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

[upsideguy]

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.

View attachment 67150937 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.

:lamo:lamo

Whoa!!!! I present a real poll and you present some type of hypothetical about how the polls might be wrong? It is not proof that this particular poll is wrong; its only a hypothetical about how people's impressions CAN be misinterpreted.

To this, you state I am ".....bewildered by the overwhelming proof that you cannot accept, that the public is, in fact, very much against you...."

NO! I am bewildered by the underwhelming flimsiness of your response. This may the weakest counter-argument I have ever encountered on this site.

If there is "overwhelming proof" show it. Give me an example of this "overwhelming proof", which, if "overwhelming" will be very easy to produce.

The fact is, you can not and you and everyone reading this knows it. I am sorry, you may just have to sit down and acknowledge you were outflanked here.

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

Then you should've said that in the first place and you wouldn't have had any argument out of me.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Then you should've said that in the first place and you wouldn't have had any argument out of me.

I'm pretty sure I did say that in the first place....... :shrug:

 

[Objective Voice]

I'm pretty sure I did say that in the first place....... :shrug:

Actually, what you said was:

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.

So, no it's not their job, but yes it's one of many jobs they have, but no it's not their job.

Got it.

Look, I get it. Creating laws is not the only thing Congress has the responsibility of doing, but to say it's "not their job" is foolish especially when the very first article to the Constitution states clearly what the job of Congress is in conjunction with so many other things. So, let's resolve this matter this way:

No, creating laws is not the only job of Congress, but their #1 job is to create laws. Fair enough?

 

[iguanaman]

You got sources?

The 2012 elections showed how effective this 2011 gerrymandering was. As the RSLC boasted in January:


“Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic U.S. House candidates than their Republican opponents, but elected a 13-5 Republican majority to represent them in Washington; Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress. Nationwide, Republicans won 54 percent of the U.S. House seats, along with 58 of 99 state legislative chambers, while winning only 8 of 33 U.S. Senate races and carrying only 47.8 percent of the national presidential vote.”

The tactics were stunning. Though the GOP lost the House popular vote by almost 1.4 million votes, this translated into a loss of just eight congressional seats.

North Carolina provides a striking example. The state’s congressional vote and delegation had usually split closely in the decade since 2002. In 2010, for example, the House delegation was 7 to 6 Democratic. After the 2011 gerrymandering however, the results no longer reflected the state’s fairly even partisan split. In 2012, the Democrats won more congressional votes than the Republicans, 50 percent to 48.9 percent, but the new gerrymandering gave the GOP a 9 to 4 congressional majority.

In Virginia and Ohio, the House vote went narrowly for Republicans — 50 percent to 48 percent in Virginia and 51 percent to 47 percent in Ohio — but the congressional outcomes leaned strongly Republican: 8-3 in Virginia and 12-4 in Ohio.

Overall, Democratic House voters outnumbered Republicans in seven Republican states, but gerrymanders in those states produced Republican majorities in their congressional delegations

Democrats: It

 

[EdwinWillers]

: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!".

Your premise seems to be that every law congress enacts is a good law, constitutional, and valid for all time. I think we could all come up with hundreds of laws which, for varying reasons aren't (stupid laws, out-of-date laws, unconstitutional laws...).

If Boehner was in fact referring to Obamacare, then he's talking about a particular law that is 1) unconstitutional and 2) a bad law (bad beyond all rational contemplation).

Regardless, the statement that congress' metric ought to be how many laws it repeals is - at least in this modern environment - a very wise one. As another poster noted, most of us prefer smaller government - particularly at the federal level, and any attempt by congress to reduce the size of the federal government to within its constitutional bounds is not only good, but extremely wise.