Every Democrat in House votes to Shutdown Government

[Avid]

Not a single Democrat vote for Procedural Rule that would allow the Omnibus Bill to come to a vote. They get just about everything they want, but vote to Shut Down the Government.

John Boehner has his embarrassing moment, but we may get to breathe if it fails. Let us see if there is any bias in the media after all. If they go after the Dem's with a vengeance for voting to shut down the Government, we can reconsider the opinion that is so often proven correct.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/11/Floor-Drama-Boehner-Embarrassment-As-House-Nearly-Kills-Omnibus-On-Procedural-Vote

.

 

[EdwinWillers]

LOL - it's going to be fun to see them trying to explain how this isn't a double standard.

 

[Metal Minister]

Oh oh oh! Lemme grab some popcorn!

 

[Ringo84]

Actually, they voted against legislation filled with poison pill riders that Republicans jammed in there at the last minute.
Ringo

 

[EdwinWillers]

Actually, they voted against legislation filled with poison pill riders that Republicans jammed in there at the last minute.
Ringo

ROTFLOL - awww - say Democrats have never done that; say Democrats are pure as the driven snow in this regard...., please?

...oh and while you're at it, maybe explain why they voted as a block against this bill.

 

[Ringo84]

Never said that the Democrats were pure as the driven snow. But then again, Democrats aren't the ones trying to sabotage the government.
Ringo

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Democrats already sabotaged the government. How much debt does our government now owe?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Never said that the Democrats were pure as the driven snow. But then again, Democrats aren't the ones trying to sabotage the government.
Ringo

Non sequitur.

And point of clarity - Democrats aren't the ones trying to sabotage the government - as long as 'the government' fits their definition of government as they want it, rather than as the Constitution defines it.

Ergo, anyone who attempts to return the federal government to within the bounds established for it by the Constitution is, by the left's definition "trying to sabotage it."

Perspective

 

[Ringo84]

I see....shutting down the government for almost two weeks because of a temper tantrum over the health care law is "returning the federal government to within the bounds established for it by the Constitution".

That's exactly what TJ wrote into the Declaration: "We the People, in order to throw babyish tantrums over laws...."
Ringo

 

[EdwinWillers]

We'll see how long the Democrat's tantrum lasts...

 

[NightHawkeye]

Democrats already sabotaged the government. How much debt does our government now owe?

$18 trillion.

As a taxpayer, your share is already over $153,000 and climbing quickly.

 

[Ringo84]

More like we'll see how long Republicans are willing to sabotage the normal functioning of government with ugliness like cutting Pell grants and the like.
Ringo

 

[JohnLocke]

Actually, they voted against legislation filled with poison pill riders that Republicans jammed in there at the last minute.
Ringo

Compromise and negotiation tend to require that both sides are a little happy and a little disappointed. I would ask you to identify these "poison pill riders" to which you refer.

Poison pills like continuing to fund the Affordable Care Act? removing Federal Funding of Political Party Conferences? Putting in huge loopholes in Dodd-Frank?

Seriously, which of the negotiated compromises in the bill were so poisonous that it justifies shutting down the government?

Is it about the sage-grouse? funding of the United Nations? what?

Color me impressed if you managed to get through all 1,600+ pages of it in so short a time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Actually, they voted against legislation filled with poison pill riders that Republicans jammed in there at the last minute.
Ringo

And that's okay when Dems decide to do it, but not when Republicans do it?

C'mon.

 

[stamperben]

Democrats already sabotaged the government. How much debt does our government now owe?

Start by asking GW Bush.

 

[South Bound]

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance.

Actually, that phrase did not appear in the original version of the treaty that Congress passed. It was added to the Arabic translation later, by a translator. A second treaty, which superseded the Treaty of Tripoli, did not include the phrase at all, in either the English or Arabic translation.

It's also important to note that the Supreme Court took the opposite view in their opinion in the Trinity case, in which they stated that the United States is, in fact, a Christian nation.

 

[South Bound]

Not a single Democrat vote for Procedural Rule that would allow the Omnibus Bill to come to a vote. They get just about everything they want, but vote to Shut Down the Government.

John Boehner has his embarrassing moment, but we may get to breathe if it fails. Let us see if there is any bias in the media after all. If they go after the Dem's with a vengeance for voting to shut down the Government, we can reconsider the opinion that is so often proven correct.

Floor Drama: Boehner Embarrassment As House Nearly Kills Omnibus On Procedural Vote

.

Democrats are going to act like Democrats, so my problem isn't with them. My problem is with the Republicans, who swore up and down and ran on the promise that they were going to fight, and then gave in without even a whimper.

Precisely why I didn't vote for any Republicans this time.

 

[Ringo84]

Compromise and negotiation tend to require that both sides are a little happy and a little disappointed. I would ask you to identify these "poison pill riders" to which you refer.

Yes, I know that compromise means "both sides don't get 100% of what they want", and you know it, but many of our "honorable" elected officials don't seem to grasp that.

What’s in the spending bill? We skim it so you don’t have to - The Washington Post

How about increasing the amount of money the rich can give to political parties, cutting Pell grants, restoring bank bailouts for banks using risky derivatives....just to name a few.

And that's okay when Dems decide to do it, but not when Republicans do it?

C'mon.

I didn't say that. I think surreptitiously cramming riders into bills is shady.

What makes this situation especially egregious is that these riders are being crammed into a must-pass bill so that this onerous stuff is passed without anyone ever voting on it. I find that cynical and childish.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Actually, that phrase did not appear in the original version of the treaty that Congress passed. It was added to the Arabic translation later, by a translator. A second treaty, which superseded the Treaty of Tripoli, did not include the phrase at all, in either the English or Arabic translation.

With an eye to the fact that this is completely off-topic, that's not true:

Some religious spokesmen claim that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After seeing the torture report and some of my fellow countrymen's reaction to it, I would certainly argue that we're not a Christian nation, but that's the subject of another thread.
Ringo

 

[South Bound]

With an eye to the fact that this is completely off-topic, that's not true:



Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize that Wikipedia passes as a legitimate source among the Left, but Wikipeda? Seriously?

But, since you're the one who put it on the table, I have to assume you didn't bother to read it, or else you would have seen that it quotes Purdue University history professor, Frank Lambert, stating the same thing I've said, which is that the Treaty of Tripoli's purpose was to allay Muslim fears that we were a theocracy bent on a religious war with them, not to negate the philosophy behind our republic:

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers. (Frank Lambert (2006). The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-691-12602-9.)

It's also important to note that the Wikipedia article confirms what I said, which is that the Treaty of Peace and Amity superseded the original treaty.

Most damning of all, it goes on to say:

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."(The Barbary Treaties : Tripoli 1796 - Hunter Miller's Notes". The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved 2007-05-08.)

So, to recap, your own source confirms:

a) That the purpose of the Treaty of Tripoli is not to disavow the Christian influence on the founding of the United States

b) That the Barlow translation is not accurate

c) That the treaty was superseded by another treaty, thus nullifying it, nine years later.