Comments on: ‘Hats of the Day: 50 Congressmen http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian B http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-4039 Brian B Tue, 11 May 2004 17:58:37 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-4039 "Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR)" Figures he represents the Portland area. I'm just surprised DeFazio's not on there too. “Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR)”

Figures he represents the Portland area. I’m just surprised DeFazio’s not on there too.

]]> By: maura http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3989 maura Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3989 Good grief. Depressing. Wholly depressing. But another reason to send Steny Hoyer hate mail. Good grief. Depressing. Wholly depressing.

But another reason to send Steny Hoyer hate mail.

]]> By: Nanuk http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3992 Nanuk Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3992 Maybe no one reminded them that May is National Military Appreciation Month. Maybe no one reminded them that May is National Military
Appreciation Month.

]]> By: Sam http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3994 Sam Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3994 or (3) you are Ron Paul and you "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution". or (3) you are Ron Paul and you “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution”.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3997 Xrlq Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3997 Sorry, I'm not giving Ron Paul a pass on this one. Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic, and thus do not raise any serious constitutional objections. Even less so when the resolution pertains to the military, which the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to regulate. If Paul has something against non-binding resolutions generally, he's a petty man. Even then, the right thing to do would have been to abstain, not to vote "yes" or "no." Sorry, I’m not giving Ron Paul a pass on this one. Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic, and thus do not raise any serious constitutional objections. Even less so when the resolution pertains to the military, which the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to regulate.

If Paul has something against non-binding resolutions generally, he’s a petty man. Even then, the right thing to do would have been to abstain, not to vote “yes” or “no.”

]]> By: David Beatty http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3998 David Beatty Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3998 Regarding Ron Paul, I'm in total agreement with you. I've lost a great deal of respect for his voting "No". Most of the remaining ones are members of the anti-war left, including Jackson-Lee, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, McDermott, Pelosi, Rangel, Waters, and Waxman. Idiots all, and quite frankly no big suprise. Regarding Ron Paul, I’m in total agreement with you. I’ve lost a great deal
of respect for his voting “No”.

Most of the remaining ones are members of the anti-war left, including
Jackson-Lee, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, McDermott, Pelosi, Rangel, Waters, and
Waxman. Idiots all, and quite frankly no big suprise.

]]> By: SayUncle http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-3999 SayUncle Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-3999 <i>Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic</i> Read: they are a waste of time (and my money). Ron Paul should have just not gone. Non-binding resolutions are purely symbolic

Read: they are a waste of time (and my money).

Ron Paul should have just not gone.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-4002 Xrlq Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-4002 The cost of voting on a non-binding resolution is trivial, and the savings generated by Ron Paul's no vote are nonexistent. What I see is one member of the anti-war right being every bit as pious and tin-eared as 49 members of the anti-war left. One group thinks America is too good for the world, the other thinks the world is too good for us. A pox on both of them. The cost of voting on a non-binding resolution is trivial, and the savings generated by Ron Paul’s no vote are nonexistent. What I see is one member of the anti-war right being every bit as pious and tin-eared as 49 members of the anti-war left. One group thinks America is too good for the world, the other thinks the world is too good for us. A pox on both of them.

]]> By: SayUncle http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-4003 SayUncle Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-4003 So, you really think this non-binding, non-significant resolution has no significant costs? No prep time or staff time devoted to making the document, tallying votes, research, logistical costs, whatever? If they want to make political statements, great. But do it on their time (or while running for office). Don't create some bogus resolution, with no meaning that tries to intimate the House is united on this issue, when it clearly is not. So, you really think this non-binding, non-significant resolution has no significant costs? No prep time or staff time devoted to making the document, tallying votes, research, logistical costs, whatever? If they want to make political statements, great. But do it on their time (or while running for office). Don’t create some bogus resolution, with no meaning that tries to intimate the House is united on this issue, when it clearly is not.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/comment-page-1/#comment-4004 Xrlq Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2004/05/06/1486/hats-of-the-day-50-congressmen/#comment-4004 Yes, I do think it has no significant costs, and no, I don't think the statement itself is insignificant. Sometimes it's appropriate to use the bully pulpit. As to the House being united, well, by and large, it <em>is.</em> If 365-50 isn't an overwhelming majority, what is? Yes, I do think it has no significant costs, and no, I don’t think the statement itself is insignificant. Sometimes it’s appropriate to use the bully pulpit. As to the House being united, well, by and large, it is. If 365-50 isn’t an overwhelming majority, what is?

]]>