Not a Dime?

Image hosting by Photobucket In reference to Captain Ed’s post regarding not giving the GOP a dime, I must disagree. They are my Party at this time. When I give someone or something my support, I will do it through thick or thin. Are the GOP leaders being rather namby pamby at this time on certain issues? Yup. They need to go out and kick some ass. But, I will still support them, and I will still continue to monetarily support them, like Beth (also here) and Jody. I will also continue to send email to my local Congress Critters asking them to take stronger stances. We cannot abandon the whole because of a few.

That is all. Not much of a rebuttal, I know. I had about 5 or 6 paragraphs and a much deeper insight into this issue, but the power in the area blew out, and I lost it all. So I basically just cut it down to the basics. Also lost my train of thought. Se lagere.

PS: trackback to Jody’s post will occur later this evening, pursuant to our convo yesterday. Have no access to Haloscan at the moment. Don’t want to be a hypocrite. πŸ™‚

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Not a Dime?”

  1. Ogre says:

    I’ve read a lot on both sides of this issue, and I’m completely, 100% undecided. πŸ™‚ I think perhaps we should start a counter-protest to dimes to support the constitutional option — with a goal of 100,000 dimes or something…

  2. not a bad idea, not a bad idea at all.

  3. Republicans Overplay Their Hand

    Sadly, the events of 2005 have forced me to conclude that the Republican party has some very serious problems, almost all of which are of their own making. I take offense when extremist liberals call Republicans theocrats and hillbilly bible thumpers….

  4. Republicans Overplay Their Hand

    Sadly, the events of 2005 have forced me to conclude that the Republican party has some very serious problems, almost all of which are of their own making. I take offense when extremist liberals call Republicans theocrats and hillbilly bible thumpers….

  5. Jeremy says:

    I think that may classify us as “dime-droppers”. Also, there’s some silly law on the books now about hoarding a certain type of money like that.

    As for the bill to ban the philibuster, I am actually against it. The philibuster had a real and functional intention when it was originally used and even has a counter toit, called the “philibuster-breaker”. (yeah, I know, congress was really original with that name.)

    Anyway, the original purpose of the philibuster was not do delay or haggar the vote. It was to allow for further analysis of congressional issues. Something that was happening, and still does, is the passing of a vote with little or no discussion on the matter. Basically it’s called “floating” a bill. Nowadays they use what is called a “rider”. A philibuster is supposed to prevent floaters or riders. (hrm..that sounds sort of diry…nevermind.)

    What has happened in the recent past is obstructionism not in the true spirit of the concept. Senators have read things like “Dick & Jane” books to simply waste time. That’s the part they need to change.

    BTW: a philibuster-breaker is where they hold a lock-in where everyone packs a lunch, orders chinese or pizza or whatever and stay in the house until the philibustering side either gives up, runs out of time or Kennedy breaks wind clearing the whole place out.

  6. jody says:

    I LOVE the dime idea! No fair, William, you have all the smart people over on your blog. Please don’t let my readers read this, please don’t let my readers read this… πŸ˜‰

  7. jody says:

    And just to clarify — I WAS joking!

  8. Thy woundeth me, Jody.

    besides, your post was much better then mine, even during my first writing, before the power went kablooie

    I think the problem with the philibuster as it is being used today is that it is meant to obstruct, not cause further discussion. It should not be done away with, but put in a rule that states that the speaker has to stay on topic. Difficult, but could be workable.

  9. Jeremy says:

    Absolutely. That’s egg-friggin’-zactly what I’d like to see. It’s rather unfortunate the politicians could give a $#!+ about what we have to say.

  10. Ogre says:

    Hey William, Tag, you’re it:

    http://ogresview.blogspot.com/2005/04/if-i-could-be-meme.html

    Oh, and the filibuster? I like it the way it was — primarily used to obstruct, but could only be used by continuously talking — like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.

  11. Going Nuclear — on the GOP

    Well, it’s on, I guess.

    Dozens of right-wing to libertarian bloggers are signing on to the real “nuclear option”–that of taking down the Republican Party by withholding money because they’ve decided that action must be taken immediately on Presiden…

  12. Jeremy says:

    That would be cool to watch all of these ultra-professional senators and congressmen stoned out of their gourds on no sleep and bad coffee.

    Just imaginge how cranky the already cranky women would get….would it be too cruel to try and schedule this philibuster time into “that one week” just for extra zip?

Pirate's Cove