record on repeals alone, I'd say he should be fired!

 

[Psychoclown]

I agree with Boehner and given that the House has managed to repeal a grand total of zero laws under his leadership, I think that speaks volumes about his commitment to small government.

 

[Objective Voice]

Its Congress' job to not only create laws, but also review and adapt past laws to current circumstances. I think we are long over due for such a review.

On this we can agree. The President has long called for such a review. I'm waiting on Congress to get involved with this process. And if it includes revising portions of ObamaCare, so be it.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Conservative Republicans favor smaller government - fewer laws means less government intrusion into your daily lives - sounds good to me.

That doesn't follow logically.
A govt with only three laws could be quite intrusive. L'etat, c'est moi, non?

The content of laws is prob'ly a far better indicator of the intrusiveness of a govt than merely the quantity of laws.

 

[Objective Voice]

Actually no, their job is not to create laws. That is one thing they do in carrying out their job, but that is not their job. Otherwise you would have a law quota in how many you have to create and Government would grow exponentially. Not their job.

U.S. Constitution

Art. 1, Sect. 1:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...

Art 1, Sect. 8, clause 18:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

'Nuff Said.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I see nothing wrong with not working with liberal scum.

At some point, an effective government has to realize that the "liberal scum" are Americans. Hyperbolic partisans are antithetical to democratic governance. Seeking to deny a voice to portions of an electorate is the opposite of what America is about. Afaict anyway. Ymmv

 

[Henrin]

At some point, an effective government has to realize that the "liberal scum" are Americans.

Then they should realize we are Americans and stop passing crap on Christmas eve. :shrug:

Hyperbolic partisans are antithetical to democratic governance. Seeking to deny a voice to portions of an electorate is the opposite of what America is about. Afaict anyway. Ymmv

We can always ignore them like liberals do. That seems to work too.

 

[upsideguy]

The primary duty of Congress is to represent the will of the people. When it passed the Obamacare scam, in blatant defiance of the will of the people, it was guilty of malfeasance. You're condemning them, now, for attempting to undo the destructive results of this malfeasance.

Goofy. Would you like a nice list of legislation that the "will of the people" endorsed, yet congress ignored? Starting with broader background checks for gun purchases, which had 80+% popularity?

Stop this silly selective reasoning. It is shallow and disingenuous.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

U.S. Constitution

Art. 1, Sect. 1:




Art 1, Sect. 8, clause 18:



'Nuff Said.

And you prove my point. Making laws is part of their job. That includes repealing laws as well. Their job is not to make laws for the sake of making laws which was my point.

 

[fmw]

I agree with Boehner and given that the House has managed to repeal a grand total of zero laws under his leadership, I think that speaks volumes about his commitment to small government.

Isn't that the truth? Politicians from different sides of the aisle say different things but they do the same things. Judge a politician by what he does, not what he says.

 

[American]

Actually Democratic votes outnumbered Republicans in House races so no that was a gerrymandered "poll"at best. If the voters got their way the House would be Democratic too. Republicans are a permanent minority party now. They must rely on voter suppression, gerrymandering and corruption to get elected.

You got sources?

 

[American]

LOL now we can't afford to have safe food. What's next? Poisoned water too?

How much unsafe food have you eaten? Well apparently your presence here answers the question. Who's dying of poison water?

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy failure.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Goofy. Would you like a nice list of legislation that the "will of the people" endorsed, yet congress ignored? Starting with broader background checks for gun purchases, which had 80+% popularity?

Repeating that lie over and over and over will never make it true. Neither will changing it around from 90% to 80% to 85% or anywhere else in that range.

If there was really anything close to that much support for such a law, then the process would be underway—if not already completed—of amending the Constitution in order to allow it.

 

[upsideguy]

Repeating that lie over and over and over will never make it true. Neither will changing it around from 90% to 80% to 85% or anywhere else in that range.

If there was really anything close to that much support for such a law, then the process would be underway—if not already completed—of amending the Constitution in order to allow it.

Denying reality because it is inconsistent with your impressions does not make it so. Here is my evidence. Where is yours?

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?

 

[solletica]

I agree with Boehner and given that the House has managed to repeal a grand total of zero laws under his leadership, I think that speaks volumes about his commitment to small government.

Don't make him cry.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Goofy. Would you like a nice list of legislation that the "will of the people" endorsed, yet congress ignored? Starting with broader background checks for gun purchases, which had 80+% popularity?

Repeating that lie over and over and over will never make it true. Neither will changing it around from 90% to 80% to 85% or anywhere else in that range.

If there was really anything close to that much support for such a law, then the process would be underway—if not already completed—of amending the Constitution in order to allow it.

Denying reality because it is inconsistent with your impressions does not make it so. Here is my evidence. Where is yours?

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?View attachment 67150921

It seem that you're stuck in the same delusion that the author of that Washington Post article is, and in which much of the gungrabber community is.

You're convinced that the public is on your side, and bewildered by the overwhelming proof that you cannot accept, that the public is, in fact, very much against you.

Indeed, the very title of the article which you cited reflects this delusion. “90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?” The truth is obvious. It's not a “political slam dunk” for your side, because the claimed 90% public support is and always has been a flat-out-lie, and the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives all know that public support has turned so far against new gun control laws of any type, that supporting any such bills is almost certain to cost them their jobs when they next come up for reelection.

A very vivid demonstration of this delusion, and the falsehood thereof, can be seen in the “Geo Gun marker” project, and the public reaction which it drew, and its creator's attempt to spin an overwhelmingly negative reaction into some kind of reflection on some crazed “radical anti-gun-safety community”, rather than as the reflection it most obviously is of the public reaction to his idiotic project.

The author of the Geo Gun Marker blames “a paranoid community of deluded gun rights activists” for the failure of his project,and for the overwhelmingly-negative reviews that his app received on Google Play.

This as of about 19:30 PDT on 24 July 2013.

This, he claims, is the work of a “highly paranoid reaction” from “frightened and irrational minority of gun owners” that are part of a “radical anti-gun-safety community”. If there was ever really any significant genuine public support for this project,and for the agenda behind it, then we “frightened and irrational minority of gun owners” would not have been able to shout down the expression of that public support in this app's reviews, to produce so overwhelmingly-negative a result; nor would we have been able to so completely sabotage his project by feeding it false data.

More on the Gun Geo Marker project at http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/165868-far-anti-gun-advocates-go-w-73-86-a.html.

It is surely not fair to take this result as a consensus on gun control itself. There was much more wrong with this project than just the attack against the Second Amendment, and plenty of good reason for others to oppose this project than out of any concern for the right to keep and bear arms. But it certainly amplifies and demonstrates exactly the same delusion under which you and those on your side, are operating. You somehow have come to deceive yourselves into believing that the public is on your side, and are left to try to spin and explain away the overwhelming proof to the contrary.