Chode

For those of you who may have been watching our Congress, and wondering if it were possible for them to act even more like clowns, this story in today's Washington Post answers that question with a resounding, "You bet!" MIght just make you laugh 'till you cry.

bry623

The author of this story is a know anti-republican hardcore member of the MSM. Therefore, thi sstory holds no weight.

mommabear

Well, it is a fact that they did vote against it, albeit the second time around.

sobeit

just because you dont want to believe your beloved party would vote against mothers, dont mean it did not happened. It did. Look up H RES 1113

bry623

Looks like more dems voted against it than GOP
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll274.xml

-=Rousseau=-

What is the bill even about anyway? All the article mentioned was that it was a bill "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day." That's all fine, but it's a little pointless and a waste of time for the government to be messing around with bills that just celebrate holidays... If there was some purpose to the bill or some more meaning, the article should have mentioned it. Why this matters is it is our tax dollars that are paying for their time, which they should be spending doing important things that actually bring about positive changes rather than messing around with a bill that does nothing.

Granted that this was just political maneuvering, I don't see the big deal or the warrant for saying that Republicans are against mothers. It seems more like the Democrats are against debating military funding with Republicans. This is a bigger issue because it leaves out a major section of the government in the debate. It seems like it would just make the debate useless.

Chode

Well, nice to see a few feathers ruffled. So, let me comment based on the order of posts. Bry, a fact is a fact. If it can be verified, the source is irrelevant. Unless you're a NeoCon, in which case "facts" are always subject to political interpretation. Kinda like the math in your second post. The link you posted says that there were 223 "Ayes" (that means "yes") from Democrats and 189 "Noes" (which means just what you think it does) from Republicans on this bill.

When I was growing up, I was taught that 223 was a larger number, or "more" than 189. So that means that more Dems than Repubs voted for the bill, therefore, fewer Dems actually voted against it. Does this mean that the same quality of analytical thought that fundamentalists apply to "intelligent design" has finally trickled down to the science of mathematics? I always suspected it was just a matter of time.

Rousseau, I tend to agree that this sort of thing is somewhat of a waste of time, but, in the normal course of events it would waste about 10 minutes. The threatened delay on the war spending vote was a tactic to get the Republican Senators moving. I already said it; this sort of behavior really isn't worthy of the Senate. But how many times in our history has someone said that already? Still, I say the Republican's behavior was more badderer. Everyone needs to get off the playground and down to business.

Drew1369

Doesn't matter both times it was voted upon was a waste of money... shame on both sides

simpswr

. . but . . but . . they didn't even mention Apple Pie !!!!

bry623

I cannot believe that you are posting these things.

YES- 223D 189R
NO- 11D-10R


When I was growing up I thought 11 was more than 10. The initial post is about the votes against (that means the NO votes) not the yes votes. Why did more dems vote for it? THEY HAVE MORE HOUSE MEMBERS. When I showed this page to my eight year old and asked her who voted against the bill more, she said the democrats. Glad to see my $$ is going to good use, teaching common sense math and all that.

Suffice to say that the facts clearly point out two things, the article was biased and the point of my post was missed.

-=Rousseau=-

Um... Sorry, but the 11 and 10 you are referring to are the Not Voting members. The Noes section is completely blank. NV = Not Voting. This seems to confuse things even more, as neither the Republicans or the Democrats seem to have actually voted against it - only abstained from voting.

bry623

Thanks for pointing that out. I can admit that that was idiotic of me to not notice. But my point is still valid. If this vote were 5 years ago, more reps would have voted for it, thus proving my point that the source is unreliable.

simpswr

What I wan to know is how long it will take Darlin' Spinctor to have a full scale investigation of the SPygate scandal . .

Chode

Rousseau, let me refer you back to the original post and the article it linked to: "On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day,"

That means that, ORIGINALLY, Bry's vote tally was correct. But then came the revote. When 178 Republican's switched their vote. "Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers." These figures are reflected in the "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 275".

So, I did indeed goof up the math in my rush to refute bry and I apologize for that, as well as not making my chain of reasoning more clear. Yes, stuff like the original vote is time wasting, but Congress isn't paid by the hour. However, the Republican revote is still an embarrassment to the party. Well, you reap what you sow.

simpswr

I think they shot down Spinctor's review of spygate too . . next thing you know, and they will drop the investigation into whether Roger was at a particular party or not . .

-=Rousseau=-

Seeing as it was just political maneuvering, I don't see that large of a harm from it apart from the fact that it is a waste of their time. I have a bigger issue with filibustering... I don't think it makes sense to argue that they are actually AGAINST mothers... Perhaps they chose a poor target, perhaps the media is becoming a little bit too desperate in their targeting. Whether they are paid by the hour or not, there is only so much that they can do during a year and throughout their terms, and they shouldn't be wasting large amounts of their time - in the end, it does cost taxpayers more money.

P.S. I was wondering if that sheet that bry linked to was the original vote or the revote... The second link makes much more sense.

Chode

I think drew posted the only response that really hit the nail on the head.