The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Al Franken Wound Too Tight?

  1. #1
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default Al Franken Wound Too Tight?

    It's interesting that the thread titled "Al Franken is Wound WAYYYY Too Tight" was deleted -- presumably by the original poster since I didn't see any personal attacks in the thread itself. The thread began with citation of a report on Al Franken's unprecedented attack on McCain in denying Lieberman additional speaking time following a request for unanimous consent. McCain, as he often does, voiced moral outrage at such an unprecedented effort by Franken, and by extension Democrats as a whole, in stifling honest debate. McCain stated that in his entire career he had never seen a situation in which such a request was denied. The Daily Kos, as was noted in response, promptly reported that a similar denial had happened that morning. It then went on to note that McCain himself had objected to a similar request by a Democrat during a debate on October 10, 2002. Eric Johnson replied asking whether we were supposed to believe this based on a report from The Daily Kos.

    Of course, no similar questions were raised with respect to a report spread widely through the web, that Obama had threatened to shut down Orfut in Nebraska if Nelson did not change his vote. That charge, based solely on something possibly said by one unnamed congressional aid and cited by a conservative blogger with no evidence at all, actually has resulted in calls for congressional hearings. In this case. however, The Daily Kos, actually cited a specific, verifiable source, The Congressional Record. A few seconds with Google finds the incident in question in the Congressional Record Weekly Update for October 7-11, 2002, which states:

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
    Mr. McCAIN. I object.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
    Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes or whatever he needs.



    Are we beginning a new pattern where, when a Republican lie is conclusively shown to be a lie that the evidence is deleted?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    It's interesting that the thread titled "Al Franken is Wound WAYYYY Too Tight" was deleted -- presumably by the original poster since I didn't see any personal attacks in the thread itself. The thread began with citation of a report on Al Franken's unprecedented attack on McCain in denying Lieberman additional speaking time following a request for unanimous consent. McCain, as he often does, voiced moral outrage at such an unprecedented effort by Franken, and by extension Democrats as a whole, in stifling honest debate. McCain stated that in his entire career he had never seen a situation in which such a request was denied. The Daily Kos, as was noted in response, promptly reported that a similar denial had happened that morning. It then went on to note that McCain himself had objected to a similar request by a Democrat during a debate on October 10, 2002. Eric Johnson replied asking whether we were supposed to believe this based on a report from The Daily Kos.

    Of course, no similar questions were raised with respect to a report spread widely through the web, that Obama had threatened to shut down Orfut in Nebraska if Nelson did not change his vote. That charge, based solely on something possibly said by one unnamed congressional aid and cited by a conservative blogger with no evidence at all, actually has resulted in calls for congressional hearings. In this case. however, The Daily Kos, actually cited a specific, verifiable source, The Congressional Record. A few seconds with Google finds the incident in question in the Congressional Record Weekly Update for October 7-11, 2002, which states:

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.
    Mr. McCAIN. I object.
    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
    Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes or whatever he needs.



    Are we beginning a new pattern where, when a Republican lie is conclusively shown to be a lie that the evidence is deleted?



    Apparently so. Either that or he shoots.......he SCOOOOOOOOOOOOOORES!!!!!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    There is no new trend here.
    If you want to talley a point for your side for poor behavior, +1 for you.

    I don't care who did before, when or why it was wrong.

    Your stand (and others here) seems to be 2 wrongs DO make a right.

    President Bush spent too much money, President Obama is spending more.

    Senator McCain was out of line, but over ruled it appears, Senator Franken was out of line (even more so based on his stated reason, that Harry told him to do it).

    What difference does it make?
    This is terrible and there is no end in sight.

    If you guys think it's OK because (in my whiniest voice I can muster) "heeee starteted ittttt!!"

    Shame on you, shame on all of this, shame on all of us!!!!

    It's time for all of us to step up and call these pukes out!!

    This is wrong.

    rk
    The point was McCain lied not who did it first or "heeee starteted ittttt!!"

    Maybe the Country is lucky after all that McCain/Palin did not get elected if he can't remember even what he said a short time ago.
    Last edited by Roger Perry; 12-19-2009 at 01:16 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    There is no new trend here.
    If you want to talley a point for your side for poor behavior, +1 for you.

    I don't care who did before, when or why it was wrong.

    Your stand (and others here) seems to be 2 wrongs DO make a right.

    President Bush spent too much money, President Obama is spending more.

    Senator McCain was out of line, but over ruled it appears, Senator Franken was out of line (even more so based on his stated reason, that Harry told him to do it).

    What difference does it make?
    This is terrible and there is no end in sight.

    If you guys think it's OK because (in my whiniest voice I can muster) "heeee starteted ittttt!!"

    Shame on you, shame on all of this, shame on all of us!!!!

    It's time for all of us to step up and call these pukes out!!

    This is wrong.

    rk
    The fact is that Senate procedures allow almost endless debate as long as certain rules are followed. Among these rules is that individual speakers have a limited period in which to make their remarks after which another party gets to speak. Senators are permitted to yield time to each other but may not get additional time without unanimous consent.

    In this instance, there is actually no attempt to have debate at all. Rather, there is a filibuster under way to delay any action. Opponents of action are using every procedural motion possible in an effort to prevent action until following the holiday recess. This included, for example, requesting a reading on the floor or a 700+ page amendment which everyone knew was going to be defeated almost unanimously anyway. When the sponsor of that amendment withdrew it to avoid the estimated week plus delay that would have ensued, Republicans also criticized that as an effort to stifle debate. In this situation, there is actually no tradition of granting unanimous consent to a request for exemption and McCain's entire grandstanding charade was just another way to delay.

    I actually have no problem with the complex dance involved in traditional Senate procedures. They serve their purpose in forcing a broader consensus in most cases than is achieved with a simple majority. I do object, however, to sanctimonious hypocrisy such as that evidenced in McCain's comments concerning Franken, and as evidenced by Boehner on an almost daily basis.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Port St. Lucie, Fl
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    No, your point is it's OK Franken did it because McCain did it first.

    Wrong is WRONG, end of story!!
    No, it is the righty response I hear on here all the time. "two wrong do not make a right" or "he started it" in response to what a democrat said or did.

  6. #6
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,354

    Default

    I did indeed delete the thread.

    This thread that Jeff gleefully posted is a perfect example of why I deleted the thread I put up. I thought Al Franken was hanging on waaaaaaay too tightly...that is it, and that is all. No side story...no other references...just an observation....

    We all know where it went from there...same wild arm flinging from the usual suspects. So...it being my prerogative to delete it, I did.

    Flame away if you so choose. I won't be surprised...nor will I participate any further on this thread. My original point was squarely missed...this thread proves that....

    Wail on, gentlemen.

    kg
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The fact is that Senate procedures allow almost endless debate as long as certain rules are followed. Among these rules is that individual speakers have a limited period in which to make their remarks after which another party gets to speak. Senators are permitted to yield time to each other but may not get additional time without unanimous consent.

    In this instance, there is actually no attempt to have debate at all. Rather, there is a filibuster under way to delay any action. Opponents of action are using every procedural motion possible in an effort to prevent action until following the holiday recess. This included, for example, requesting a reading on the floor or a 700+ page amendment which everyone knew was going to be defeated almost unanimously anyway. When the sponsor of that amendment withdrew it to avoid the estimated week plus delay that would have ensued, Republicans also criticized that as an effort to stifle debate. In this situation, there is actually no tradition of granting unanimous consent to a request for exemption and McCain's entire grandstanding charade was just another way to delay.

    I actually have no problem with the complex dance involved in traditional Senate procedures. They serve their purpose in forcing a broader consensus in most cases than is achieved with a simple majority. I do object, however, to sanctimonious hypocrisy such as that evidenced in McCain's comments concerning Franken, and as evidenced by Boehner on an almost daily basis.

    Only you in your infinite and ostentatiously pretentiousness can claim phoney righteousness, while supporting one of the most corrupt Congresscritters in the history of that institution. Please recall for us how well your Representative Murtha did while chairing the vote documented on C-SPAN a while back.

    I await your typical fawning explanation for one of your 'leaders' that are purely contemptuous of anything American.

    UB...when we realize that a Murtha can exist in the military, and be elected to the U.S. Congress, it's not hard to understand how an Islamic terrorist can survive to kill Americans at Ft. Hood. Can we possibly get any more PC than what we have become?
    Last edited by Uncle Bill; 12-19-2009 at 02:21 PM.
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,889

    Default

    Jeff-

    You'd need to read the Congressional Record of this past week (not certain of the day) to be certain that the circumstances of Sen. Franken's objection (now) was the same as Sen. McCain's then. I suspect that they were not. However, Sen. Franken seems to have been chairing the Senate at the time of his objection. This in itself is most unusual as the chair rules on member's requests, not makes them.

    I'd guess that was Keith's point, that Sen. Franken broke from the usual civility to voice an objection from the chair. I doubt that Keith cares a whit about whether Sen. Franken made an objection...just that it was most unusual in it's actual form.

    Eric

  9. #9
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Jeff-

    You'd need to read the Congressional Record of this past week (not certain of the day) to be certain that the circumstances of Sen. Franken's objection (now) was the same as Sen. McCain's then. I suspect that they were not. However, Sen. Franken seems to have been chairing the Senate at the time of his objection. This in itself is most unusual as the chair rules on member's requests, not makes them.

    I'd guess that was Keith's point, that Sen. Franken broke from the usual civility to voice an objection from the chair. I doubt that Keith cares a whit about whether Sen. Franken made an objection...just that it was most unusual in it's actual form.

    Eric

    Not meaning to put words into the mouth of the august gentleman from Chatanooga, but if past history is any clue, it's my guess that he wonders like all the rest of us conservatives...HOW THE HELL DID ANYONE SO ARROGENTLY STUPID AS AL FRANKEN EVEN GET INTO A POSITION TO MAKE THAT OBJECTION.

    Do you voters in Minnesoooota have no shame? Do you intend to keep him there, and remain the laughing stock of the midwest?

    I know, I know...we have Johnson. Let me make you all a promise. He won't be there after the next election! Make book on that! He will be replaced by a conservative!

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  10. #10
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Only you in your infinite and ostentatiously pretentiousness can claim phoney righteousness, while supporting one of the most corrupt Congresscritters in the history of that institution. Please recall for us how well your Representative Murtha did while chairing the vote documented on C-SPAN a while back.

    I await your typical fawning explanation for one of your 'leaders' that are purely contemptuous of anything American.

    UB...when we realize that a Murtha can exist in the military, and be elected to the U.S. Congress, it's not hard to understand how an Islamic terrorist can survive to kill Americans at Ft. Hood. Can we possibly get any more PC than what we have become?
    I actually made no comment at all about Franken. My comments were directed at McCain. Murtha is not my representative any more than he is yours. I would not vote for him. My representative is Patrick Murphy who is a first term Democrat from a district historically represented by Republicans. Murphy has supported some of Obama's proposals and opposed others. Most recently he voted against the proposal to use TARP funds for stimulus programs and I sent him a letter of thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Jeff-

    You'd need to read the Congressional Record of this past week (not certain of the day) to be certain that the circumstances of Sen. Franken's objection (now) was the same as Sen. McCain's then. I suspect that they were not. However, Sen. Franken seems to have been chairing the Senate at the time of his objection. This in itself is most unusual as the chair rules on member's requests, not makes them.

    I'd guess that was Keith's point, that Sen. Franken broke from the usual civility to voice an objection from the chair. I doubt that Keith cares a whit about whether Sen. Franken made an objection...just that it was most unusual in it's actual form.

    Eric
    Franken's objection was in his capacity as a member, not as President. Any single member may object to a request for unanimous consent. Note that no one, including the outraged Senator McCain offered to yield any time to Lieberman to finish his comments.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •